Denny Burk points out a quote from Lig Duncan:
“The denial of complementarianism undermines the church’s practical embrace of the authority of Scripture (thus eventually and inevitably harming the church’s witness to the Gospel). The gymnastics required to get from “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” in the Bible, to “I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man” in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.”
I don’t even know where to begin with thinking about the ramifications of such a statement. On one hand, I want to engage in a discussion as to why this type of statement seems far more simplistic and hermeneutically shallow than some may realize and on the other hand try and figure out why many Complementarians and Egalitarians are so focused on demonizing the other’s position (in this case, from the writing of a Complementarian… but don’t kid yourself Egals… you do the same thing).
But first I need to back up. Burk’s post is an attempt to qualify why the gender issue is considered a primary issue within organizations such as The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel. This was in response to Carl Trueman’s post, “Confused by Complementarianism? You probably should be.” Trueman asks,
“[W]hy is the complementarian/egalitarian debate such a significant bone of contention in parachurch cobelligerent organisations whose stated purpose is to set aside issues which divide at a church level but which do not seem to impact directly upon the gospel? Why, for instance, is this issue of more importance than, say, differences over baptism or understandings of the Lord’s Supper? Historically and confessionally, those have been the issues that divide, so it is strange to see the adjective ‘confessional’ applied to movements which actually sideline the very doctrinal differences which made Protestant confessions necessary in the first place.”
I agree with a lot that Trueman writes, partly because I either agree with him, disagree with him, or find his ideas very thought-provoking. In other words, I love him. Seriously, he’s got a lot of keen observations and insights. In this situation, I am in agreement with what Trueman is getting at.
Along with Trueman, I’m a little confused about this. I wonder if it could be said that there are hermeneutical gymnastics that need to be done in order to create the Complementarian/Egalitarian debate as an issue that is essential to the nature of the gospel, while suggesting that Baptism and The Lord’s Supper are not. It sure seems that there are quite a few texts where Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are explicitly connected to the gospel, right?
In Burk’s response, he differentiates between the gender issue and the ordinances as the difference between benign and malignant skin blemishes. He states that, “Neither type of blemish will kill me. But what grows out of the latter type of blemish can indeed end my life.” His point is that, in his opinion as a convinced Baptist, the consequences of denying Complementarianism has far more negative ramifications than in Paedobaptism.
I disagree. Here’s why…
One of the concerns I have, as a convinced advocate of Believer’s Baptism vis-à-vis Paedobaptism, is that baptizing unregenerated infants will give false assurance of salvation (this is just one of my concerns, and the most relevant here). This is just as “deadly” in my mind. As a pastor, I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have had adults try and convince me that they knew there were righteous before God the Father because they had been sprinkled when they were a baby.
I’ll grant Burk’s (and Mark Dever’s) point that Paedobaptism is not a novel idea within the church. But when did the issue of being novel or not equate to whether something is less dangerous? The concept that people could work their way towards salvation is not a novel idea either, yet the Protestant Reformation found the ideas dangerous enough to warrant a needed correction.
So let me really throw a monkey wrench in this discussion. I have deep concerns about Paedobaptism, hold to a form of Complementarianism, and find Trueman’s thinking to be the most convincing, especially when he writes:
“I am simply not sure why it is such a big issue in organisations whose stated purpose is basic co-operation for the propagation of the gospel and where other matters of more historic, theological and ecclesiastical moment are routinely set aside. If you want simply to unite around the gospel, then why not simply unite around the gospel? Because as soon as you decide that issues such as baptism are not part of your centre-bounded set but complementarianism is, you will find yourself vulnerable to criticism — from both right and left — that you are allowing a little bit of the culture war or your own pet concerns and tastes to intrude into what you deem to be the most basic biblical priorities.”
So I want the “Gospel-centered” organizations to loose the emphasis on Complementarianism. I want them to engage in discussion with other fellow Gospel-centered Egalitarians. Maybe we can learn from each other and reach people with, *gasp*… the Gospel!
What do you think? I know my Egalitarian friends will find this discussion simply silly (and probably agree with my proposal), but my Complementarian friends may have some thoughts on why gender issues should continue to divide between whether some can work “together for the gospel” (even though there are radically different perspectives on the nature of Baptism). Or, as Trueman asks,
“Could a female Baptist minister, baptized by immersion, who is a professing Christian (albeit in error on the point of complementarianism) who happened to be on holiday in the vicinity of such a church – could such a lady, I ask, attend morning worship there and take communion?”
Hmmmm. This is a making my head spin…
I’m going to mostly sit back for this one. 🙂 But I did want to say that one of my older friends who seems to be in the know about these things thought TGC formed as a direct response to well-known churches like Irving Bible Church taking steps *toward* (even though not all the way) egalitarianism. Do you have much of a historical sense if that is correct? If so, then the felt need for an umbrella group was in fact about this “pet issue” even if the group found their coalescing inspiring on and has done good on many other fronts (that even egals may be able to agree with them over). Thus, they have a number of distinctives but, purportedly, initially formed because of this one. I personally would like to see a gospel coalition be something that embraces cal/arm, comp/egal, paedo/immersion so long as the gospel is clear and deep discussion of the pros and cons of different p.o.v.s may be allowed. Otherwise, I’d prefer that we call it something else instead of insinuating that those who aren’t in agreement w/ its concepts do not have the gospel. Or at least openly and frequently acknowledge that other p.o.v.s can represent the gospel to people even if you feel they have weaknesses that you would like to renumerate. Right? But in this case, I think they wanted to gather the paedo presbyterians (like PCA) and the immersion reformed baptists and the missional reformed-but-otherwise-openminded folk to present a strong banner of normativity around a specific itinerary, I think. Their itinerary dictated what they would and would not take a stand on.
We need to discuss the roles and responsibilities carefully. As pastors and leaders, we can only function at an effective level in a ministry that shares our personal values and philosophy of leadership. Changing the ministry culture without teaching and discipleship is pastoral suicide. The pastor must be sensitive to the culture while being led by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. I have seen many Pastor/wife teams or husband/wife teams that function well together in leadership when the roles are well defined. I have also seen situations where no faithful male leaders were available and the women filled the gap (in a war torn area where men would have been seen as a military target, the missionary was seen correctly as the shepherdess on a mission field). Discretion is advised.
“The denial of complementarianism undermines the church’s practical
embrace of the authority of Scripture (thus eventually and inevitably
harming the church’s witness to the Gospel). The gymnastics required to
get from “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a
man,” in the Bible, to “I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise
authority over a man” in the actual practice of the local church, are
devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of
the people of God.”
Wow it is amazing how relevant this is to our Facebook conversation today. 🙂 This quote has it all…
Fear Mongering: “devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of
the people of God.”
False Cause:”thus eventually and inevitably
harming the church’s witness to the Gospel”
Appeal to Authority:”The denial of complementarianism undermines the church’s practical
embrace of the authority of Scripture”
I cannot believe this came from Lig Duncan.
yeah… Able… especially relevant, huh?
I couldn’t believe it either. I mean… I just got done writing a review for Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views and was increasingly aware of how silly hard-line Complementarians are when they pull out the “we just believe the Bible” card. Oh man…
It’s just as complex as when Complementarians work through the differences in a woman preaching and a woman prophesying and how one is a “teaching” role and the other is actually not, even though it’s hard to get around the fact that God-inspired revelation on some level sure seems to be geared towards teaching at some level.
There are complexities that people are just simply not wiling to address (or admit).
Good points!
I’ve never heard about the background… so I can’t comment on that… but it’s an interesting idea.
You didn’t sit back, by the way. You shared some good thoughts… keep it up 🙂
Luke
I love you bro! Thanks for kindling our thinking. Here’s what I propose:
Do get drunk on wine! I mean culturally speaking Paul couldn’t have meant what he meant by making such limitations on sobriety. Or I know don’t get drunk on wine but on BEER. Because wine is the word used there not beer. So obviously Paul was limiting his limitations to wine and not other forms of intoxicating substances. In all seriousness, I hope you see what I am doing with the text. It says what it says. I see cessationists doing the same thing as egalitarians by not wrestling with the text as it stands.
Is it valid to say the issue is rooted in creation (1 Cor 11) and uses the man/woman relationship as a picture of the Gospel (Eph 5) and that’s why this is elevated over baptism. There is no better time to preach the good news than at a wedding. It would be strange to try to preach, “As Jesus leads the church or is sometimes lead by the church so you Johnny College lead and sometime be lead by your beautiful wife”
In all seriousness, wouldn’t it be wise for us to seek women who are complementarians and why they have taken such a position. Let them speak to the issue. They would be the ones “missing” out of the “opportunities.”
Without going into great detail, I see the issue as issue with authority and being more influenced by society than Scripture.
Thinking this through with you
Judd
Judd,
Thanks for sharing! I agree that, often times, this issue boils down to a lot of cultural influence rather than strict exegetical/hermeneutical interaction.
I also think weddings are wonderful time to preach the gospel! But no more so than during baptisms or the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
That’s, I THINK, Trueman’s point (and the one that I share).
For me, this isn’t really about whether or not Complementarianism is correct or incorrect (as important as that discussion is)… it’s more about parachurch ministries and how they select the “primary” doctrines that they choose to make “center.”
I was a part of a “parachurch” ministry that had some super unhealthy “centers” now that I’ve had time to think about it…
On a side note… I love dark beer. Please do not ever say I can’t drink it. 🙂
What do you think (about the other stuff)??
Luke
I still think how God designed us in his image takes precedence over whether one is sprinkled as a baby or dunked as an adult.
I just reread Trueman’s last point -Yes, she sure could worship and take communion but just not exercise authority over a man :).
I agree totally with your position on parachurch organizations and their tendencies.
This is a defense from a woman who is complementation.
http://www.girlsgonewise.com/complementarianism-for-dummies/
Great Illustrations!
From her conclusion
A complementarian is a person who believes that God created male and female to reflect complementary truths about Jesus.
This statement is why I think it is more important than other issues.
Blessings to you
Judd
Judd,
The fact that you would allow her to take communion means that you are closer to my point than I thought 🙂 ha ha ha!
It’s certainly possible that I could be wrong about this, so I’m glad for your interaction.
I will certainly acknowledge that I’ve never met a Complementarian that held to a very high view of Scripture (inerrancy) and have met plenty of Egalitarians who had less than conservative perspectives on Scripture.
But I’ve met a ton of Egalitarians who simply do not fit the warnings of Piper and Grudem (whom I both really appreciate). And as I’ve been spending more time in the area of hermeneutics, I still think it’s more complex than just a simple “the Bible says, that settle’s it” because, in many instances, there are some challenges to both perspectives.
But at the end of the day, I experientially deal with the negative and absolutely false-assurance-granting issue of paedobaptism in my community all of the time… so I see it as a pretty serious issue 🙂
You are probably right though… maybe I just have a man-crush on Trueman. ha ha
Ha ha
Hermeneutics – Agreed!
It IS a hermeneutics issue. You would get all over me and say “but that’s what it says” if I said sign gifts are NOT for today. You would take me to the Bible and say, “how do you deal with how the text sits as is.” So believe you me it IS a hermeneutics issue.
If we are going to argue that sign gifts are for today (a subject I wrestle with). I cannot do the exegetical gymnastics that I was brought up on to convince you otherwise. You would not allow me to twist the texts.
I am merely saying one cannot go to 1 Timothy 2:12 and say “well it really does not say that.” It does. Paul also calls women “weaker vessels” and “weak women burdened by sins” AND, notice the all caps, he exalts Phoebe and Euodia and Synteche and Priscilla. Proverbs 7 shows one in all her seduction. Paul, and complementarians, have no hatred for women (nor do they like the term man-crush :)). They just see the Bible is calling men to lead. Has it been done well in the past, yes by some, not so by many. In a similar way, just because sex is perverted in our culture doesn’t mean we give it up. We redeem it.
Maybe hermeneutics or complementarianism is what I right on 🙂
If you have not, you should read Of God and Guinness
Gotta run and this was fun!
Judd
Judd,
First, I think you need to remember that I am a card carrying Complementarian 🙂 I do not make arguments that attempt to get around what I believe the exegetical (and hermeneutical) conclusion of texts in 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 11, and 14 say.
But I would state that I think there are good reasons why Egalitarians reject what I see in those texts. Not great reasons, mind you, but certainly I can see where scholars such as Grant Osborne or Gordon Fee are coming from (or, to name a few others, Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright, and Craig Keener as well as the late Roger Nicole). Am I convinced by their exegesis? No, I am not. But do I think they are simply choosing to ignore the Bible and follow the culture of the world we are in? No, I do not think so.
And that is simply my point. It seems to me that it is a bit misleading to pander to fellow Complementarians with language and rhetoric that implies Egalitarians are all opposed to the functional authority of Scripture, because the vast majority of Evangelical Egalitarians that I personally know simply do not fall into that category. I think statements like that need to be a bit more nuanced and perhaps balanced out a bit more (hence Able and my concern of Lig’s quote).
And actually, to make my point further, I don’t know any Egalitarians that do not acknowledge that Paul tells Timothy not to permit women to teach. No one that I have read or had conversations with has ever tried to do some sort of “exegetical gymnastics.” The key issue is whether a statement like that (which I too agree is grounded in creation order) that occurred in a clearly Patriarchal society, is still to be applied today (the hermeneutics issue generally touches on issues of missiology from here, interestingly).
I mean, there are plenty of commands that, from an outside perspective, seem to be “exegetical gymnastics” if you want to simplify things that way (e.g., why women are no longer commanded to wear hats during worship and why women are no longer commanded to keep their hair long and what length of hair is acceptable for men, etc.). I do not find those arguments that we Complementarians make as incorrect, but they are certainly careful arguments that attempt to understand both the ancient world’s cultural context, the actual contextual meaning of words (e.g., kephale), and the way that those principles (for lack of a better word) are applied in today’s post-modern world (or modernistic, if that is the culture you are in, right? ha ha).
Here’s the gist, the debate between covenant theology, dispensationalism, and new covenant theology (Kingdom through Covenant is excellent, by the way) is certainly complex and there are a variety of issues that lead paedobaptists to conclude that baptizing the children of believing parents is biblical. And most Baptists who are aware of the issues surrounding that debate seem to do a good job of acknowledging that on one hand, the issue is complex and that paedobaptists have biblical arguments that lead them to their conclusions and on the other hand, they are able to say, the Bible nowhere teaches the church to baptize infants.
All I’m asking is for Complementarians to maybe read a little wider than Piper and Grudem on the subject. Read Fee, Keener, Witherington, and Wright and interact with their arguments and not the straw man ad hominems that seem really prevalent in the gender landscape (not that you are anyone HERE is doing that… I’m just speaking in general terms here).
I’m a Complementarian. I believe that men and women are to serve in unique and complementary roles. And for years, I hears all of these really concerning statements about what Egalitarians believed and how they reached their conclusions and how their views undermined biblical authority, etc., etc. Yet when I started actually reading their writings, I found out that a lot of what I was told, simply wasn’t what they actually believed or how they actually got to their conclusions. It’s similar to when I was a card-carrying Arminian getting all my information about Calvinists from Arminians until one day when I started reading Calvin and Sproul and Piper and Boettner. All of a sudden I found out that (1) Calvinists believed in evangelism, (2) Calvinists believed in prayer, (3) Calvinists believed in the work of the Holy Spirit, and (4) not all Calvinists were jerks! And, after examining Scripture more, I found myself slowly becoming, well, Reformed.
Maybe that’s a concern I (and others?) have about examining the arguments that Egalitarians have. Maybe I’ll become one if I keep reading their writings? I don’t know… I have read almost everyone (I forgot to mention William Webb), and I still am a Complementarian… but I have a better idea of why my friends who love Jesus and love the gospel and love the kingdom believe differently than I do on that issue, and it certainly helps when we are working together for the gospel… thus, it’s sad that conservative Egalitarians (many who are Calvinists) can’t get involved with those organizations…
Anyway, yeah, I agree with most of what you are saying… and maybe I’m just seeking to be irenic. I find myself in the “middle ground” quite a bit. And when I’m among Egalitarians who are misrepresenting my views as a Complementarian and warning all the Egalitarians that those of us who are “fundamentalists” are destroying the Christian faith, I take just as strong an issue and make just as much noise. ha ha.
Okay, I need to go too. I appreciate your thoughts… and largely agree with your conclusions regarding gender issues anyway, so we’re still friends (I hope!!) and I’d love for you to write about whatever topic you saw fit to write on, except advocating Dispensationalism (ha ha ha, jk).
And yes, I have read God and Guiness. I loved it. 🙂