170 Comments »

1. Maybe we shouldn’t define Christianity by the Nicene Creed. Then all this nonsense wouldn’t matter.

   Comment by Mike M — September 13, 2010 @ 12:33 am

2. THANK YOU SCOT AND DAN.

   Instead of just arguing over each other on the exegesis and hermeneutics of the “problem passages” (which gets us absolutely nowhere), I think egalitarians and complementarians — especially the Young, Restless, Reformed and “gospel centered” crowd — need to articulate nuanced, Biblical, intelligent, and winsome positions on the extent to which genuine Christians who differ on this issue can and should work with one another based on similarities and differences on other doctrines… something the “gospel centered” complementarians have simply refused to do. The silence is deafening… though genuine egalitarian evangelicals tend to lash out in provocative, unhelpful ways, too.

   I echo Dan’s call… as someone often caught between the divide it’s simply sickening that we as evangelical Christians still haven’t done this. Thankfully non-evangelicals and non-Christians have not yet gotten wind of this and how severely it weakens our witness.

   T4G TGC Ligonier White Horse Inn Desiring God please say something.

   Comment by Calvin Chen — September 13, 2010 @ 1:27 am

3. No one who would silence a preacher of the gospel (because of sex, race, or social class) can be called gospel-centered or gospel-driven. Paul would not even silence those who preached with wrong motives (Phil 1:15-18). And Jesus himself sent women as the first messengers to proclaim the good news of his resurrection. Rather, these silencers or women place an obstacle to the gospel based on male-priority-arrogance that turns them into enemies of the gospel and the church, in that they hinder its advancement.

   What’s more, Jesus’ own declaration that he came to break the bonds of oppression shows that any who would use the Bible to oppress or control people based on their natural created differences (be it sex, race, or social class) are no friends to his gospel or his kingdom.

   And so, Scot, while I admire your tact and diplomacy, I have to say, I find the notion that both complementarians and egalitarians are equally centered on the gospel as preposterous. They would have the Bride of Christ serve them with one hand tied behind her back–and it quite possibly may be her better hand. In contrast, Jesus elevated his Bride to sit with him in the heavenlies, and has given her all authority to speak, act, and pray in his Name.

   Some of them even go so far as to use 1 Timothy 2 as a reason to hold Eve’s sins against women–as if Jesus did not defeat all sin at the cross. (Was Eve’s sin atoned for at the cross, or was it not?!) Others invoke the created order, based on a misinterpretation of the same passage, as if Jesus has not created a new order that transcends both the created and fallen aeons (1Co 11:11-12; 2Co 5:16-17).

   Paul’s great and climactic declaration in Galatians was that all people, regardless of sex, race, or social class, are now SONS of God, and are therefore entitled to all the benefits of sons. Yet the complementarians would turn women away from “roles” (an unbiblical concept) reserved for “sons.” And so, in this, the complementarians reveal that they do not truly believe the gospel as it applies to women. They limit the atonement, not as Calvin did to the elect, but as worldly-thinking fallen males who cannot see that the gospel welcomes all equally, with equal respect and equal rights, to serve according to their giftedness without regard for human distinctions like gender (2Co 5:16-17).

   The time is coming when these promoters of sexism will be viewed by history and by the church in the same way we now view the pro-slavery and pro-racist interpreters of scripture in our recent past. Were THEY pro-gospel and gospel-centered? Or where they not possessed of an anti-gospel obsession!

   In the meantime, true Christ-followers ought not feign unity with such people, or pretend to respect such outrageous twisters of scripture. To do so only hurts our witness, as we strive to present to the world Jesus as the true liberator from sin for all people, men and women, black and white, rich and poor.

   Comment by Dave Leigh — September 13, 2010 @ 1:29 am

4. I meant “silencers of women” not “silencers or women”. And “They would have the Bride…” should read “Complementarians would have the Bride…”

   Comment by Dave Leigh — September 13, 2010 @ 2:22 am

5. Thanks, Scot for giving voice to my questions.

   To be clear, I am not out to play theological “gotcha” with my Gospel Coalition brothers (and sisters). I simply want to hear how they might respond to my questions and observations about their movement.

   As I mentioned in my original post, I truly value TGC’s important contributions to the body of Christ and have personally been enriched tremendously by the work of thinkers like Tim Keller and Sam Storms.

   Comment by Dan Stringer — September 13, 2010 @ 2:25 am

6. Good question. Graham Cole who supports an ‘egalitarian’ point of view is listed on the Gospel Coalition website’s Resources page. He is a professor in systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a colleague of D.A. Carson – a leader/founder of the Gospel Coalition. A brief paper of Cole’s on Gender Issues can be found here: http://www.ridley.edu.au/ridley-resources/gender-issues/. He also recently gave the plenary address at the 2010 Christians for Biblical Equality 2010 International Conference “Better Together”. His recent presentation “Trinity without Tiers” is also a response to Grudem/Ware’s view of subordination in the Trinity. see hewre: http://www.anglicanstogether.org/files/Trinity_Without_Tiers.mp3

   This would suggest that there is a willingness on the part of members of The Gospel Coalition to extend the hand of fellowship and agree to disagree in an agreeable fashion on the issue of gender. At least Graham Cole being listed in the TGC resource page gives me reason to hope.

   David

   Comment by David — September 13, 2010 @ 2:26 am

7. Of course neither position is essential to the Gospel. It is perfectly understandable why supporters of each position will argue their relative merits, but even if they are mutually exclusive, the issue is not central to the Gospel.

   “Gospel-centered” may be a tricky term if it is used in the context of a controversy. Naturally, believers on both side will try to derive their position from biblical theology. To the extent that someone believes a position is inconsistent with the Bible’s teachings, she might label it as not “Gospel-centered.” However, that term might be too easily interpreted as meaning that the issue is essential to the Gospel as the basis of membership in the family of God. I doubt that most people using the term intend to imply that those on the other side of the issue are excluded from fellowship or from the Kingdom. Perhaps a more specific and less charged term would be preferable.

   Comment by Mike Blyth — September 13, 2010 @ 4:36 am

8. I know of at least one TGC shareholder (a complementarian) who argued for allowing egalitarians in. He was voted down, but did give voice to this and was not kicked out.

   Comment by jason b. hood — September 13, 2010 @ 6:28 am

9. Dan and Scot, It may help our conversation if you describe exactly what you mean by evangelical egalitarianism. By this, I think you mean that women can and should be in full time pastoral roles but not senior pastor roles. Am I correct?

   Comment by Taylor George — September 13, 2010 @ 7:58 am

10. Taylor,

    Scot and Dan can certainly answer for themselves, but I think they mean that women can and will be called to any form of service in the Church, whether elder, pastor, evangelist, etc.

    Comment by T — September 13, 2010 @ 8:15 am

11. Scot,

    I am unashamedly complementarian. I went to Al’s seminary. I am a neo-calvinist. I don’t know if I represent the theology of most neo-calvinists well, but I have never had any problem cooperating with other Christians whether they be egalitarian, arminian, etc. As long as they at least try to present a biblical case for it, and not just throw up their hands and say “Well, Paul doesn’t really count because he was a sexist pig, also, we’d like to throw away the entire old testament because we like to eat catfish . As long as you’re not that kind of egalitarian, I’ve got know problem.

    The problem comes when I try to cooperate or discuss issues with egalitarians, and I get told that my views treat women as sub-humans, or that it is my desire to oppress all women everywhere. I get told that saying men and women have different roles just like pastors and congregants have different roles is equivalent to trying to place shackles on women.

    You only have to get a few comments in to this thread to see that come out. So I’ve got no problems cooperating with egalitarians, it is just that they think complementarians are modern day slave traders.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 8:21 am

12. @3 Dave expresses my sentiments pretty well.

    Aside from the biblical rationalization from complementarians, what is the reason for having a distinction? Certainly it does not have to do with strength. Certainly not intelligence. What is the reason?

    Comment by DRT — September 13, 2010 @ 8:28 am

13. Dave Leigh takes the cake a mere 3 comments into the thread by accusing complementarians of …silencing women, placing an obstacle to the gospel, exhibiting male-priority arrogance, creating enemies of the gospel, hindering the advancement of the gospel, creating bonds of oppression, being an enemy of the gospel and the kingdom of God, limiting the atonement, promoting sexism, etc.

    As to the silencing women charge, the one with the most weight since complementarians do not view female pastors favorably. Most of us believe that women can hold any position in the church that does not place her in direct authority over the men of the church. Since deacons don’t have real “authority” but are the servants of the church, that means they can serve as deacons. If you have a church government in which the preaching pastor has no real decisional authority (like many deacon lead churches) many complementarians would be find with the preach being a women. THe issue arises most veghemently when the individual is placed in a direct position of authority in the church. Since I attend elder (plural) led congregations this means no female elders but as many female deacons and sunday school teachers as you like.

    The SBC, probably the most complementarian denomination has no problem endorsing and selling multiple bible studies and books (through Lifeway) that were written entirely by women (Beth Moore, Kay Arthur, etc.) and I would dare say that no denomination sends out more female missionaries than the SBC. They may not serve as preachers or elders (depending of church government) but they are present and vocal.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 8:33 am

14. Personally, I’m not convinced that the equal treatment of women can be called a “secondary issue” rightly. Either women do or do not have the same rights as men in the church, society, and home. Those of us who are egalitarians to our own cause a great disservice to make it something less than a matter of critical importance.

    Comment by brgulker — September 13, 2010 @ 8:59 am

15. Talking about a turn of the topic!

    I thought the post was leaning much more towards complimentarians having to explain themselves in regards to essentials. However, in the comments, the reverse has happened.

    Very interesting.

    Comment by Rick — September 13, 2010 @ 9:04 am

16. Robin, you wrote:

    “Most of us believe that women can hold any position in the church that does not place her in direct authority over the men of the church.”

    This is why it is fundamentally impossible for egalitarians and complementarians to cooperate in “The Gospel” as the egalitarians believe women can contribute to that conversation from a position of direct authority over men and complementarians do not. The egalitarians would have to defer at the point of their conviction, leaving women out of any meaningful role that might put her in a position where the man of the church is under her authority.

    Comment by Julie — September 13, 2010 @ 9:06 am

17. This is interesting, I’ve been thinking about the very same question for some time now. It started when I read on a blog (http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2009/03/soggy-fish-award-mark-dever.html) that some members of T4G do not celebrate the Lord’s supper together because of differing views on baptism. Now baptism and the Lord’s supper certainly are Gospel issues (at least where I’m from). If disagreement is possible on issues so close to the Gospel, even to the extent of not having communion at the Lord’s table, why then is the issue of complementarianism/egalitarianism so important, that the wrong position precludes membership? Is the gender issue really closer to the Gospel and more important than baptism or the Lord’s supper? From my point of view at least there is a grave imbalance concerning the priorities.

    And I say that as someone who greatly appreciates a lot of the what is done by T4G, The Gospel Coalition etc.

    Comment by Andreas — September 13, 2010 @ 9:07 am

18. I think what we have is an emotionally charged issue. Those who are complementarian are convinced that leaving that position causes sinful disruptions in society, the home, and the church. Thus it must be defended strongly. Otherwise society and the church will crumble.

    Those who are egalitarian are convinced that to not allow women public roles (preaching, leadership) is a justice issue. Thus they cannot be silent.

    Both sides are convinced that compromise will give away too much and thus neither side will compromise, nor are they (this is a huge generalization) willing to work together. If you are a egalitarian who believes it is a justice issue then working with a complementarian is like working with a racist. If you are complementarian then working with an egalitarian is equal to working with someone who denies the authority of Scripture.

    Not only this, but also we must recognize that at stake is not just an issue, but rather a hermeneutical position, namely how do we appropriate Scripture for today. This is simply the battle ground for the deeper discussion.

    http://www.studyyourbibleonline.com

    Comment by Wesley Walker — September 13, 2010 @ 9:15 am

19. Julie,

    this difference does not preclude cooperation. It might preclude complementarians and egalitarians serving in the same church, but it certainly wouldn’t prohibit cooperation amongst churches. We just come together for mutually held interests (preaching the gospel) and ignore secondary interests. If calvinistic presbyterians and southern baptists, or calvinistic and arminian southern baptists can cooperate to advance the gospel I don’t see why complementarians and egalitarians cannot. If 10 chruches are participating in street ministry or serving food at homeless shelters, or any countless other number of things where the gospel is advanced, you don’t need inter-church committees and governmental structure. Now, if you are in a denomination that places a low value on local church autonomy and a high value on heirarchical institutions, then I could see your problem, but 10 churches from different denominations participating in local ministry – no problems there.

    As to baptism…southern baptists believe that the only “true” form of baptism is (1) by immersion in water performed on (2) people old enough to understand and believe the gospel. Furthermore, they hold that anyone not properly baptized (immersion as a believer) eats and drinks judgement on themselves by taking the Lord’s supper without being properly baptized (even if they are a believer) sp Southern Baptists would not permit Presbyterians to take the Lord’s Supper at Southern Baptist churches if they were sprinkled as an infant. The same would apply for any other denominations that baptize as infants or baptize through sprinkling.

    I am part of a church plant with friend who was sprinkled as a teen at a Methodist church. She has been unable to receive communion in Baptist churches for several years. Through study she eventually decided that she agreed with the baptist position and was baptized by immersion, but it was a long hard road.

    Baptism by immersion is a serious issue for Southern Baptists, many have put their lives on the line over this single issue at the hands of Anglicans and Lutherans and Presbyterians. It isn’t something we take lightly. It doesn’t mean that we can’t have sweet fellowship with babydippers (my term, I’m in the process of trademarking it) It just means that our doctrinal principles prohibit us from serving the Lord’s Supper to them [I keep saying OUR because I am Southern Baptist, but I am ambivalent on this issue]

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 9:21 am

20. Wesley Walker,

    As a complementarian I can tell you that working with an egalitarian is only sometimes like working with someone that denies that authority of scripture. Sometimes it is just like working with someone that believes in the authority of scripture, but just reaches wrong conclusions (according to your own perceptions). Just like working with R.C. Sproul is equivalent of working with someone who is under the authority of sripture but reaches erroneous conclusions (according to Baptists) on baptism.

    There is a world of difference between egalitarians like Scot who sit under scripture and see it differently (but still fully inspired and authoritative) and guys like MacLaren who see it as an evolving conversation of humans, older, incorrect parts of which can be thrown out altogether.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 9:25 am

21. The problem is that egalitarians too often argue for women in ministry on the basis of “social justice.” Not social justice as defined by scripture, but social justice as defined by the current culture. But God defines what is just and what is not; if He has forbidden women to hold authority in the church, then it cannot be unjust. Egalitarians’ arguments must be scripture- and God-centred, not culture-centred. And I know that many egalitarians do just that; but many of their fellow-travelers do not.

    As for the slippery slope, as illogical as certain forms of the argument might be, historically speaking it seems pretty darn obvious to me.

    Witness the downward slope of Sojourners theologically speaking; lately they’ve been making the cases for egalitarianism based on the “fact” that Paul did not write Timothy, therefore we can ignore its teaching. Not to mention their mockery of exclusivism, hell, etc., etc…

    Or the growing chorus of evangelicals who deny the sinfulness of homosexual activity, or water it down; Peggy Campolo being the main one. They are all egalitarians, not complementarians. And some egalitarians, (Tony Campolo–although I’m leaning heavily on the Campolos here, I might also mention Jim Wallis) don’t think that this should be a divisive issue within the church. And then you have people like these:

    http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5281/53/

    From the CBF, you have opinions like this:

    http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5001/9/

    The point behind this is that like certain types of egalitarianism, pro-homosexual activism within the church seems to be culturally bound, and certain evangelical egalitarians seem to be embracing this culturally bound egalitarianism which leads to an embracing of a culturally bound pro-homosexuality position. Thus the slippery slope.

    So here’s a proposal: egalitarians who are truly Scripture-centred should vocally forswear and condemn any attempts to argue for egalitarianism based on culturally-contingent arguments.

    Comment by Ben Wheaton — September 13, 2010 @ 9:25 am

22. Rather ironic, isn’t it Robin (#19), that Baptist neo-Calvinists would refuse to serve communion to or take communion from John Calvin.

    Comment by rjs — September 13, 2010 @ 9:33 am

23. #15 @Rick Hey, I’m complementarian, dispensationalist and intelligent design. I get pounded on this blog all the time but I love the dialogue!

    Comment by Danny — September 13, 2010 @ 9:35 am

24. Robin and Ben Wheaton

    I hear you on the fact that you say the Bible upholds complementatarianism, but why? Why would god say that? Is there a reason?

    Comment by DRT — September 13, 2010 @ 9:47 am

25. I’m essentially a soft complimentarian. I go to a church that has a couple female pastors (freaked me out the first time one gave a sermon, but I got over it). I think we really need to have some humility and charity with this subject. Egalitarians aren’t ruining the fabric of society and Complimentarians aren’t calling women to be sub-human.

    Lastly, I want to throw out sort of a “third way” kind of thing. Dr. Gordon Hugenberger from Park Street church in Boston wrote and article that really helped me. Here is his summary:
    “although I approach the Scriptures in a manner that has most in common with complementarian scholars, and although I am a complementarian when it comes to marriage roles, I am an egalitarian when it comes to societal or ecclesiastical gender roles. I know of no biblical text that would prohibit a woman from serving as the president of the PTA, of IBM, or of the USA. Likewise, although I believe that it would have been culturally unexpected for a woman to serve as an elder at any time in the biblical period, as it would also have been unusual for a slave to serve as an elder, I know of no biblical text or principle that would exclude either possibility.”

    You can find the whole thing at: http://www.parkstreet.org/qa_women

    Comment by jordan — September 13, 2010 @ 9:49 am

26. Robin,

    On another note – I generally stay out of these discussions because they are too personal. One of the reasons they become personal is because it often comes down to discussions of ontology.

    But I’d put up for discussion a couple of ideas to think about.

    Is it wrong for me to post on Scot’s blog knowing that pastor’s and Christian leaders are reading?

    Is it wrong for you or them to be taught by me and for me to teach? (Perhaps you are not taught by me, but part of my goal – coming out of prayerful conviction and my expertise – is to teach and to dialog.)

    Where do we draw the line and why?

    After all – in the context of 1 Timothy 2 I am not exactly quietly receiving instruction with entire submissiveness, nor am I refraining from teaching -even men. I am not asking my husband at home if I wish to learn anything other than in a mode of submissive listening (1 Cor. 14).

    I do not claim to a position of authority – but I also think authority claims with in a church should be made rarely and with fear and trepidation.

    Where is the line and why?

    Comment by rjs — September 13, 2010 @ 9:50 am

27. Ben,

    Hear me, hear me: I agree with you that arguing for “egalitarianism” on “equal rights” and “justice” is a major mistake. Having said that, I know plenty who use the word “justice” for “the fully biblical view” and have been co-opted by that term “justice” in this specific issue.

    To explain: To defend women in ministry or an egalitarian belief on the basis of justice or rights is to permit Western values, Enlightenment (mostly French) thinking and the US Constitution (and other legal statements) to define the basis of justice. Again, not all do this, but this kind of language runs that risk.

    The word “egalitarian” itself emerges from that very social history.

    My contention is that we need to fight this issue on the basis of Scripture, Church tradition, and reason — not to ignore experience. Only then will “justice” be defined by the Great Israel tradition of Torah and the Prophets and then also both by Jesus and the apostle Paul (don’t forget James either).

    Because the word “egalitarian” has been co-opted by that discussion, I prefer the term “mutualist” which respects difference. But at the bottom of this discussion is the missing term that upends everything and deconstructs society. The Bible defines the marital relationship through the word “love,” the kind of love seen in Jesus and the Cross. Until that is our starting point, we will go horribly wrong.

    Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 9:50 am

28. OK, Ben, we have our moments of agreement and disagreements, and I’m going to ask you to avoid the slippery slope logic you’re using and the sidetracking of the discussion to Sojourners and homosexuality.

    So, let me ask you this question: is complementarianism tied into the gospel for you? Why or why not?

    Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 10:02 am

29. How about this. When is it OK for a son to listen to his mother? Does a pastor have to submit to his mother’s authority?

    Comment by DRT — September 13, 2010 @ 10:04 am

30. Taylor back at #9,

    Tricky term I think: it basically means for the general mass of this conversation that men and women are equal in Christ in marriage, in society and in church.

    Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 10:12 am

31. Lots of threads of thought coming at me, but I’ll try to deal with a few issues. Submission and authority (in a complementarian sense) does not mean that all women are to be submissive to all men. It is based entirely upon roles, and the submission seen in those roles is no different than the submission seen in other earthly roles.

    Children submit to their parents, wives to their husbands, church members to their church leaders, employees to their employers, and citizens to their governmental leaders. Believing that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek… doesn’t mean that the roles of children and parents, employees and employers, citizens and government officials has disappeared and it doesn’t mean that the roles have disappeared in the marital or church relationships either.

    And again, it is not general submission. My wife is only responsible for submitting to me like the Church submits to Christ, and I am only responsible for loving her and sacrificing for her as Christ did for the church. I don’t go around loving other women with that kind of love and she doesn’t submit to other men. Likewise, I don’t put myself under the authority of “pastors” generally, but under my pastor, and if a pastor from another church tries to confront me in a Matthew 18 kind of way I will tell him to take a walk. I know that some complementarians (John Knox) try to extend female submission/authority issues to other realms but I think that is a mistake. The bible never says anything about submitting to Caesar provisional on his maleness, so I have no problem with proper female authority being exercised in any setting outside of the church. Give me a female employer, President, or governor and you will hear no complaints.

    Teaching is a separate matter to me, but I don’t know who I speak for. I’ve got no problem learning from RJS or Beth Moore or Kay Arthur, and I would have no problem seeing them in the pulpit providing they weren’t the “authority” in the church.

    Practically speaking, what this means (And since Paul Washer was discussed on here a week ago I’ll use the examples that I heard him give at a marriage conference) is that 99% of the time we practice mutual submission. My wife and I decide together where to eat, how to educate our children, what color to paint the ceilings, etc. Since she cares more about several of those things she usually wins and I exercise my husbandly authority to let her have free reign. On those decisions where we cannot agree, and Washer used the example of being offered a job which involved a move across country and a timeline, when you cannot agree you pray about it, and then you see if you can agree, and if you can’t then you pray about it some more, and if the deadline finally comes and a decision has to be made, then the husband gets the final say so (but only after every avenue for cooperation has been exhausted). I liken it to a Senate with 50 republicans and 50 Democrats where the VP gets the tie-breaker in very rare circumstances.

    As to baptists and John Calvin – this isn’t a modern thing. The most famous baptist calvinist (augustinian) Charles Spurgeon wouldn’t have served communion to Calvin or Luther or Augustine. It might be ironic, but it is a firmly held principle and most baptists wouldn’t violate it for virtually anything. There can still be lots of cooperation, who knows how many Paedo-baptists have preached from John Piper’s pulpit, but up until recently none of them would have been welcome at his communion table.

    Lastly, as a side note. I grew up Catholic and we had closed communion (close to non-Catholics) and Southern Baptists practice a version of it (closed to people not baptized by immersion as adults) so it has never seemed strange to me. How many denominations practice open communion, and to what extent is it open (Open to any believer regardless of baptism, open only to those who have had some form of baptism at some time in their life, etc.?)

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 10:34 am

32. Scot,

    I was actually responding to something Dan Stringer wrote in his original blog post, charging that complementarians usually came back at him with slippery slope arguments; I was justifying this, although I admit it was not pertinent to your question.

    But in answer to your question, no, complementarianism is not tied into the Gospel for me. This is because I don’t consider implications of the Gospel as part of it. I do think that complementarianism is an implication of the Gospel, and an important enough one to mandate separation of local churches and, yes, even denominations (and certain para-church ministries), but, as Mark Dever has been insisting, implications are not the core. Naturally, this is a “constricted” view of the Gospel, but there you have it.

    Comment by Ben Wheaton — September 13, 2010 @ 10:37 am

33. DRT (29) I would say that if in Christ we are neither Jew nor Greek (etc.) and apply that to the relationships you mention in the same way we apply it to the marriage relationships then children and parents (whether they be young children or adult children) should practive mutual submission as well Likewise with employees and employers, citizens and the government. Why should mutual submission be limited to the church or nuptial relationship. Why should children not be able to require mutual submission from their parents?

    That was mostly tongue in cheek, but I just want to reiterate that it isn’t gender based authority, but roles based authority (and who is qualified to fill those roles). My daughter, as a child, is under the authority of both her mother and myself, and anyone to whom we also give that authority (daycare, nursery, etc) when she grows up she will leave the house, pursue an education, and get married. Once she marries she will be under the authority of her husband. Between leaving the house and getting married, she will not be under the authority of any man in a personal relationship. I don’t care how many guys she dates, or if she co-habits, or any other mitigating factors. (Unless you think that parental authority extends throughout life then she might still kind of be under our parental authority) The point is, it is specific to roles and relationships. If she joins a church voluntarily, she is under the authority of that church/pastor. If she chooses to take a job, she will be under her employer’s authority. But never, never, never will she be responsible to submitting to “men” in the general sense, only specific men (or women) that she chooses to enter into a personal, religious, or fiscal relationship with.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 10:44 am

34. Robin,

    How close to the gospel is complementarianism to you?

    Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 10:44 am

35. I think the bigger question is “So What?!?!”

    I used to be a complementarian and then I went to DTS and became an egalitarian. It seems kind of silly to build entire constructs and points of divisions from a few verses in the New Testament, especially ones that are so contested and exegetically open to some interpretation. I also met too many folks who were complementarian, but were and would admit that they functioned as egalitarians. Then I met many wonderful egalitarians who had thriving grace filled ministries, took the Bible seriously and were not liberal, then I met many complimentarians who had thriving grace filled ministries and were not fundamentalist jerks.

    In between the two terms is a myriad of positions and ideas, and frankly hardly anyone or any church fits comfortably into the many imagined categories that we have of each other. Both sides burn straw men and argue the “slippery slope” or “politics of injustice.” None of this is particularly grasping the situation or even remotely helpful.

    Ultimately, the complementarians want to say that the egalitarian position leads to liberalism, rejection of Biblical authority, and the downfall of the family (which it does, except in the cases where it doesn’t). None of this is any more true than the equally spurious charge that complentarianism leads to abuse, oppression, and injustice (which it does, except in the cases where it doesn’t). Is it possible that there are other reasons (theological, personal, cultural, etc.) that have influenced the proof cases, that have nothing to do with whether one identifies themselves as egalitarian or complementarian.

    Wouldn’t the actual gospel be served by fairer dialog and colegial nay compassionate relationships of understanding? If we are commanded to love our enemy, should we not also be able to love our own brothers and sisters in Christ who differ with us on theological issues with respect and integrity, viewing their intellectual contribution as important?

    So here is the thing. Today a woman leader of a house church in China probably led someone to Christ, and a male pastor in Africa made sure some kid got his ARV treatment. A Christian from Palestine once told me that when you have to deal with living and dieing everyday, you don’t have time for the detailed theological discussions over side issues. So what does it matter? Evidence suggests that God is using people and churches on both sides of the argument to advance his kingdom. It is basically that one side just points out that they don’t like the kind of churches on the other side, but I would suggest that is because they really don’t know them.

    I will work with anyone who will work with me, and will keep side issues side issues. I am always up for a good debate, but when the debate gets in the way sharing the gospel, unity, and serving the poor, then I think we need to reconsider where the debate is taking us. And certainly if it is making other Christians feel excluded or misunderstood, then it behooved both sides, for the sake of the gospel, to put down the guns of academia and embrace.

    Comment by Garrick — September 13, 2010 @ 10:49 am

36. Scot,

    I know you dinged Ben for bringing up the slippery slope argument, and I agree that it isn’t a valid reason for being a complementarian. But I want to ask you, personally, why do you think that in reality the slope seems to cause so much slippage. It seems that if all egalitarians were like you we would see accecptance of some egalitarians without widespread slippage into other areas, but what we see over and over again is that egalitarian denominations that begin with biblical arguments for their egalitarianism eventually rush into much more progressive positions with much less biblical reasoning.

    This suggests to me that their egalitarianism was culturally conditioned progressivism with a biblical veneer. Why do you think that trend seems to play out repeatedly?

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 10:51 am

37. Scot,

    It is no closer than arminianism to me. Probably further away actually. I think that, logically speaking, true belief in arminianism (carried out to its logical extent) provides more hurdles when dealing with God’s sovereignty in salvation, answered prayers, the sinfulness of man, etc. Complementarian issues come in well behind that. And I am currently part of a church plant that is about 60/40 baptist arminian vs. baptist calvinistic. We have just agreed to focus on social justice issues (in the Francis Chan and Tim Keller sense) and not doctrinal issues.

    I don’t know how it will go in the future. Eventually someone will preach on Romans or other texts and we will have to deal with it, but for now we are very happy trying to lay down our lives for the poor and oppressed and agreeing to put election on the back burner.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 10:55 am

38. Robin,

    You nailed, you answered your own question, and I think you denied its premise.

    Here’s what I mean: there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Humans don’t, by and large, decide one thing and then the next thing and then the next thing as if it is a mechanical process.

    In essence, the first decision contained the potential for all the others and you can call it “progressivism” or anything you like, but it was the commitment, subconscious or not, to the first premise that simply unfolded.

    The reason I deny it is simple: many hold to egalitarianism and don’t end up where Wayne Grudem prophesied they would. It is not egalitarianism that is the issue. The issue is the substance of the person/theology behind the decision.

    Now one more point: the moment you commit yourself to slippery slope accusation/explanation, you commit to it all the way down. That means complementarians will be hierarchicalists and authoritarian and abusive and everything that flows from that. (That’s as nonsensical.)

    Do you see the implication of making the case for one idea necessarily leading to another? Ideas don’t work that way.

    Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 10:57 am

39. I see your point Scot.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 11:02 am

40. Scot – thanks for pointing out how unhelpful “slippery slope” arguments can be. The slope goes both ways. And is the alternative to think that one’s views are on perfectly “level ground?” Certainly we live out the Christian faith on all sorts of terrain (and as snowboarder/mountain climber/hiker – I tend to love the slopes!)

    Comment by rick — September 13, 2010 @ 11:31 am

41. Scot and Dan.

    Inclusion of women, in all aspects of church leadership and domestic life, is real close to the gospel for me.

    If we are in Christ, we are in it together—no longer male/female, Jew/Greek, slave/free, rich/poor. No longer! Thanks to God, Jesus came, offered, lives, incorporates and will return. This is good news. So-called complimentarianism diminishes the good that Jesus won for us—All of us.

    And I admit, it’s personal. As a woman who leads and teaches men and women, at church and in a marriage, my function in both families depends on the gospel fundamentals of welcome and mutual submission. These are freedoms Jesus paid for. How can we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?

    [Both of the practices Robin cites (1. refusal to sup with people baptized as infants and 2. refusal to welcome women into all positions of church/family leadership/service) reflect an anthropology and theology that ignore critical aspects of the gospel.]

    Comment by Katherine M. — September 13, 2010 @ 11:34 am

42. Robin #19,

    about baptism: I see your point and it is a valid one from the perspective of a baptist. Fair enough! But this is precisely the issue I tried to address: There is real disagreement on baptism even within T4G etc., on baptism of which Paul says: “4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”(Eph. 4,4-6) This is a pretty strong statement which links the one baptism to the unity of Christ’s body and to faith in one God. And Romans 6,3-4 even links it to Christ’s death and resurrection which are at the center of the gospel. Still disagreement is tolerated. But when it comes to gender-roles, then either you agree with the position of T4G etc. or you cannot become a member. Do you see why I think the priorities are wrong?

    I have no intention to discuss the gender-question itself in the thread as it is not the topic at hand. I’m interested in the question Scot McKnight keeps asking: How close is complementarianism to the gospel?

    And Robin #37: Thank you for answering this question! I really appreciate your answer (as you might have guessed already).

    Comment by Andreas — September 13, 2010 @ 11:37 am

43. Scot,

    I think you can tell from your readers that many egalitarians view gender roles as much more central to the gospel than complementarians. How many commenters in this short period of time have attacked complementarians for fundamentally altering the gospel? It seems that egalitarians view it as a primary issue while most of your complementarian readership (Me and one or two others) see it as secondary at best (Probably tertiary for me).

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 11:45 am

44. this is important to me–I’m a 60 year old woman, baptised as a baby, and I’m an elder and a teacher of adult ed classes for men and women. I worship in a church with a woman pastor who preaches on Sunday. To you, who would not allow me to take communion–am I sinning? What if i came into your church and took communion–would I be sinning? I feel the position of “soft complementarian” is the most difficult to live by. If a woman can have “no authority over men” so many rules must be written, so many carefully drawn lines. Can I be treasurer? Can I be administrator in a church? Can I chair a committee to redecorate the fellowship hall? or hire the youth director? I also ask Scot’s question: Is this a gospel issue for you? (and if you haven’t read Blue Parakeet–please do–this is not about “social justice”. I listen to the White Horse Inn and I believe in the gospel that they preach. It is not a gospel issue for me–but I don’t beleive that i could worship consistently with a church that would deny me communion or a voice.

    Comment by Barb — September 13, 2010 @ 11:46 am

45. What about sexually ambiguous people? I really can’t see complementarianism.

    Comment by DRT — September 13, 2010 @ 11:56 am

46. Scot,

    I am not trying to be snarky here, I’ve seriously wondered this for a while. How close is egalitarianism to the gospel according to James Dunn’s reading of Paul? Since Dunn puts so much emphasis on the gospel breaking down barriers, would he see complementarianism as a form of Galatianism?

    I ask because you said you studied under him.

    Comment by Matt Edwards — September 13, 2010 @ 11:57 am

47. Andreas,

    Where do you read that they are actually excluded, barred from participation? Is there a link? I looked at the TGC and Manhattan Declaration website and came to realize that my General Assembly (Kentucky) passed a resolution recognizing and honoring those who have inspired thousands of Kentuckians with the Manhattan declaration, so I guess my affinity for TGC is just a natural by-product of obedience to Caesar

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 11:58 am

48. Barb,

    I was sprinkled as a baby, left Catholicism as a teenager, became a Christian at age 20, was baptized by immersion at the age of 20 and promptly excommunicated from the Catholic Church (for renouncing my original baptism). Since Catholics have closed communion would I be sinning if I tried to take communion in a Catholic Church.

    Your conscience is your issue. What churches that practice closed communion are saying is “According to our understanding of the bible, your standing before God is ambiguous at best due to your baptismal state (either unbaptized or baptized wrongly) and we cannot in good conscience provide you with communion because we fear that you would bring judgement on yourself.

    If you have a clear conscience partaking, partake, just don’t insist that churches violate their collective consciences by serving to someone they deem unfit.

    A less controversial communion issue happens among presbyterians all the time. They pretty much all baptize as infants, but some (Doug Wilson and others) believe this baptism entitles them to full and complete participation in the life of the church, so they serve communion to toddlers and young children, far before they make any type of profession of faith, while other paedo-baptists close the table to anyone that hasn’t made a profession of faith, even if they have been baptized. What would you think if Douglas Wilson showed up at one of the latter churches and demanded that his 2 year old grand-daughter be allowed to partake with everyone else because she had been baptized (even though that violated their churches understanding of the ordinance)?

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

49. Robin,

    I totally agree with you that people on the lefter side of the spectrum have their own “very close to the gospel” issues, and they include inclusivism, universalism, social justice, women in ministry, et al. That approach is flat-out wrongheaded.

    So, Matt, yes, you are now raising the issue of the new perspective’s understanding of justification and the impact of the gospel. I never talked to Jimmy about this, ever. So not sure what to say. I won’t speak for him.

    But to both of you and others…

    Inherent to the gospel is the declaration that Jesus is Messiah, Lord and Savior of all … of all … and anything that diminishes the “all” is a failure to embrace the gospel. Paul had it out with Peter over Gentile inclusion at table fellowship for denying the truth of the gospel. How many of us would say with whom we eat and who gets invited is a gospel issue? I hope we all would, but I have my doubts. Ask African Americans in the American Church; ask Africans in South Africa; ask Korean Americans in our context. Ask Latinas and Latinos… just ask. Is this a gospel issue? By all means.

    Inclusion of all to the Table of Christ, that’s gospel. Invitation of all to the Table, that’s gospel.

    But complementarianism and egalitarianism are theories of the relationship of the sexes in society and marriage.

    Inclusivism in Christ, oneness in Christ, those are gospel issues. Women in ministry is a manifestation of our oneness in Christ … yes, if it broaches oneness in Christ can at times be a genuine gospel issue.

    Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

50. Barb,

    As to the offices…for me, as a complementarian, this is still about authority. I believe in elder-led congregations. We elect elders and then give them fairly free reign to do what they think needs doing. We elect deacons too, but the deacons take their cues and ministerial assignments from the elders and then operate somewhat autonomously in those areas. So for my purposes, females would only be prohibited from serving as an elder. Every other job that gets done in the church (treasurer, sunday school, hospitality, administration, and fellowship hall decoration) are all done under the authority of the elders because the elders either appoint deacons to oversee those areas or they hire the people to fill those spots (like treasurer and administrator). And if an elder, in his authority, appoints a female deacon to serve the body or hires a female treasurer then they are still only serving based on the authority of the elder.

    I like it to constitutional requirements for the office of the President vs. requirements for other members of the executive branch. There are lots of rules for who gets to be President (over 35, native born, etc.) but virtually no rules about who gets to serve in the cabinet or as one of his advisors. We just trust that once we have elected, as a country, a capable and constitutionally qualified individual to serve as President we will appoint capable and suitable people to fill in the rest of the spots. THat is how elder-led congregations work, lots of care in appointing elders, and then trust that they use that authority for the kingdom.

    I am honestly unaware how such decisions would be made at non-elder-led complementarian churches or whether I could consent to their logic.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

51. Scot,
    i like that you’ve asked whether being a complimentarian is a “gospel essential.” i think many have missed the question and quickly flown to arguing their side. i suppose i’m with others who wonder whether a strict complimentarian position doesn’t deny the freedom of the Gospel. wasn’t it Peter who quoted the prophet Joel as the Holy Spirit was poured out on ALL the believers? Joel speaks of a day when all people, men and women, will proclaim the Good News. hallelujah! Peter says that day is here! i for sure don’t want to be part of those who limit the work of the Holy Spirit based on gender. am i being too simplistic and missing something? oh well, i guess i’m just a youth pastor, and we all know youth pastor’s don’t have real authority in the church. after all, most complimentarians don’t mind female youth pastors teaching male students. weird.

    my first encounter with the Gospel Coalition was watching Joshua Harris and Driscoll “interview” Francis Chan about his leaving his church. on a side note, i’d love to see a discussion on your blog reflecting on that “interview.” (maybe you already did and i missed it!)

    Comment by chad m — September 13, 2010 @ 12:17 pm

52. Scot,

    how far do you push the inclusiveness in Christ. Not in theory, but in your personal belief system? Invitation to partake to unbelievers? To the unbaptized? To the baptized, but converted to another faith? To the baptized who have never made a profession of faith and aren’t currently claiming to be Christians?

    What exactly are you saying? I would never think that someone who has never made a profession of faith in Christ should be offered communion, but I personally wouldn’t require baptism (though I can certainly see the point of those that do, we just have different convictions)

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

53. Scot,

    Could you give a quick definition of “gospel issue”?

    Comment by jordan — September 13, 2010 @ 12:21 pm

54. Robin,

    Red herring, frankly.

    You’re confusing inclusivism in Christ — for those who trust him — with universalism or pluralism. I’m for inclusivism but not for universalism or pluralism.

    Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

55. Robin #47

    e.g. here (Article XVI): http://t4g.org/uploads/pdf/affirmations-denials.pdf. And here (Point 3): http://thegospelcoalition.org/about/who. This seems to me to exclude egalitarians (even conservative, evangelical, biblical, bible-believing etc. ones, who are egalitarians because they are convinced to obey scripture with their position). Or am I reading to much into the statements? If I’m wrong, please correct me (I’m serious!).

    Comment by Andreas — September 13, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

56. Not a red herring, I thought you were saying that any form of closed communion is an assault on the gospel because it implicitly limits the “all”.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

57. chad m,

    I agree – and to answer Scot’s question, I don’t think that complementarianism vs egalitarianism is a gospel issue at any level. When people on either side are truly gospel centered it almost never plays a significant role in the interaction.

    In the same way authority in marriage almost never becomes an issue if the two are walking together.

    I don’t say never, because obviously it can come up in specific situations, but it is secondary to the togetherness.

    Comment by rjs — September 13, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

58. RJS,

    Out of curiosity, I am assuming you are an egalitarian and I have always wanted to ask how an egalitarian would handle the situation I described above in a manner consistent with mutual submission. If there is a job offer on the table, and a deadline by which to make it, and no agreement is possible, how does that decision get made? If you just ride out the clock and let the job offer expire then the person that did not favor taking the job offer has exercised authority. I guess what I am asking is there are some instances where if agreement is not possible then neither is mutual submission, and what do you do in those circumstances?

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

59. My view is egalitarian, but I do not think it or complementarian are gospel issues as such. Though all believers are one in Christ, that does not necessarily tell us how we are to function in the body of Christ. For example, not all are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and/or teachers.

    Comment by Jeff Doles — September 13, 2010 @ 12:45 pm

60. But because our shared belief in the Gospel is more important than our differences on secondary matters, I’m hopeful we can respectfully disagree as brothers/sisters in Christ while encouraging each other to live joyfully and faithfully in light of the good news.

    I take it that a number of egalitarians here would be unwilling to agree to this. I disagree when I see CBMW folks and others make it a core gospel issue but this means I also disagree when the same is done by egalitarians. For example, the strongly-worded final two paragraphs of comment 3. Dan Stringer’s question is moot if egalitarians in general agree in with those paragraphs.

    FWIW, My own position leans toward soft-complementarianism but I don’t like the term because I get too annoyed with the folks who fly the flag. They say some of the most tone-deaf things! I do not see it as a core issue of accepting the gospel or of fellowshipping together.

    Comment by MatthewS — September 13, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

61. Thanks for the link Andreas. I do agree that those statement preclude egalitarians from signing the affirmations. While I agree with the statements I do not think it was right to include them in such an important document. I think that issue should have been left out along with issues like baptism and tongues.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 1:02 pm

62. Scot,

    I agree with your response to Robin in #54, but I think she highlights a serious problem in Dunn’s reading of Paul. Dunn rightly exposes the flaws in reading Paul’s contrast between “justification by faith in Christ” and “justification by works of the law” as a contrast between “believing” and “doing,” but Dunn’s rereading (“radical inclusion” versus “exclusion”) doesn’t hold up, either. Paul is perfectly comfortable excluding people; he just does so on the basis of faith in Christ instead of on the basis of ethnicity (Phil 3:2–3, for example). You wouldn’t expect this if the driving idea behind his justification theology was radical inclusion. (Instead, I think the main idea behind his justification theology is “Jesus” versus “no Jesus,” similar to EP Sanders or Francis Watson’s readings.)

    Would you say that a church that welcomes all people to the Table, but reserves the role of elder for men only, is compromising the gospel? Would Paul’s warning to the Galatians in 5:2–4 apply?

    Comment by Matt Edwards — September 13, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

63. Matt, in a word “not necessarily.” (Two words.)

    But there’s nothing in the elder passages that say “for males only.” I’ve discussed this on the blog before. It assumes males but it does not restrict the list to males. There’s a difference.

    If those same passages never have women preaching/teaching or leading or “deaconing” and missionizing or “apostolizing” — then I’d say there’s a gospel problem.

    Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

64. The banner ad I keep getting in this thread is for the “Real Man Conference.”

    Comment by Matt Edwards — September 13, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

65. Robin,
    I am an Elder, I know how an elder-led church makes decisions. in our Book of Order Elders are required to “seek together to find and represent the will of Christ”. We have worked long into the night on some issues.
    Are you saying that top authority is all that is important? What about in a church with a congregationalist government? Do only the men get a vote?

    Comment by Barb — September 13, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

66. I am a complementarian, and pretty committed as far as my belief is concerned. However, I would be the first to admit that an attitude that equates the Gospel with a complementarian perspective is itself a dangerous loss of the Gospel.

    If both sides have a deep understanding of each other, we will all see that not only is the issue black and white (nor are the “categories” well defined), but it is not a cardinal issue that should cause a breach in fellowship in any way.

    Once we draw our circles so tightly, we may find ourselves excluding Christ. We just did a Theology Unplugged on this called “I’m not judgmental, I’m discerning.” http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/theology-unplugged-im-not-judgmental-im-discerning/

    Michael

    Comment by C. Michael Patton — September 13, 2010 @ 1:24 pm

67. Robin,
    as to communion, we don’t have an age limit on that either. However, I don’t demand to be served communion in any church that finds me “unfit”–but also I would choose to belong to that church either. Yes i have been in those situations. Where they rope off a section for those who can’t partake.
    Would you take communion if you came to my church?
    It just seems so much simpler to state who communion is for and then let the people decide if they are fit, and then let God do the sorting out.

    Comment by Barb — September 13, 2010 @ 1:27 pm

68. Barb,

    I’m saying that “true authority” is all that is important to me. We elect elders and deacons. Deacons are primarily servants in our church and don’t exercise any real decisional authority. We have no problem with female deacons, neither do lots of complementarians. Just go to Mark Dever’s church’s website and count the female deacons. Since we entrust the elders by voting them in, I am fine with anyone they want to appoint to cash the checks, watch the babies, play the music, or preach from the pulpit. We have lots of Sundays where we have visiting preachers, or men from the congregation preach. I don’t recall any women preaching, but if the elders made that decision I would think it was fine (I would probably recoil somewhat due to my cultural conditioning, but I’d get over it).

    As to voting. Everyone in the church is equal before God and thereby entitled to vote. When we sign the covenant to become members I don’t sign for the family, I sign for myself and my wife signs for herself – so she gets a vote.
    If my children become believers and join the church as pre-teens or teens, they will get a vote too.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

69. While hermeneutical skills, theological implications and cultural dynamics come together for both complementarians- comPLEmentarians–it’s not a compliments) and egalitarians, we cannot out of hand dismiss the issue of justice. Would we, if we lived in ante-bellum USA dismiss justice issues regarding slavery while others (in the South) were arguing very competently from the sacred text to defend slavery as an institution ordained by God?

    The seeds of the dissolution of slavery were inherent in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and those seeds began to sprout in the sensitive writings of the Apostle Paul. Yes, as we all recognize, it took centuries for the theology of the Gospel to topple slavery (from a robust biblical anthropology and soteriology). And slave-trading is still alive and well on planet earth in despicable forms.

    I am of a growing opinion that egalitarianism does flow from a full expression of Jesus’ redemption and creation of a new humanity–the body of Christ.

    A full blossoming of the Gospel of the kingdom of God that Jesus and Paul taught will be expressed in egalitarianism.

    Comment by John W Frye — September 13, 2010 @ 1:30 pm

70. Barb,

    I am unfamiliar with the rope method. When we have communion our preacher reads from 1 Corinthians 11, then explains that if you have known sin that you are unwilling to repent of, to please refrain from the table, but if you recognize your sin, loathe it, and desire to follow Christ to fly to the table. He then says that the bread and wine is for those who have trusted Christ and followed him in baptism, then he opens it up. I’ve never seen an actual physical separation from the table, just the warning about an unexamined conscience, and then the statement about conversion and baptism.

    I’m not sure if I would take communion at your church. I wouldn’t take it at any church that put much of an emphasis on works as a means of salvation (even if the work is baptism), or in an Anglican church (because I have personal, scottish issues), beyond that I’m really not sure.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

71. I don’t think this is an issue to break fellowship over in principle, though the potential to go one’s separate ways (as with Barnabus and Paul) in practice over such an issue is very real.

    That said, yes, I think it’s a “gospel” issue. We have to ask what it would look like if God got his way perfectly on this earth, as he now does in heaven and will have here eventually. His present and coming reign is the gospel, along with the new creation, so it seems rather important to ask where and how women (half the world’s population) fit into that new creation, that present and coming reign. The only way to say that it isn’t a gospel issue seems to be to reduce “the gospel” to justification, which I think is biblically awkward at best. The issue is and needs to be, where to women fit into God’s present and coming reign through Christ and his new creation, free of sin and the curse and thensome?

    Comment by T — September 13, 2010 @ 1:40 pm

72. Is this reminding anyone else of weaker-brother issues surrounding liberty? I was thinking about how I make decisions when I disagree with my brothers and sisters and friends. If we’re having friends over who are tee-totalers I don’t drink in front of them because I don’t want to damage their conscience (and not drinking doesn’t damage mine). If I married a sabattarian I wouldn’t insist on going to NFL games on Sundays because I wouldn’t want to damage her conscience (and not watching doesn’t damage mine). And if we have committed vegetarians over for dinner I don’t serve meat, because I don’t want to tempt them to damage their conscience.

    Does sitting under a male pastor damage your conscience? It doesn’t damage almost anyone’s conscience. Does sitting under a female pastor damage your conscience? Or being part of a coalition that has female leadership? It might be fine with your conscience, but even if you are biblically correct, if you force complementarians to accept an egalitarian doctrine or leave the church, all you have done is placed them in a position with ruined consciences (unless they just leave of course).

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

73. One day, the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven. In heaven, there is not need for apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers. But there is still need of those functions on earth until Christ comes and we all reach our full maturity in Christ. Not everyone is given to function in those ways. As an egalitarian, I believe God does give both men and women to function in that, but not every man and woman.

    Comment by Jeff Doles — September 13, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

74. Scot,

    Thanks for posting this. As an egalitarian, I appreciate this question for the GC. However, as someone who wants a “rich description” of the gospel, it is difficult for me to bracket the question of gender from the gospel. I think a more pointed question is why the GC, which has a fairly specific (and some might say narrow) definition of what the gospel is, would find it necessary to include complimentarianism as part of it.

    As an aside, in the latest issue of Priscilla Papers I raise similar questions in my article, “Creating a Culture of Equality as Witness to the Truth.” Might be worth checking out for people on both sides of the debate.

    Comment by D C Cramer — September 13, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

75. I was raised and educated Catholic. When I left the RC church I left explicitly because of the way they treated women. I seriously can not for the life of me understand how we could believe in the gospel of Jesus and give women a secondary status.

    Robin, I hear you saying it is not a strict gender issue because it is not women always need to submit to men, but the exclusivity clause does not enter my mind. If it every means they are discriminated against in any way then it is discrimination based on sex.

    A couple months ago we were joking around in my house in a way that was not particularly good toward some people with a certain physical appearance. My 17 year old son got quite upset and said “in this day and age everyone knows that you don’t seperate people out based on things they can’t control”. That’s how I feel with this. We are all god’s children and we have all been given salvation. We judge merit for positions based on relevant factors. That’s why I keep asking above, what is the reason god would possibly not want half of his children to teach? I can’t even conceive of a reason. Can someone and articulate it?

    Isn’t it probably telling us something if we can not say why god would not want women teaching? If we think it is valid then we would not be embarassed to say it, right?

    Comment by DRT — September 13, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

76. Robin,
    your comment in #58 is a straw-man argument. are you suggesting that the default for hiring should be to hire men? i don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you are saying, “in the hiring process, all things being equal, Christians should prefer men over women.” hmmm.

    Comment by chad m — September 13, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

77. #38 Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 10:57 am:
    “Now one more point: the moment you commit yourself to slippery slope

    accusation/explanation, you commit to it all the way down.”

    I’m quite sure you just employed the slippery slope argument against slippery slopes. Some

    claimed slippery slopes are logical fallacies, and some are actual slippery slopes that lead one too far down, but not necessarily all the way to ultimate doom and destruction. Take as an example the driving force behind contemporary conservativism – the Bathtubian Imperative – shrink government so small that you can drown it in the bathtub. Now nobody except for Milton Friedman and his son, David, thinks that total anarchy and the absolute elimination of government would work, but many of us think that the modern conservative movement has set us on a path that poses a very real danger in going far enough to do great harm to our democracy.

    Comment by Grupetti — September 13, 2010 @ 2:23 pm

78. Chad M (76),

    I am saying that when you have a mixed congregation or denomination, some complementarian and some egalitarian, if you force them (complementarians) to accept a leader (bishop or pastor) that is female you are giving them two choices (1) violate their conscience (2) leave. This is also true for the more notable schisms in recent years regarding homosexual ordination. If you think that either issue is so central to the gospel that it is worth putting believers in that position, fine, make your choice. But, given that many might not want to violate their own consciences don’t be surprised when people choose plan b and leave.

    On the drinking, NFL, and meat eating I think it is obvious that none of those is significantly important to let me endanger someone else’s conscience. I think that egalitarians are saying that this issue is central enough to the gospel since it has been used multiple times in the past to split churches and denominations. I can’t imagine forcing the hire of a female pastor (knowing that it would probably split the church) unless I thought it was a gospel issue. (It would be different in congregations that were fully accepting of egalitarianism or that were founded as egalitarian churches and never had a significant complementarian component)

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

79. Chad,

    One further illustration. I’m not confounding egalitarianism with homosexual ordination, just using the latter as an example because it is a fresher controversy and examples come to mind more quickly.

    Several years ago the Episcopal church ordained a homosexual bishop, against the protestations of more conservative members, knowing that there was a high likelihood that it would cause a schism. After a few churches left, Canterbury protested, and an entirely new diocese from Africa offered to take the conservative churches in, they did it again and ordained another homosexual. Setting aside whether or not their decision was biblically permissible…they made a decision which they new would cause a titanic schism in the Anglican communion. If they are going to do something that will cause that much division, then it darn well better be over something they consider to be a “gospel issue”

    I wasn’t around for the female pastor wars of the 70s and 80s, but I perceive that the ascendancy of female pastors caused a similar division. If egalitarians thought female pastors were worth the division it caused in local congregations, then I hope they consider it a gospel issue.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

80. Grupetti,

    David might be an anarchist, but Milton wasn’t. He worked for the government, he designed the system of withholding from our paychecks. He favored government vouchers for poor children to attend private schools. He was libertarian, but noone familiar with his actual writings could claim he was an anarchist. In the libertarian movement he wasn’t considered tame and kind of a sell out. Read Rothbard if you want real libertarian anarchism.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

81. Robin, that argument only goes so far- I’m all for not forcing wine on T-totallers. But if I, as a woman preacher, cannot teach men for fear that one with a tender conscience might hear me say something authoritative, how can I exercise the gift God has given me? (hypothetical, I rarely preach). The wine doesn’t suffer if you leave it in the cupboard when your “weaker bretheren” visit, but the women gifted to lead must, by this argument, go off and make the tea in case any “weaker bretheren” attend her church? And if a visiting old-school South African is offended by the black preacher at your church, will you protect his weaker conscience and ask the preacher to teach the kids that week?

    Comment by Kate — September 13, 2010 @ 2:41 pm

82. Kate,

    I would assume if God called you to preach he would give you a church to do it where you would be surrounded by people who were open to hearing from a woman preacher. So the only real conflict is either when women want to preach at complementarian churches or when a woman at a complementarian church feels called to preach and cannot. If she feels that strongly, she should leave and find a church which will let her exercise her gifts freely without damaging the conscience’s of her complementarian brethren or cause a church to split.

    As to the Afrikaner…I intentionally brought up drinking and sabbitarian issues because I think believers can have some disagreements biblically about those things. There is casue for disagreement on female pastors, depending on how you interpret texts. I see no biblical basis for racism against blacks so I would either admonish him as Paul admonished Peter or share the gospel with him. The vegetarian example doesn’t really fit, that might just be my simple courtesy.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

83. Robin,

    I often hear similar questions (as in your comment at 58) but not regarding women in authority, but regarding shared authority/leadership versus solo. My first question in response is usually “Who was in charge, Paul or Barnabas, on their missions?” Or, for that matter, for all the 2 by 2 mission trips in the NT, was one of the two persons designated “the leader” whereby the other had to just submit to what that person decided? And, of course, there are innumerable examples of two person partnerships, even in modern businesses, where power is shared equally b/n partners with great results, even when one can’t take authority over the other.

    Of course, we can point to the eventual split of Paul and Barnabas, and say, “That’s what happens when one person isn’t clearly put in charge.” But that would sidestep the issue that God is the one that set it up that way, along with the bulk of NT missions. And they all managed to generally work effectively. Decisions were made. Fruit produced. With just “partnerships” under Christ. Mutual submission (or better, partnerships in which no one is dominant) get worked out and work done every day. That some split seems irrelevant since that also happens in relationships where one party has authority over another.

    Comment by T — September 13, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

84. Kate,

    One last thing, I don’t know why we are talking about visitors and such. I’m talking about churches with memberships. If you want to preach and you are in a church that welcomes your preaching and you don’t believe it is sinful, then preach. Visitors shouldn’t expect the congregation to bend to their desires.

    I am talking about established churches. Churches which are either complementarian or mixed. Churches where a woman assuming the pastorate would cause half the church to leave. If women in ministry is indeed a secondary issue, then I submit that even if you’re right it wouldn’t be worth splitting the church to put a woman in that role. The only way a female pastorate can justify the expected split is if it is indeed a gospel issue.

    This happens all the time with calvinists. Some young seminarian gets hired at an Arminian or mixed baptist congregation and has to decide how much of his theology is really important enough to split the church. Should he preach about election? atonement? what about plurality of elders or administration of church discipline? If you think it will split the church and move forward anyway, you better think it is essential to the gospel.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

85. Robin@82 You’re right, a woman preacher will not offend in an “egalitarian” church, or a black preacher in a non-rasict church. Good.
    Regarding the Africaner, he saw a biblical basis for his dicrimination(I met him, he was very sincere) but you and I both believe he was wrong. And I “see no biblical basis” for sexism against women so should I likewise admonish those who would tell a woman not to lead for fear of offending a complementarian?

    Comment by Kate — September 13, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

86. T,

    My question doesn’t pertain to the countless situations where partnership and cooperation are sufficient. Of course they work. That is what the relationship between my wife and myself looks like 99.999% of the time. My question is about that .001% of the time, since that is all we are really talking about with male headship in the home. What about those cases when a decision has to be made and consensus is impossible. I know how things work in a complementarian marriage; the buck stops with me and I choose either my path or my wife’s path and am responsible for that decision. For Paul and Barnabas, if they were setting at the docks and couldn’t decide whether to set sail for Epehesus or Rome they can just split up (not permissible in a Christian marriage), but I am asking what happens according to egalitarian theory. Do you just believe that such situations will never arise, or just assume that when they do the partner with the dominant personality will cow the other one into submission and therefore we’ll just informally abandon mutual submissiveness. I know there have to be some egalitarian preachers on here, what do you tell your congregations to do when they are at the end of a rope on a decision, agreement has not been achieved, and a decision has to be made. Surely someone has given a nitty-gritty sermon on a topic like that.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

87. Kate,

    If you think complementarianism is equivalent to just plain old sexism (and there is no decent biblical basis for it) then I think you have a responsibility to treat complementarians the same way I would treat someone from the KKK. Admonish them forcefully or share the gospel to save them, because it isn’t a biblical argument but gross sin…that is if you really believe there is no difference.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 3:08 pm

88. Now I guess we’re seeing why coming together for the gospel is so difficult for egalitarians and complementarians.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

89. Robin, does your church really have “nitty-gritty sermons” on topics that only come up “0.001%of the time”? Aren’t there more urgent issues to address?

    Comment by Kate — September 13, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

90. Kate,

    We have nitty gritty sermons about marriage and the things that cause conflicts in marriage. Whether it is raising kids, dealing with finances, or dealing with confrontation when husbands and wives cannot agree. I would assume that all churches do, so I would assume at least someone would preach on what egalitarian couples should do when they cannot come to an agreement. It seems like there is enough potential for friction there that it would be addressed anytime there was a series on marriage.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

91. Robin,
    In your comment at #89 to T…

    My reading of Eph 5 does not say when there is strife or indecision the husband makes the decision, for it defines “headship” not as decision-making or authority but as sacrificial love for the other, as Christ gave himself for the church. Equating headship with authority is category mistake; headship has to do with representation through sacrificial love.

    Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

92. Robin, your comment suggests egailtarians should always cave to the “conscience” of coplimentarians. where does the gospel, which bring grace, enter in to the situation you described? are you suggesting that for the sake of unity, more “conservative” consciences should prevail? both of your examples [homosexuality and woman in ministry] lead me to this assumption. again, where is the grace, the gospel, in that?

    Comment by chad m — September 13, 2010 @ 3:18 pm

93. Scot,

    now I just feel like you and Kate are playing games to avoid the question. It is a simple question. If telling me the answer will let me in on some kind of egalitarian code that I’m not privileged to understand, just tell me. It may be a categorical mistake but that is what you will hear in any marriage series in a complementarian church. When push comes to shove and a decision has to be made, the responsibility falls on the head of the home. Simple. Honest. I’m just asking what the message is in egalitarian churches (or do you just really not deal with that scenario)

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

94. ChadM,

    All I am saying is that if you know something (anything) will split the church, and you choose to proceed, then I think it should be a gospel issue. I’m not in favor of splitting churches over the color of the carpet. I am in favor of splitting churches if that is necessary in order to preach salvation by grace, through faith, apart from works. I think an issue needs to be a lot closer to salvation than to carpet color in order to justify pushing it forward despite impending schism.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 3:23 pm

95. Robin, when my wife and I disagree, I give it to her. Is it wrong for me to do that?

    Comment by DRT — September 13, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

96. Sorry, Robin, I didn’t mean to play games, but you say this hardly ever comes up in your marriage, and it has never come up in mine, so forgive my inexperience. Maybe if the disagreement was over a big issue such as moving acoss the country, a Godly husband would be concerned to work out what sacrificial love demands, perhaps laying down his career ambitions if he saw that the move might make his wife miserable?

    Comment by Kate — September 13, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

97. Robin,
    our pastors don’t preach on marriage (that I can remember). but in my home, when at an impass, If we are together we don’t make the decision. And yes, that’s sometimes hard for me to swallow–but I do.
    What’s a “mixed” church?

    Comment by Barb — September 13, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

98. DRT,

    WHhen my wife and I disagree, I exercise my patriarchal authority to let her win. She wins almost every disagreement because she cares more about the issues than I do. One day we might have a situation where I exercise headship differently but I pray it never comes to that.

    Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

99. 96: I mean I don’t remember ever reaching an impass in a big decision, not that we never disagree!

    Comment by Kate — September 13, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

100. I meant “mixed” in the sense that prior to the ascendancy of female pastors you probably had a lot of methodist or episcopal churches that had some egalitarians in them and some people who were complementarians.

     Kate and Barb, thanks for your responses. I suspect that I would often fall into the response of Kate’s imaginary Godly husband, but I would see my decision to lay down my desires for my wife’s happiness as an exercise entirely consistent with my complementarianism, choosing her good over mine. It seems that except for the question of whether or not a woman can actually step into the pulpit the real world differences between the positions are miniscule.

     Comment by Robin — September 13, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

101. Robin,

     Surely it is a rather different thing to do something “one knows” will cause division than it is to actually be the one leaving? I hesitate to blame the former for the division… especially when Jesus himself talks about the divisions that will occur between families among those who choose to follow Him.

     Comment by Mark Baker-Wright — September 13, 2010 @ 4:07 pm

102. Robin,

     I don’t think there’s a stock answer for your question. My earliest experience with that was when my wife and I were registering for sheets for a possible wedding present. Kim (my now wife) asked my mom to come along to the store with us as a resource for us. At the time (I was pretty young!), I was fairly adamant about not having flowered sheets, which came up when we got to that section of the store. At which point my mom interrupted and kinda pulled me to the side (but still spoke loudly enough for Kim to hear). She said to me, with her classic southern accent, “Son, don’t dig in on the sheets.” It’s pretty much stuck with me for a lot of issues that go well beyond what my sheets look like. Having said that, there are occasions when I don’t just go with what Kim thinks, and we continue to talk and pray and maybe live with some indecision for a while. Sometimes I come around or go with her call, sometimes the other way. If it’s a do now or never thing, we make the call one way or another. It’s not uncommon for either of us to affirm that either of us has the right to veto. It just depends. But no, splitting up is not an option (tho compromise often is). Letting an opportunity go by because we’re not on the same page is an option, as are many other things.

     Comment by T — September 13, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

103. Well, I’ll tell you what I think since the conversation just didn’t go where I hoped. Instead of touching on gospel and compl/egal issues, we talked about marriage and complementarianism …

     Many virtually equate gospel with their view of complementarianism (or egalitarianism) because:
     1. They think believing the whole Bible is the same as believing the gospel.
     2. The Bible, so they think, teaches one of those views and that means denying the Bible (which is very close to the gospel).

     And, some are vexed by cultural conditioning and see this as a litmus test of biblical authority, so they ratchet up the language – a Reformed Baptist pastor who is very much in this movement today said that he knows a number who say this very thing: gospel and complementarianism go together.

     The minute one writes such an element (complem/egal) into the fabric of defining documents that element rises to the level of near-gospel, even if many or all in that group know that gospel and that view are not that closely connected. It becomes an identifying element.

     It is a mistake for TGC and T4G to elevate complementarianism to this level.

     Yes, I would say the same about other groups who use similar “elements” as identifying features.

     We are identified by the gospel about Jesus Christ – who lived, died, was buried, arose, was exalted and is coming again — acc to Scriptures — for our sins. Those are our elements. Nothing beyond that is needed. Of course, creedal statements lay bare those elements and then explicate them and they also deny elements that threaten the vitality of the gospel elements.

     More of this in a book I’m about to finish called In the Beginning was the Gospel.

     Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

104. In 32 years of marriage, my wife and I have never had a situation where we needed someone to break an impasse.

     This question very often gets treated as a matter of “Who’s the boss?” To me, that doesn’t seem very gospely. What stands out for me in the NT is not the question of who is in charge but who is the servant — to me, that sounds much more like the gospel. We want it to be about who is the decision maker, impasse breaker who gets to tell other people what to do, and that desire — especially the desire to be that person — sounds more like the flesh than like the Spirit.

     Comment by Jeff Doles — September 13, 2010 @ 4:27 pm

105. If one is a Protestant, it’s possible to split off the “gospel-ness” of this issue, depending on how one understands “salvation” and the “Good News” about it. Robin and other commenters seem to have done that. If “salvation” is mostly or exclusively about where one will end up after death and why, and if the remainder of this life as a Christian is finding out what the rules are and following them, then complementarianism can fit that paradigm very well. Depending on how one views those rules, for some C’s this issue a “gospel issue” because of their interpretation of scripture. Some C’s will partner with mutualists depending on the dictates of their conscience.

     Other Protestants see it as a “gospel issue” because of how they understand “salvation”, in ways that T and John Frye have articulated, according to their understanding of scripture.

     Like RJS, I rarely comment on this anymore. Along with her, I do believe it is an issue of ontology (are women truly, fully human, or not?), as well as being about the way people interpret scripture and why they do it that way. A lot of sincere, loving people don’t see the ontological issue; a lot of sincere, loving people choose to believe the complementarian interpretation, for whatever reasons. Arguing scriptures may help to change a person’s interpretation, but I believe it’s the reasons why people interpret scripture the way they do that need to be addressed.

     What the “gospel” question is for me – and really always has been – is about who God is and what he is up to- including who Jesus is and what his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, sending of the Spirit and future return actually mean for us humans and for the whole of creation. Though I am now part of a church that restricts most of its liturgical responsibilities to males, I can be there in good conscience because:

     -nowhere does my church teach or imply in any way, shape or form that women are less than human or somehow not created in the image of God, nor is there any line of theological reasoning that could lead to this conclusion. On the contrary, the full humanness of women is often explicitly and implicitly affirmed. Some of our women are called “Equal to the Apostles”. Frankly, the settled nature of the ontological question was something that actually drew me to Orthodoxy. Outside the liturgy (and in some areas within it), women can do *anything* men can do. Also, our theological understanding does not see the Son as eternally subordinate to the Father. We do not concretize the male/female relationship in those terms. We describe the relationship of the Son to the Father as “begotten” but we are very hesitant to nail that down very tightly, because we humans can never know the essence of God-ness. And “begotten” doesn’t describe the relationship between husband and wife.

     -gender differentiation is not explained in terms of “imaging God”, but rather as a reflection of the whole of reality as either non-material or material, and pointing to the Incarnation of Christ as the union thereof. This more mystical, metaphysical explanation connects quite nicely with the “Christ and the church” metaphor of marriage used by Paul. It also ultimately deflates any cultural patriarchalism (which is is unfortunately sometimes expressed in my church by those who either have not been taught or are incapable, for whatever reasons, of understanding such an explanation) defined in terms of “roles”. God is ultimately up to something higher and wider and deeper than “roles”.

     Though I appreciate (and mostly agree with the sensibilities of) those who want to frame the issue in terms of “justice”, I agree with Scot that it really is more fruitful to pursue the scriptural hermeneutic tack. I think he’s pinpointed it exactly in #103.

     Dana

     Comment by Dana Ames — September 13, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

106. I wonder how many people have become Christians because of the compelling theological anthropology of a hierarchalist/complementarian or egalitarian/mutualist view of gender roles?

     I wonder if that has any bearing on how close the issue is to the Gospel for anyone.

     Comment by nathan — September 13, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

107. #106,

     A very interesting question, and not to be flippant, I think that a case could be made for either side on that one. That is to say, people who came to Christ because a certain side appealed to them, as well as people who were put off because of how a certain side seemed to represent Christianity (and I mean this for both comps and egals).

     Comment by Mark Baker-Wright — September 13, 2010 @ 6:08 pm

108. Robyn asked in comment 34 about mutual submission and should parents submit to their children…

     Paul tells us in Ephesians to practice mutual submission. He warns parents (fathers) not to embitter their children. I was asking the kids at kids group on Sunday 4 questions.

     1.) How do you feel when you are listened to?
     2.) How do you feel when you are not?
     3.) How do you feel about those who listen to you?
     4.) How do you feel about those who don’t?

     Interestingly I got the same answers from this group 6- 12 year old’s as I do when I ask adults the same questions. Submission is never a one way affair… but is always mutual.

     Comment by craig bennett — September 13, 2010 @ 6:19 pm

109. I did not understand the under current of this post until the past few contributions. Thanks for laying it out for me. I will feed it back to you all so that I can see if I understand what is going on and potentially help any other outsiders here who do not understand the nuances in some of the argumentation. I hope I don’t detract from this conversation too much.

     First, when the original post asked if completarianism is essential to the bible, I assumed that the context was whether the whole debate (comp and egal) was central to the gospel. I (and I think others) from the egal side of the equation answered yes because egal is in keeping with the gospel. But that is not what was meant. You were seeking comp folk to state their basis. I was confused by rjs post #57 because she says it is not a gospel issue. While I agree that it should not be an essential issue from a comp standpoint, from an egal perspective it seems to me that it must be a gospel issue because comp would be against the gospel.

     Second, I totally did not get the whole gospel versus salvation item and I appreciate that
     Dana pointed that out. I assumed that others take the gospel (the good news that Scot outlined) as being THE THING and the other stuff as being secondary as in the sense of arguments or discussions about truly secondary matters. But now I am able to read Scot’s comment “some are vexed by cultural conditioning and see this as a litmus test of biblical authority” not as what I would perceive to be a test of biblical intent IN A SECONDARY ISSUE, but instead a test of biblical intent, PERIOD. Big difference. I really did not appreciate that some of the folk are putting the other stuff on the same level as the gospel. Really (and I am not always this stupid).

     Finally, I think I now have a vague appreciation of the approach that some take to the gospel after Dana’s next to last paragraph. I always assumed that those who are taking a literalist approach to the texts are doing that *in addition to* the more obvious figurative meaning. I now see from her paragraph, and Scot’s comments that they take that interpretive approach *in exclusion* (thanks Dana for the asterisk emphasis approach). Who knew?

     Given these things, I now understand Scot’s basis for wanting to make the arena for contest the biblical basis and not an appeal to justice. The appeal to justice just flies in the face of the argument of the comp folk and is a total non-starter. Thanks Dana for pointing that out because it allowed me to read Scot’s post in a new light.

     Comment by DRT — September 13, 2010 @ 6:25 pm

110. In Presby-land (we’re not called the “split-peas” without reason: we have the PC(USA) which has ordained women for 75 years, the PCA and OPC which don’t allow women to even be deacons (OPC states that women must keep silent in church). and the EPC which allows local churchs to determine if they want to ordain women as elders and pastors–they have as their motto: “In essentials-unity, in non-essentials-liberty, in all things-charity.” They clearly state that ordination of women is a NON-essential.

     Comment by Barb — September 13, 2010 @ 7:05 pm

111. I’ve skimmed through most of the conversation and I do have a serious question. According to Paul, women should ask their husbands to answer spiritual questions. I’ve sort of paraphrased Paul’s comment. I do think it represents the essence of what he is saying. My question is this:
     What happens when the wife is better educated in the Scriptures than her husband? It is fully possible in our society to have a wife who may have received an advanced degree in Biblical Studies while her husband may have gotten a degree in a non-Biblical field.

     Comment by Steve D — September 13, 2010 @ 7:14 pm

112. To answer Robin’s question about impasses, I’ve been married for over 27 years, I cannot remember ever having a dead-locked impasse with my wife. Not that we always agree, we discuss,pray, get information and then decide. Sometimes it involves one of us changing our opinion, once we decide, we support each other in whatever the outcome.

     Comment by Steve D — September 13, 2010 @ 7:19 pm

113. Steve @111: I don’t think it has anything to do with the degrees one holds. In America today a woman CAN be just as educated as any man and therefore may not need to ask her questions only at home. We also have access to info at our very fingertips.

     Comment by Barb — September 13, 2010 @ 7:32 pm

114. Steve D,

     Well, brother, I don’t recognize you so you’ll have to take this from one who is used to this blog community….

     I address your question about women silence in my book called The Blue Parakeet. I’m convinced it cannot mean what you sketch it as since (1) there were women prophets in the early church, and you can’t do that without speaking and breaking silence; (2) there were women apostles; (3) there were women leaders like Chloe; and (4) that means the silence in 1 Cor 14 — if the text is authentic [check your Bible's footnotes] — is not total silence but connected to something specific. I think it has to do with untaught women speaking what they don’t know. But not total silence.

     On the problem you raise, it shows what kind of problems we can get ourselves into if we are not careful and wise. A woman who knows more than her husband can help him understand, and he contributes to her in other ways.

     Comment by scotmcknight — September 13, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

115. Scot
     I am an egalitarian. I’m sorry if my post was not easily understood. My question was really for those complimentarians who read the verses in I Cor. and take the literal interpretation of the scripture. Like you, I agree that it was directed at untaught women. Sorry for my lack of communication skills.

     Comment by Steve D — September 13, 2010 @ 7:46 pm

116. Not to rework the red herrings, but …. egalitarian marriages are as statistically strong as any other kind. The atheist and egalitarian couples I know best have very stable marriages and have reared respectful and successful children. They seem to handle decision-maing fairly well.

     If we come back to the scriptural basis for either position, it is worth looking back to the Reformation and realizing how great an influence an alternate interpretation of scripture had on theology. With Erasmus Latin translation to offset the Vulgate, this lead to a completely different view of the sacraments and a different understanding of penitence as either penance, or repentance.

     So, now how is the scriptural basis for theology shifting today? It is worth noting that complementarian bibles have shifted from the traditional interpretation in several significant verses.

     The clearest example of this is the NET Bible. It has an alternate and untraditional translation for both Gen. 3:16 and Romans 16:7.

     Overall, the ESV has translated the plural of anthropos as “men” rather than “people” in any verse which relates to teaching and leading.

     The fact is that complemnetarianism and egalitarianism have a different text base.

     For egalitarians,

     - the rule of husband over wife was introduced by the fall

     - Junia was an apostle and Phoebe a minister

     - a wpman should not dominate or lord it over a man

     - women are included in 2 Tim. 2:2, And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

     For complementarians,

     - the fall caused men to rule their wives harshly instead of kindly

     - the fall has caused women to want control

     - Phoebe was a servant and Junia was well-known

     - a woman may not have authority over a man

     - women are not included in this verse – and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

     Is there any translation of the Bible that both egalitarians and complementarians can endorse when it comes to gender?

     Comment by Sue — September 13, 2010 @ 8:15 pm

117. I admit I have not read all the comments (but #3 IMHO is outstanding), but have any comps answered the post’s central question: “In short, can egalitarians be gospel-centered too?”

     In my experience, comps make it quite clear that women holding authority over men regardless of the venue is against the “plain reading” of the Bible. So for comps to answer that question with “yes” would require them to abandon their stance on women and authority, but then they wouldn’t be comps any more.

     Conversely, for egals to cooperate in some fashion with comps would, as pointed out already, mean giving up being egals (the distance is irrelevant; if they can’t worship in the same church, how can groups of egal churches cooperate with groups of comp churches, esp. if the authoritative representatives of the egals are female?).

     My only other point at this time would be that egal is the very “meeting point” between two extremes: male supremacy and female supremacy. To frame the debate as being between comps and egals is like trying to balance a teeter-totter with one person in the center and the other at one end (see http://www.fether.net/2008/08/22/a-false-dichotomy/).

     Comment by Paula — September 14, 2010 @ 9:23 am

118. Correction: I don’t know why the link goes to the wrong article. It should be
     fether.net/2008/08/22/a-false-dichotomy/

     Comment by Paula — September 14, 2010 @ 9:25 am

119. Creeds, Theological positions and dogmas; I thought it was Christ who defines what is Christian or not.

     When ecclesiastical orthodoxy starts saying more than the Bible, it gets mistaken for Biblical orthodoxy and becomes a standard unto itself; except that one is true, one isn’t.

     The thief on the cross, was he complementarian or egalitarian? Was he even a Calvinist?

     Comment by James — September 14, 2010 @ 10:45 am

120. Scot and Dan,

     Sorry for the delayed response, I just saw this today. Speaking for White Horse Inn: the issue of complementarianism or egalitarianism is NOT the gospel, is not essential to the gospel, nor is it something that we spend much (any?) time on in the pages of Modern Reformation or on the White Horse Inn broadcast. Thoughtful Christians will fall out on either side of the debate and say that their position is a consequence of what they believe the gospel to be, but it would be a serious mistake to confuse whatever understanding we have about the relationship of men and women in ministry as essential to the Gospel.

     Eric Landry
     Executive Director
     White Horse Inn

     Comment by Eric Landry — September 14, 2010 @ 11:36 am

121. Wade Burleson, no stranger to controversy, has an amazing and, to my limited knowledge, novel interpretation of I Corinthians 14: 33 – 36. It pertains directly to the egalitarian/ complementarian divide & is well worth a read.

     http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2010/09/do-you-define-church-way-bible-defines.html .

     Comment by KenH@Anwari — September 14, 2010 @ 12:05 pm

122. Burleson’s view is not new, as egal scholars have addressed these issues for years (e.g. http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/1-corinthians-1434-35 ).

     Comment by Paula — September 14, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

123. @Eric #120 –

     Thanks so much for responding swiftly and clearly. I’m personally a fan of the WHI and would say that among the organizations listed by Dan and Scot it’s actually the most gospel-centered. I think that has a lot to do with WHI being classically Reformational and confessional as opposed to what Scot terms neoreformed. WHI hosts and contributors also generally happen to know the difference between Reformation theology, Calvinism, neo-Calvinism (i.e., Kuyperianism) and the neoreformed. I’m fairly sure I’ve heard egalitarian and female guests on the WHI before, too.

     Hopefully TGC, T4G, 9Marks, and others will also respond with similar conviction and clarity, though I won’t hold my breath.

     The problem with these movements is that, intentionally or not, they are conflating complementarianism and “gospel centrality.” In many ways it’s not too different from culture warriors conflating conservative politics and Christianity — an issue WHI valiantly opposes and certainly a common enemy of both Jesus Creed readers and WHI listeners (look ma, common ground!).

     I do think a further necessary step is for these groups, as I commented earlier, to clearly articulate how much truly gospel-centered ministries, Christians, and churches can and should cooperate with and hear from those who disagree with them on the issue of women in ministry leadership. This isn’t as much of a struggle for WHI and confessional Christians because there is usually a strong understanding of catholicity and orthodoxy, but perhaps WHI could quite vocally show some leadership here.

     Calvin Chen
     A WHI listener and Jesus Creed reader

     Comment by Calvin Chen — September 14, 2010 @ 8:05 pm

124. Interesting question but I believe it truly answered in the Imago Dei.

     Egalitarians make this a “rights” issue. That if a complementarian view is accepted than the rights of women are being restricted, thus justice is not being done.

     To complementarians it is about how God has made us, and the roles we are to fulfill. Complementarians, no matter if you agree with them or not, have gone to great lengths over the years to explain there view not as wanting to inhibit the rights of women, but rather to embrace how God has made us.

     It is a question of how do men and women together, most fully embrace, and emulate the Image of God in which we are made in. For complementarians, issues of church leadership, marriage, and family have a direct link to how we reflect God’s image in its fullness.

     Comment by Ted — September 14, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

125. I admit to not reading all 142 replies so if I’m repeating, forgive me (I read about half of them).

     How do you (those who see the justice idea associated with egalitarianism or mutualism, to use Scot’s term) square the idea of Scripture with overturning slavery and interracial marriage? There was a time when slaves were seen as needing to submit to their masters.

     And today, women are already so much more participatory in society that at any time in history, to act as though the idea of leadership over men in the church is somehow grossly different than our lived experience that women are as capable and responsible to be in positions of power as men feels utterly contradictory.

     Lastly, the idea of male leadership continues to foster the male image of God, man as more powerful, male as “better” than female. That’s an inescapable consequence that has created untold damage to society, church, women and girls, families and marriages. To ignore that effect feels like one more instance of discounting.

     Comment by Julie — September 15, 2010 @ 9:40 am

126. Scot,

     Read about 50 of the comments and then ran out of time. Quick response from a GC guy:
     1. Not a gospel issue; we have both egalitarians and complementarians in membership, lay leadership, etc. We agree to disagree as long as scripture is our final authority. Sola scriptura is our hermeneutical starting point, and we agree to love and listen to each other and give each other dignity by not caricaturing each other.

     2. The problem is that , though not a gospel issue (ie one where we lose fellowship), the issue is central to your ecclesiology, so it is pretty important on a church-by-church basis. So though not theologically central, it becomes pragmatically and functionally pretty important, so it is hard to divide the two sometimes. Same with baptism – infant baptism is practiced at our church, but members don’t have to believe or baptize their kids – but they have to allow others to do so.

     BTW if Ben Wheaton is the Ben W from our church – hey Ben!

     Comment by dan macdonald — September 15, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

127. Ted (#124),

     No, egals don’t see this as a “rights” issue but as a “worth” issue. As Dr. R. Groothuis has ably demonstrated, when one discusses a permanent restriction based upon genetics, one is discussion essence or being, not a “role”. A role is when someone chooses to participate in a temporary situation that has nothing to do with their genes. An employee is not permanently and always under the authority of a boss; a child is no longer under parental authority when they grow up. But if something is based upon skin color or gender, it is about worth; it is about intrinsic attributes.

     So “separate but equal” is no more a valid argument against women in authority than it was for whites in authority. We derive “rights” from that, but such rights are based upon worth; e.g. every adult of sound mind should be able to vote regardless of skin color or gender. Was the civil rights movement only about rights, or was it ultimately about worth?

     It is also fallacious to claim one’s position on this issue is “how God made us”. Nobody disputes that God made “male and female” in His image, or that each has a unique biological function. But beyond that, everything has to be read between the lines of Genesis. If comp truly wants to be Biblical and go to great lengths to embrace how God has made us, then it should stop adding things like hierarchy through chronology or inventing stories about why the serpent targeted Eve (Paul’s ref. was about deception, not authority)

     True complementarity is what we see in, for example, the left and right hands; they are equal opposites. And if this has “a direct link to how we reflect God’s image in its fullness”, then we should remember that both male and female were made in God’s image, not one moreso than the other.

     But at the end of the day, the question is this: who is exempt from “not so among you”?

     Comment by Paula — September 15, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

128. I am compelled to say it plainly. Women and men have no differentiation in their abilities or worth. The whole idea of discriminating against women in regard to anything, is repulsive to me. I also believe that god will judge your actions in the end and you are the one that has to live with the ramifications of that. I don’t judge, god does. I implore those who think otherwise to reconsider.

     Seriously people, how can you possibly think this stuff? The whole “it’s not a sex issue, its a role issue” is totally misguided. How can discrimination on the basis of sex be anything but a sex issue.

     I seriously think that people are putting this issue behind legaleeze and hiding it, but that does not take away from the inherent fact that people who are comps are justifying sex discrimination on the basis of the bible. That is quite a low blow and I am embarrassed that anyone that is a fellow christian thinks such a thing. Truly embarrassed and if this is the way Christianity continues to go then I will be all in favor of abandoning it, regardless of whether Jesus is the Messiah or not.

     I also don’t think that anything I said in here is the slightest bit unloving. I think it is very loving.

     Comment by DRT — September 15, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

129. DRT, you’re exactly right. It is astounding that we are even having to debate this. Yet only in religious circles, it is still believed that there is something inherently deficient in women— ALL women— that NO men lack, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. When pushed they will say that if God has to choose between a spiritual mature and well-trained woman and a spiritually-newborn, untrained man, He’ll choose the man without exception or hesitation.

     Unless of course it’s in some remote part of the world where savages live.

     They say this is what scripture teaches and they’re only following orders. But if anyone challenges that assertion they are labeled rebellious and not respectful of the Word of God. The game is rigged.

     So it’s impossible for comps and egals to get along when comps insist that Christianity is ultimately a boys’ club. I find the very notion of flesh-based privilege so at odds with everything Jesus and the apostles taught and modeled that I can scarcely believe it’s still being clung to.

     Comment by Paula — September 15, 2010 @ 5:53 pm

130. PS: Note that it isn’t the offense of the Cross that is driving many from Christianity, but the offense of sexism. That makes this issue central.

     Is the gospel “Jesus Christ and him crucified”, or
     “Jesus Christ, him crucified, and know your place”?

     Comment by Paula — September 15, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

131. First off Paula Mrs. Groothuis is not a Dr. Not that it matters but I just thought we should have the facts right.

     Curious that you use the term “worth.” If you agree with me the Bible grounds our worth in that we are made in the image of God, as I touched on previously. We have dignity, value, and worth because we are made in God’s image. Yet we also see that we were made different, male and female. Neither is superior or inferior to the other.

     I find it hard to root the idea that different roles for the genders is related to worth. I do not feel that I have less “worth” because I cannot bear children. Nor do I think God has made me inferior to my wife, we are just different.

     Also let’s pause with the “separate but equal” argument. It is a bad parallel since most on the court who decided that way, were racist and thought blacks were inferior. Complementarians do not believe this.

     I also think it interesting to note that the original question seems to have been answered that many more egalitarians hold egalitarians to be a crucial gospel issue than complementarians do. So instead of wondering why T4G, GC, DG do not have a lot of egalitarian partnerships might not be their fault, but those on the other side of the issue.

     Comment by Ted — September 15, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

132. The arguments for slavery were identical to the arguments now used for male supremacy: see http://www.fether.net/2009/11/02/sound-familiar/ . It is not a bad parallel but a very accurate one. What’s the difference between racist and sexist in this argument?

     The comp argument, specifically, is that there can be equality of worth with inequality of role. And the latter does not mean mere **difference** but **hierarchy**. That is, unilateral authority/submission is somehow equality of being. This is, as Groothuis argued (yes, it’s her husband who has the PhD and I sometimes instinctively add the Dr; forgive my imperfections) a logical impossibility. A person cannot be held to a permanent role of submission without being of inferior being.

     Re. your last paragraph, there would be no need for egals to defend themselves and their callings unless male supremacists were denying women’s full equality in the churches. One half the Body is trying to play “head” to the other half, and is blamed for complaining!

     If you were to tell CBMW to start teaching that women have full functional equality, I can almost guarantee you that they would refuse on the basis that “this is God’s order”. How about you, Ted? If it’s truly God’s order then it’s a crucial issue to you, and you would not worship under the authority of a female pastor.

     Comment by Paula — September 15, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

133. “One half the Body is trying to play “head” to the other half, and is blamed for complaining!” should read “One half the Body is trying to play “head” to the other half, which is blamed for complaining!”

     Comment by Paula — September 15, 2010 @ 6:39 pm

134. Paula I am not trying to launch into a debate about egalitarianism and complementarianism. Nor do I think that was the topic of this post.

     In my last paragraph I was simply noting that the question asked in this post about why it seems some movements, like GC, do not have a strong egal. involvement, may have more to do with egals who make it a much more central issue to the Gospel than comps do.

     The comments in this thread seem to have borne that out.

     Comment by Ted — September 15, 2010 @ 10:00 pm

135. “Can egalitarians be gospel-centered too?”

     It depends. Egalitarianism or complementarianism could be a gospel issues, depending on where people take them. If people use the issue to exclude believers-in-the-gospel from fellowship, then it is a gospel issue and the “excluders” are not “gospel-centered.” Then, perhaps, it gets down to the definition of fellowship. If fellowship extends to what genders can serve the church in what capacity, then I think that is a wrong definition of fellowship. When it comes to fellowship, I am an egalitarian. When it comes to church and family order, I am a complementarian.

     By the way, I wonder what folks think of this 5-part review:
     http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/A-Review-of-McKnight-s-The-Blue-Parakeet-Part-I Have you even read it? Have the main contentions of the reviewer been adequately refuted? I tend to think the reviewer missed it on some points, but I think he was dead-on in many of his statements.

     (Why does the spell-checker on this site not know how to spell “complementarian?”)

     Comment by Dan — September 15, 2010 @ 10:14 pm

136. There’s a lot of comments to read through here– but this one struck me:

     “WHhen my wife and I disagree, I exercise my patriarchal authority to let her win.”

     Odd, isn’t it, than when a wife lets her husband win, it’s called submission to authority, and when a husband lets his wife win, it’s called taking authority?

     They both look like mutual submission, per Eph 5:21, to me. In fact, I just don’t see anywhere where the Scriptures say, “husbands, exercise authority over your wives.” By letting her win or otherwise.

     Comment by KR Wordgazer — September 16, 2010 @ 1:36 am

137. Ted, the central point of the post comes down to this in practical terms:

     If, as comp teaches, it is a SIN for a woman to have authority over a man, then it is a central issue rather than a side issue. If no comp would sit under the authority of a female pastor because her genitalia invalidate her gift and she is thus “usurping”, then that comp has made this a central issue.

     In contrast, egal would not call anyone having authority “in sin” strictly on the basis of the flesh. In fact, there have been many egals sitting quietly under comp rules, but no comps sit quietly under egal rules.

     I see no way around the fact that it is comp alone which makes this a central issue.

     Comment by Paula — September 16, 2010 @ 6:36 am

138. Sorry Paula that is not the central point of this post, that is a key point in the debate between comps and egals. Go back and read the original post once more.

     Comment by Ted — September 16, 2010 @ 8:00 am

139. Read this quote from the post, Ted:
     “With all due respect for your sincere desire to follow Jesus and adhere faithfully to the teachings of Scripture, I disagree with your position on this important issue. Just as I would love for you change your mind on the question of women in ministry, I’m sure you feel the same way about my stance. But because our shared belief in the Gospel is more important than our differences on secondary matters, I’m hopeful we can respectfully disagree as brothers/sisters in Christ while encouraging each other to live joyfully and faithfully in light of the good news.”

     Egals can honestly go along with this. Comps cannot. That is the point of the post.

     Comment by Paula — September 16, 2010 @ 8:08 am

140. “To complementarians it is about how God has made us, and the roles we are to fulfill. Complementarians, no matter if you agree with them or not, have gone to great lengths over the years to explain there view not as wanting to inhibit the rights of women, but rather to embrace how God has made us”

     Since I was made different as a female and have specific roles as a woman than the Male Jesus Christ in the flesh, how can I be Christlike? After all, roles are so very important, right?

     Would you outline for me the “Christian” non biological roles that are specified for me in the Word?

     BTW: I am a mutualist and never mention justice unless I am speaking of God as perfect Justice. It is NOT a rights issue. It is not an authority issue because in the Body and marriage, Jesus Christ should be the authority for believers. If a human saved by the same grace, is the authority, there is a big problem. They are acting as the Holy Spirit for another.

     Comment by L.Malone — September 16, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

141. The fact that this conversation about a non-essential has created such a response reveals that we all need to be more gospel-focused and less focused on non-essentials. No major creed of faith has considered this issue anywhere close to the importance of our beliefs concerning the gospel.

     To be clear, both sides of this issue emphasize it too much. I think the most important thing is that partners in marriage come to a biblical decision on the matter upon which they can agree. This issue must be talked about in pre-marital counseling/conversations.

     Comment by Aaron E Elmore — September 17, 2010 @ 12:32 pm

142. So, let me get this straight:

     Based on 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and what we know from biology, the following is Complementarian Genetics 101:

     The “x chromosome” carries the “deception gene.”

     The “y chromosome,” however, carries the “anti-deception gene.”

     So if a person has two xx chromosomes, and is therefore a female, they are by nature and physiology “[completely] deceivable” (εξαπαταω).

     However, if a person has one x chromosome and one y chromosome, and is therefore a male, they have a genetic defense against being completely deceived. It is for this reason that only those with both an x and a y chromosome are to be entrusted with positions of authority in the church, and only they can teach both men and women.

     And I would ask: If this is not Complementarian Genetics, why isn’t it?

     Comment by EricW — September 18, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

143. That should be: “So if a person has two x chromosomes….”

     Comment by EricW — September 19, 2010 @ 9:04 am

144. Paula, thanks for the wonderful link! I’ve been arguing the same for a long time, but you did the homework to come up with the quotes of advocates for slavery on the basis of Christian teaching at the time. Well done.

     Ted, the reason her comments are not off topic to the original post is that cooperation in service (Gospel Coalition) requires egals to give up their view that women are equally able to lead men. It will show up, right about the time they have to work on any project together.

     I’ve experienced this directly in the homeschool movement. When we planned a graduation service, the one couple who were adamantly comp would not allow the head of our group (a woman, naturally) to pray or lead the service since men would be there. It was the comp who could not cooperate. Yet the expectation was that egals should “give up” their position since it was a “non-essential” one to the Gospel while the comp would be “sinning” to not hold firm to that point of view.

     I frankly don’t see how egals and comps can do much of anything church related together.

     Comment by Julie — September 19, 2010 @ 9:42 am

145. You’re very welcome, Julie. And thank you for the object lesson in how it is comp which makes this a sin issue instead of something on the order of what color the carpet in the sanctuary should be.

     Comment by Paula — September 19, 2010 @ 10:00 am

146. Out of curiosity, who is sinning by having a woman in authority?

     Comment by DRT — September 19, 2010 @ 1:24 pm

147. In our case, the couple who didn’t want the woman to lead felt they would be sinning against God to willingly put the husband under the prayers and leadership of the woman who was intended to lead the graduation. The way they all resolved it is that the woman leader had to have her husband stand with her at the pulpit. He led the church in the prayers and she read the names of the graduates.

     All this so that the single couple out of twenty would not feel he was sinning to participate. Clearly the egalitarians didn’t feel they were sinning to “submit” to his vision of what holiness constituted.

     Comment by Julie — September 19, 2010 @ 8:02 pm

148. Eric, Gee when you put it like that seems kinda silly, doesn’t it?

     But Julie nailed it, too. I would rather it not be an issue but many comps make it a HUGE issue when we are trying to cooperate on something. Yet we are to go along with them so as not to offend.

     Does anyone remember when a bunch of men got up and turned their backs on Anne Graham Lotz when she was speaking. That is the sort of evil that is out there making it a salvic issue. Why didn’t those men just stay home?

     Comment by L.Malone — September 20, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

149. 148.Eric, Gee when you put it like that seems kinda silly, doesn’t it?

     Uh… yeah.

     I was reading the testimony of an ex-Christian, and he was mentioning how a friend of his stopped a Mormon dead in his tracks by saying, “What you believe is ridiculous!” That comment apparently set the Mormon on the road to eventually leaving Mormonism.

     And that’s how I feel about Complementarianism when one strips away all the high-sounding exegesis and theological pontificating and parsing of authentein and hupotasso and kefalê, etc., etc. What they believe about women vis-a-vis men in terms of rights and roles in the church is, quite simply, ridiculous.

     Comment by EricW — September 20, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

150. I’m a bit late to the party, but I wanted to throw in a quick thought regarding the original question…

     I would think that *most* comps and egals would agree that the issue of women’s roles is not a make-or-break point of the Gospel. In other words, neither of us would assume the entire other camp to have forfeited their salvation over the matter.

     However, I think it gets so sticky so fast because it is so intensely personal–particularly for the women involved. As a woman myself, it is not easy to view the debate from a stoic, detached viewpoint, because we’re not just discussing a purely ideological concept; we’re discussing my life, my heart, my future, and my calling. It changes how I view my personality and my purpose. It changes how I expect to relate to half of the human race. It changes whether or not I am actively in a sinful place in doing what I do in ministry.

     While the debate is technically about role and not ontology, as a person who is part of the subject of that debate, it sure feels pretty ontological. It’s not just a matter of, “Hm, what role am I going to play today?” but “What was I created for? What does my ontological makeup say about what God expects of me?”

     That being said, I think it *is* possible, and necessary, for comps and egals to unify over the main and plain issues of the Gospel. As an egalitarian, I still happily devour John Piper’s books on the pleasures of loving God and the glories of Jesus. I would trust that complementarians would likewise be willing to “spit out the bones”, as it were, regarding egalitarian-leaning authors, willing to unify around the beautiful central truths of our faith.

     This is an important issue, and I think it’s fair to say it’s a potentially costly one to get wrong, but it is still secondary. Since it is so significant, though, I think it would greatly behoove both sides to be more sensitive of the other–egals should understand, respect, and even celebrate comps’ sincere and honorable desire to uphold Scripture, and comps should recognize the deep, real, and valid emotional cost to egals of what their theology is proposing.

     My $0.02–basically I am a bit skeptical of anyone being able to be totally and completely objective, detached, and relaxed about this matter, but as long as everyone acknowledges that, and is willing to embrace humility and forgiveness, we can still fellowship across denominational/congregational lines as a loving Body.

     Comment by Amanda B. — September 21, 2010 @ 5:51 am

151. Thanks for this. I came across your site through Daniel Kirk’s “Storied Theology.”

     You may be interested in the discussion going on over at Will Lee’s blog, Anwoth.

     Here is the link in case you’re interested:

     http://www.anwoth.org/series/the-adjusted-gospel-of-t4g/

     Comment by Mark — September 22, 2010 @ 9:17 am

152. Ephesians 5 prescribes gender-related roles to men and women in marriage.
     Ephesians 5 compares these gender-related marriage roles to Christ and the Church (i.e. the Gospel)
     Ephesians 5 specifically attaches the man’s role to Christ’s work (especially his death & self-denial) and the woman’s role to the salvation/sanctification/glorification experience of Church.
     Ephesians 5 says gender-related roles in marriage are directly linked to the Gospel.

     The Gospel is to be directly applied to marriage, but in different ways for men and women.

     This is the foundation of complementarianism: gender-related roles based on the Gospel.

     Now, let each one step back and preach the Gospel to himself (or herself). Does Christ initiate love toward the Church? Or does the Church initiate? Does Christ lead the Church? Or does the Church lead Him? Does Christ have authority over the Church? Or is the Church equal in authority with Christ? Who dies for whom? Who leads whom? Who carries the greater weight?

     No slippery slope here. It’s just simple exegesis of Scripture that can’t be denied by anyone who accepts the Word as it is written.

     An Egalitarian can certainly believe the Gospel, but he (or she) will be in defiance of Ephesians 5, and will have to explain away several other passages that link gender roles to the Biblical facts of creation and the fall.

     Now, here IS a slippery slope I’m observing: Deny inerrancy . . . call the creation and fall in Genesis “figurative” or a myth . . . do away with the NT gender roles that are built on the creation & fall you don’t believe actually happened. The Gospel is tied to all of this, and can’t be separated by the sincerest idealism. Seems like some here are proving the slipperiness of the slope they don’t think exists. But keep in mind – this is not my argument, just an observation. My argument is that Ephesians 5 proves that the Gospel and complementarianism are indispensably linked. Any group or person that wants to be defined by Gospel-centeredness will necessarily follow Ephesians 5 into some form (even a mild form) of complementarianism.

     We can applaud the Gospel Coalition and T4G for taking this unpopular but thoroughly Biblical stance.

     Comment by Derek Ashton — September 22, 2010 @ 2:41 pm

153. (Jesus facepalm)

     Comment by EricW — September 22, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

154. I’d enjoy reading an Egalitarian answer that is respectful and deals with the text and substance of my argument.

     Comment by Derek Ashton — September 23, 2010 @ 8:27 am

155. 154.I’d enjoy reading an Egalitarian answer that is respectful and deals with the text and substance of my argument. – Derek Ashton

     Derek:

     Read Philip B. Payne’s new book, Man and Woman, One in Christ. Payne discusses every Pauline text re: this issue, and also responds to his critics on his Website: http://www.pbpayne.com

     I think it would take a long time to respond to your argument, more time than I have to write out an answer, because there would probably be a lot of back and forth as each issue is discussed. IMO it’s the kind of thing that best lends itself (at least for my situation) to face-to-face discussion in a coffee shop rather than via numerous long posts to and from each other on an Internet thread.

     But if you buy and read Payne’s book, you’ll be able to engage with the arguments at your leisure. And he welcomes email questions and comments.

     Comment by EricW — September 23, 2010 @ 10:20 am

156. @ EricW #155

     Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll have to check it out. I agree that the issue is complex and ill-suited to this type of forum. Yet the discussions happen here, up to 150+ comments. And some of the rhetoric is rather strong. So I’d still invite those who vehemently disagree with my exegesis to say why and how they disagree.

     It would be nice to have a cup of coffee and discuss this – we could do facepalms back and forth at each other.

     Blessings,
     Derek

     Comment by Derek Ashton — September 23, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

157. Derek:

     My “facepalm” was because your statements seemed to indicate an absolute assurance and insistence and belief that Egalitarians are wrong.

     Not just “might be wrong” but ARE wrong.

     Not that you believe they’re wrong, but: They.Are.Wrong.

     Period.

     Because they don’t follow Ephesians 5 into complementarianism, as you believe honest readers of the text must do. If not, they’re being dishonest with the text. Or have another agenda. Or question the authority of Scripture. Etc.

     And are also “in defiance of Ephesians 5.”

     You state that your position(s) is/are “just simple exegesis of Scripture that can’t be denied by anyone who accepts the Word as it is written.”

     How can an Egalitarian respond to such statements when everything the Egalitarian would say would likely be interrupted with a:

     “No, you’re wrong.”

     “No, you’re wrong.”

     “No, you’re wrong.”

     This is not my argument, just an observation.

     Come to the Dallas area and we’ll chat!

     Comment by EricW — September 23, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

158. Derek, One HUGE problem with your position. You ignore the fact that Eph 5:21 applies to YOU and all other husbands in the Body. I understand…some very big names in celebrity Christian circles have been trying to prove how vs 21 does not apply to men. They hate it.

     Comment by L.Malone — September 25, 2010 @ 6:12 am

159. @ L. Malone #158

     I don’t see any problem at all with Ephesians 5:21 teaching mutual submission. The comps I am around celebrate the fact that all Christians submit to one another under certain circumstances. I certainly submit to my wife on some occasions, but that does not make her my head or the leader in our marriage. It doesn’t mean our Biblical roles are interchangeable. Likewise, my pastor sometimes submits to me, but that doesn’t make me his spiritual authority.

     If Paul was Egalitarian, wouldn’t he have said, “Spouses, love your spouses as Christ loved the Church . . . and spouses must see that they respect their spouses” ? Instead, he said “husband” and he said “wife.” Or, in the words of the high church clergyman on the Princess Bride . . . “Man and Wife.” LOL

     How does mutual submission in 5:21 undermine my argument that men and women are called to specific gender-related roles in 5:22-33? My position is not the least bit threatened by it, and even embraces it in the interest of balance. God is so wise in His choice of Words.

     Unless you can somehow make “husband” mean “wife,” you’ll have to concede that my argument is a pretty good one.

     I’m not looking to prove complementarianism over Egalitiarianism. All I’ve done is demonstrated, in response to Dan Stringer’s question, that complementarianism IS a Gospel issue. At least, Paul and the Holy Spirit apparently thought so.

     I am saddened for anyone who “hates” the precious teaching of the Bible, no matter what his theology is, or if he seems to agree with my position. Underlying my position is a love and reverence for the Word of God and the God of the Word. If there are comps who “hate” the teaching of God’s Word as you say, they are as much opposed to my position as any Egalitarian. Sola Scriptura.

     Blessings,
     Derek

     Comment by Derek Ashton — September 26, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

160. L. Malone,

     One other thing – thanks for responding to my argument on exegetical contextual grounds. That’s refreshing.

     Comment by Derek Ashton — September 26, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

161. 1. Does “head” (or more correctly/exactly “κεφαλη”) mean “leader”/”authority”/”person in charge”?

     2. Is it proper to import into or impose upon the church the husband-wife relationships when it comes to men and/or women being able to be in, or being excluded from, positions of leadership or operating in particular giftings or functions?

     Comment by EricW — September 26, 2010 @ 9:21 pm

162. EricW,

     Those are great questions. We really should have that cup of coffee!

     1. There is some debate over the meaning of κεφαλη (That’s kephale, for those of you who aren’t into Greek). The term certainly can connote authority, and I think a good case has been made for “source” as well. Context must determine. The defining point in the context is “as Christ is head of the Church.” So, it is the relationship of Christ and the Church that is being set up as the example for husband and wife. All the comps I know heavily emphasize the fact that this headship entails self-sacrifice as much as leadership/initiative. I just can’t make any sense out of the text when I put “source” in for “head.”

     Either way, the wife is specifically commanded to submit to her husband, so – mutual submission notwithstanding – submission should characterize the wife’s role in Christian marriage. Not that she only and always submits, but that this characterizes her conduct and approach toward marriage. For the husband, loving & self-sacrificing headship must characterize his approach.

     2. Your second question gets to the crux of the matter. I don’t think Ephesians 5 addresses the way gender-related roles should be played out in the larger church community (though it certainly gives us a starting point for thinking about it). We would have to go to other passages where those issues are addressed to see how the early church leaders applied the distinction between men and women to leadership roles and ministry gifts. We would need to look for trends and examples, and try to understand their reasons.

     That leads us right to the cultural questions. Were they simply accommodating their culture? I’ll try to answer that very briefly …

     I’d say “No,” because their reasoning is tied directly to creation and the fall, not culture. Also, they advocated a much higher and better treatment of women than their culture practiced. So, their reasoning was explicitly Biblical, not cultural, and their conclusions were in many ways counter to the culture in which they lived.

     That’s a too brief attempt to link the gender roles in Eph 5 to the rest of the NT teaching, but it’s there so you can perhaps better understand the way we comps think about these matters. In short, I agree with you that not all of the complementarian ideals are found in Eph 5. However, the foundational concept and the Gospel ties are there.

     Blessings,
     Derek

     Comment by Derek Ashton — September 27, 2010 @ 8:32 am

163. Derek, in tying husband-wife relations to the Creation and Fall in Ephesians, I believe you are mixing up your passages. Husband-wife relations are not tied to the creation and fall, but to Christ and the church.

     You are right that the “head-body” relationship between Christ and the church must define how “head-body” applies to husbands and wives. But if you look closely at how Christ and the church are shown in that “head-body” description, there is not one place in Ephesians where it is tied to Christ exercising authority over the church. Instead, Christ as “head” is shown in two roles. First, the chuch is “with him” as he is seated above every rule, power and authority. The church is with him. She is his body– she is NOT one of the powers and authorities he is seated over; rather, she is over them too, because he is over them and she is one with him. Ephesians 1. Then in Ephesians 4, Christ is shown as the source of nourishment, growth and provision for the body, his church. If the husband is “head” of the wife AS Christ is head of the church, he cannot be “head” in any other way than as Christ is “head.”

     Comps often seem to think that “head” and “lord” are synonyms. They are not. “Head,” when metaphorically associated with “body” refers to organic unity (where she is with him, not under him), and provision and care.

     I do not deny that the authority of husbands in that culture was in mind in Ephesians 5– just like the authority of masters over slaves. And yes, the household codes in Ephesians 5 are counter-cultural. And yes, wives are to submit to husbands in a culture where husbands are in authority. But the counter-cultural nature of the instructions to the husband does not result in an upholding of that cultural authority as being God-designed. When the husband does for the wife as Christ does for the church in Ephesians, the result is that he lays down his power just as Christ did when he laid down his life. Then the church is raised up to be with Christ– implying that the husband is to come down to where the wife is and raise her up to be with him, too. Finally, as “head” Christ gives the church nurture, provision and care. The husband is to do this for the wife. Nothing about “leading” or “having authority over” the Church or the wife is mentioned as part of the role of “head.” And it is that head-body metaphor that is to govern how the husband relates to his wife. He is not to appropriate any other role which Christ has towards the church (including savior, redeemer, sanctifier, object of worship, master or lord) to himself in his relationship with his wife.

     Though the wife submits to the husband’s cultural authority “as unto the Lord” (ie, she is to view herself as submitting to Christ, just as the slave obeys his master “just as you would obey Christ” later in the passage), I do not see that the cultural authority of either husbands or masters is being upheld as God’s transcendent will. Instead, the passage turns the culturally expected relations upside down, as husbands and masters are told a new way to treat those under them. The cultural authority is not being upheld, but undermined from within, by the new “In Christ” relationships.

     The head-body metaphor in Ephesians is manifestly NOT about authority, but about the head laying down his prominence, raising the body up to be “with” him in that prominence, and nuturing, sacrificing and providing for the body.

     Comment by KR Wordgazer — October 1, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

164. “The comps I am around celebrate the fact that all Christians submit to one another under certain circumstances. I certainly submit to my wife on some occasions, but that does not make her my head or the leader in our marriage. It doesn’t mean our Biblical roles are interchangeable. Likewise, my pastor sometimes submits to me, but that doesn’t make me his spiritual authority”

     You are making huge but common mistakes here. There are no special circumstances just as there are no “special” people in the Body. There are functions that we are gifted to do but they are not “offices”. That word was added by the translators. Jesus said, Do not lord it over as the Genitles do. You also have to ignore a ton of “one anothers” in order to make your “special circumstances and special people” translation work.

     Your spiritual authority is Jesus Christ. He sent you the indwelling Holy Spirit for a reason. You cannot be the Holy Spirit for your wife and your pastor cannot be the Holy Spirit to you. Yet, that is the logical outcome of your view of relationships in the Body. I understand that you cannot see that.

     AS to ‘roles’. If you are bent on “roles” for the genders. Why not start with Pentecost the building of the ekklesia? Let that be your filter for interpretation when it comes to women. Otherwise, Joanna was in HUGE sin for not fulfilling her “role”. After all, she left her home and her husband, Chuza, to follow Jesus around and support Him from her own resources.

     Comment by L.Malone — October 2, 2010 @ 9:09 am

165. @KR Wordgazer #163

     You misread what I wrote. I actually said that the issues regarding creation and fall are found in other NT passages, not Ephesians 5. The point was that the fundamentally Gospel-driven gender-related roles of Ephesians 5 are further defined and related to creation and the fall in other NT passages.

     I would agree with your assessment that the husband/wife relationship is not like the slave/master relationship. And it’s certainly not like the parent/child relationship, either. Yet the wife is commanded to submit. Note, the husband is not commanded to MAKE her submit. She is to voluntarily take the submissive role. The Church does the same with Christ, who, although He takes the Church up onto the throne with Him and shares His authority with her, would never be considered “Egalitarian” in His relationship with her. She certainly lives under His authority, voluntarily, notwithstanding the very high privileges He affords her. She doesn’t feel oppressed, but voluntarily submits to the Savior she trusts.

     You said the husband is not the wife’s sanctifier, but that very language is used in this passage, and it is specifically related to the husband’s role in sanctifying his wife.

     Blessings,
     Derek

     Comment by Derek Ashton — October 4, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

166. @LMalone #164

     So, you don’t believe that pastors are given spiritual authority as shepherds over the flock? Do you believe God invests governments with a measure of authority to rule over their citizens? Do you believe employers have authority over their employees? Do you believe parents have authority over their children? Paul and Peter both went to great lengths in commanding believers to respect the authority structures in society, the Church and the family. Obviously, no one needs to do the Holy Spirit’s job for Him. But He is the One who is at work in those who rule well, and in those who submit with godly meekness. You seem to be advocating some sort of Utopian anarchy that is foreign to what is written in the Scriptures. Are you uncomfortable with the balance of underlying equality of persons and overlying differences in role? It’s not either/or, but BOTH/AND. And it’s beautiful when you see it in action. My wife and I are totally equal as human beings (either that or she’s BETTER!), yet she still has to be the one that bears the offspring. Equal or not, I can’t get pregnant so we have separate roles by default.

     FWIW – my wife loves being a Complementarian. She’s the one who helped convince me to abandon my Egalitarian approach to marriage, and it’s been a relationship saver for us. We were separated 2.5 years! Now, 7 years re-united, we are enjoying the fruits of our blessed Complementarian marriage. I don’t lord it over her, and she’s no door mat. But when it comes down to it, I’m responsible to lead, to protect, and to provide. I shield her from harm, and she stands supportively behind me. We work together as a team, but I’m the one leading the charge. Thank God for His grace, it got me up off my rear end and into the role of loving my wife. She’s smarter and sometimes stronger than I am, and she is certainly capable of leading the charge. But she chooses to follow God’s directions to wives and sees her submission as beneficial for our entire family. Egalitarians need to live in this amazing blessedness for a day or two. You’d never look back.

     Blessings,
     Derek

     Comment by Derek Ashton — October 4, 2010 @ 11:26 pm

167. “So, you don’t believe that pastors are given spiritual authority as shepherds over the flock?”

     Spiritual “authority”? How exactly does that work? Isn’t it the truth that has authority, not the person? After all, that would mean Ted Haggard could have been my “spiritual” authority. Matt Baker? They both had the right “title” of what you deem spiritual authority.

     ” Do you believe God invests governments with a measure of authority to rule over their citizens? Do you believe employers have authority over their employees? Do you believe parents have authority over their children?”

     Those venues are NOT the Body of Christ. Those (except parenting) are worldly structures and yes God instituted government. But the Body is to be different than the world. No lording it over. All the “one anothers” and believers submitting to one another. Those are hard for you, aren’t they? )

     ” Paul and Peter both went to great lengths in commanding believers to respect the authority structures in society, the Church and the family.”

     False premise you have here. Government is not the Body of Christ or marriage. Just to give you an example in 1 Tim 5 the word for manage the home is the same word we use for despot. So, it seems Paul is saying the wife is the despot of the home. This would mean she is a co ruler with her husband. Those pesky translations!

     ” Obviously, no one needs to do the Holy Spirit’s job for Him. But He is the One who is at work in those who rule well, and in those who submit with godly meekness.”

     I take it you mean the husband/pastor rules well and the wife/congregation submits. Problem is, you have to have special people and special circumstances to ignore Eph 5:21, for starters. the other problem you have is we have no idea who these all important rulers were in the NT church. Who was the pastor of Philippi Church? Corinth? I mean, if they are important rulers, we should know who they were.

     Thanks, I will stick with the Holy Spirit who illuminates the truth of the Word to me. Better than any human!

     ” You seem to be advocating some sort of Utopian anarchy that is foreign to what is written in the Scriptures.”

     And you are advocating the worldly chain of being that Jesus warned about when it comes to how the Gentiles rule. Remember how angry God was when Israel begged for a king? He was their KING! Jesus Christ is my King and my authority and He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in me and guide me. I no longer need an earthly spiritual leader. I can learn from others but I had best be a Berean. There are a ton of false teachers out there and authoritarian pastors who elevate themselves.

     ” Are you uncomfortable with the balance of underlying equality of persons and overlying differences in role?”

     I do not acknowledge that false premise. It is silly and illogical. It is much like seperate but equal. A role is something we pretend to be. A part we play. That is not the life of one Born Again. That is works salvation. A pink and blue Christianity. A pink and blue salvation? I think not. Jesus Christ transcends that.

     Or else, I could not be Christlike. After all, who would be my female role model for Christlikeness in the New Covenant? I mean if gender roles are so very important in the life of a Christian, women are in trouble. They only have a male model in Christ.

     “It’s not either/or, but BOTH/AND. And it’s beautiful when you see it in action. My wife and I are totally equal as human beings (either that or she’s BETTER!), yet she still has to be the one that bears the offspring. Equal or not, I can’t get pregnant so we have separate roles by default.”

     I did not realize we were talking about biological differences. I thought all grown ups understood about the biological differences. And I am not sure how biological differences map to spiritual differences and so called ‘roles’ in our spiritual lives which is our whole life. Are you suggesting I translate 1 Tim 2 as saying I must bear children to be saved? That would be a work of salvation for only women. Surely you do not believe that?

     “FWIW – my wife loves being a Complementarian. She’s the one who helped convince me to abandon my Egalitarian approach to marriage, and it’s been a relationship saver for us. We were separated 2.5 years! Now, 7 years re-united, we are enjoying the fruits of our blessed Complementarian marriage. I don’t lord it over her, and she’s no door mat. But when it comes down to it, I’m responsible to lead, to protect, and to provide. I shield her from harm, and she stands supportively behind me. We work together as a team, but I’m the one leading the charge. Thank God for His grace, it got me up off my rear end and into the role of loving my wife. She’s smarter and sometimes stronger than I am, and she is certainly capable of leading the charge. But she chooses to follow God’s directions to wives and sees her submission as beneficial for our entire family. Egalitarians need to live in this amazing blessedness for a day or two. You’d never look back.”

     And I have heard countless stories from those who left comp and are now egal and how spiritually mature their marriages have become since then. They love growing in Holiness together and not worrying about all those comp rules and roles. It is freedom from bondage for both.

     They did not like the perpetual “child” the wife had to be in order to elevate the husband.

     Can she mature spiritually beyond her husband? Teach him? Exactly what does his leadership mean on a daily practical basis? Is she allowed to have devotions with the family or must he do it? If he dies young, then whatdoes that mean for her as a follower of a leader instead of Christ? At what age do boys become men and she can no longer teach them or even her sons? How can she manipulate you when she has an idea for the family but wants you to be the leader and think it is your idea? you guys need a sort Talmud so we can know all the rules and roles for comp living. Wait, there is one: CBMW.

     Seriously, most comps spend more time thinking about their “roles” than they do about our precious Savior. Satan is delighted about that.

     .

     Comment by L.Malone — October 5, 2010 @ 10:53 am

168. LMalone,

     Well, some of your comments about the comp/egal issue were very funny, pointed and ironic, LOL. I don’t deny that it can become twisted and skewed like that, which is sad and unfortunate. There is a more balanced, Biblical version of comp that might surprise you, and it is guided by conscience and the wisdom given by the Spirit in applying Scriptural principles rather than a legalistic adherence to man made rules. However, if you don’t believe there is spiritual authority in church leadership, I can see why you would also reject complementarianism.

     On the issue of spiritual authority, what do you do with verses like these?

     Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

     I Tim 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

     I Thess. 5:12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction …

     Eph 4:11-12 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ …

     I Pet 5:2-3 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.

     Do you see how BOTH aspects are present in the last passage? It is servant leadership, combining LEADING (with authority) and SERVING (with gentleness). They aren’t mutually exclusive, are they?

     One other thought – when I’m not home, my wife is definitely the lord and despot of our house. She does a great job keeping the kids in line, on task, and generally having fun.

     Blessings,
     Derek

     Comment by Derek Ashton — October 5, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

169. Looks like the comment I was responding to in #167 was removed.

     Comment by Derek Ashton — October 5, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

170. ” There is a more balanced, Biblical version of comp that might surprise you, and it is guided by conscience and the wisdom given by the Spirit in applying Scriptural principles rather than a legalistic adherence to man made rules.”

     I was a comp for many years. I spent most of those years in Christian marketing and cannot tell you how many comp seminars I marketed and hosted. It is a HUGE business. Want to make some money? Become a well known pastor and write a book on marriage and include a formula of rules and roles. It WILL be a seller. People love formulas and rules and roles. Islam and Mormonism are some of the fastest growing ideologies/religions in the world. People want to be told what to ‘do’. They do not know how to “abide in Christ” and ‘be’ spiritual. They need a ‘work’.

     I could tell you some funny stories about the comp world. Like how backstage the wife looks more like Patton preparing to invade Sicily than the submissive comp wife UNTIL she gets on stage. Then it is submissive all the way. I have seen lots of “acts” like that.

     Which drove me to the Word starting in Genesis. And understanding that if we do not get Gen 1-3 right, we get the rest wrong. Teshuqa was the first deal breaker for me.

     “However, if you don’t believe there is spiritual authority in church leadership, I can see why you would also reject complementarianism.”

     Again, was Ted Haggard a “spiritual authority”? Matt Baker? They had the right ‘title’ and fooled a lot of people for a very long time.

     “n the issue of spiritual authority, what do you do with verses like these?

     Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

     Easy, Read the interlinear and check the Greek. The translators were working under the divine right of a king in a church state environment. Should I obey Ted Haggard? Check the Greek on that verse. My cousin wrote a whole series on this passage. See here on the right side of her blog for Elders: Leaders or Servants

     http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/

     ” Tim 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”

     Well, first of all in 1 Tim 3 is says “tis” which means anyone. And if woman are excluded then so are single men. As to double honor, I find it strange that some think this means pay. Who gets paid single honor? ) (The music director?)

     In that verse Proistemi is translated as ‘rule’. Why use that Greek word for ruler? It is not a very good one. It means to stand before. These would be the spiritually mature…the ones who went before us and are seasoned believrs. They would look the most like Matthew 5…lowly and servants. Not as glam as ruling over others, I admit.

     ” Thess. 5:12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction …”

     Same word Proistemi

     “ph 4:11-12 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ …”

     Not sure what you are asking here? Are you saying this verse models how our churches are structured now? This pretty much explains my view althought I do not agree with this guy on some other issues, I agree with this entire paper:

     http://www.ptmin.org/straight.pdf

     ” Pet 5:2-3 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.”

     Not very glam my friend. Where is the authority?

     “o you see how BOTH aspects are present in the last passage? It is servant leadership, combining LEADING (with authority) and SERVING (with gentleness). They aren’t mutually exclusive, are they?”

     I disagree. Servant Leadership is an oxymoron and WE borrowed it from business. I was a corporate trainer for 20 years and I know where this stuff comes from. I have watched churches take on more and more of a business model over the last 20 years.

     Rememeber, I spent years around this stuff and have attended more “leadership” conferences around the country in Christendom than I have hairs on my head. It was coined long ago by Ken Blanchard to sell a kinder and gentler rule for the seeker mega’s who were on the growth charts big time back then.

     “ne other thought – when I’m not home, my wife is definitely the lord and despot of our house. She does a great job keeping the kids in line, on task, and generally having fun”

     But the minute you walk in, your male “parts” are in charge? I just do not get that.

     Again, I ask you, if gender is so important to the Body and in our spiritual walk then who is my female model for Christlikeness?

     Comment by L.Malone — October 5, 2010 @ 3:51 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment