« New Orleans Baptist Association calls for censorship of Baptist state paper | Main | Why do so many young evangelicals hate America so much? »

Jul 22, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Scott Shaver

No sound biblical hermeneutical principle indeed. Kudos Pete.

peter lumpkins

Thanks Scott. I do see in Scripture what could be called a male "headship" notion, and for that reason I would be considered a complementarian. But I absolutely defy the notion that we employ the Trinity to prove it. If I can't demonstrate it through an exegetical exercise, little desire in me wants to embrace it.

Frankly, I'm beginning to think complementarianism--at least the version of it being hawked today--stems more from a hermeneutical trajectory originating in strict Calvinism than any where else--a foundation built upon theological interpretation instead of exegetical interpretation.

Scott Shaver

I'm in 100 percent agreement with your theory on "hawked" complementarianism.

Robert Vaughn

"...complementarianism--at least the version of it being hawked today--stems more from a hermeneutical trajectory originating in strict Calvinism than any where else..."

Interesting theory. What are your ideas on why modern strict Calvinists would build this theological interpretation, but the apparently strict Calvinists of the Philadelphia Association did not?

Thanks.

Stephen Garrett

Thanks for the info.

Stephen Garrett

Scott Shaver

Robert Vaughn:

Are you talking about the difference between the modus operandai of contemporary SBC "reform calvinism" or the more general catgegory.

If you're talking about he mutant SBC version I would say that a perpetuation of their "women under foot" mentality holds sway.

Lydia

"Interesting theory. What are your ideas on why modern strict Calvinists would build this theological interpretation, but the apparently strict Calvinists of the Philadelphia Association did not?"

Because they were not threatened by masses of educated voting women who did not know their place in the late 1700's? :o)

Scott Shaver

Lydia nails the problem on the head.

They're afraid of women, afraid of racism (against blacks only) and afraid of anyone who doesn't buy into their shibboleths. The "Gospel" has very little to do with any of this "mindset".

They want to be treated in an even and fair-handed fashion by lesser evangelicals for the sake of "The Gospel then they need to quit corrupting the message and central feature of "The Gospel".

peter lumpkins

Robert,

Good question. Hermeneutics may account for some of it. On my bookself above my head, I'm looking at Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by G. Goldsworthy, a popular text on biblical interpretation used in today's Baptist seminaries (I have others in my library reflecting this school of interpretation as well which also are used in our seminaries). The major thrust is theological interpretation of Scripture rather than the classic evangelical historical-grammatical approach used by evangelicals of all soteriological stripes, including Baptist Calvinists.

eric

Are folks here taking the position that the historic baptist complementarian view is wrong and the baptist church should moved towards an egalitarian view of church leadership?

Eric

Tom

What do you mean by historic baptist complementarian view?

Lydia

Eric, the word, complementarian, was coined in the 80's. Hardly historic. Before that, it was just plain old patriarchy. And many Christians, outside certain bubbles, think it is ok to agree to disagree on such matters. Unless you think it is part of the Gospel and salvation is comprised listening to a female speak of Christ from scripture as Piper does.

As for me, I think it is wise to stick with the 58 "one anothers" which appear to be gender blind. :o)

Eric

Hey,
I mean the historic baptist view that women are not to have leadership over men in church.
Women are not to be pastors. Etc.
You know.....

Eric

I would say it's clear that scripture is not gender blind. There are clearly different roles for men and women, with one called to submit to the other. And at the same time that other is to submit to another.

Tom

Eric said:"I would say it's clear that scripture is not gender blind. There are clearly different roles for men and women, with one called to submit to the other. And at the same time that other is to submit to another."

Eric, it is as clear as mud! You say the scriptures are gender blind, but many of us see them as blind. Who is right or wrong?

Eric

Tom
Of course I am right......just teasing.
I've had many conversations with my charismatic friends who have women leaders.,
I understand why they have come to that conclusion, though I disagree.

Our scriptures have many words which address women leadership. You know what they say, yet for some reason don't think they apply.

So, do you think the baptist church should change its current and historic position on women leadership in the church.
Eric

Tom

I think there should be room for both positions.

Scott Shaver

What is "the Baptist Church".

There are many baptists but I do not know of a centralized "baptist church".

As for it's "historic" position, views have obviously been varied on the role and utilization of women in Christian ministry.

Eric, in the clearly different biblical roles you see for men and women, doesn't it say that a man should provide for his household both materially and spiritually?

I've seen a lot a guys in seminary whose wives were bringing home the bacon and paying the bills. What's your assessment of "missing the mark" in cases like that?

peter lumpkins

"Are folks here taking the position that the historic baptist complementarian view is wrong and the baptist church should moved towards an egalitarian view of church leadership?"

The "folks here" are all over the map in Baptist life, Eric. As for this blog, I've been clear where I stand on the gender issue, even on the present thread.

But let's also be clear about something else. The "historic baptist complementarian view" you cite is much too greasy to be a useful description of where Baptists have stood throughout their rich heritage. What do we think Lottie Moon did in China, weave baskets to fulfill her call to missions? No, she preached the gospel. Does that make her a prime example for modern egalitarians contra complementarians? No, for the NT reason that while all Pastors are preachers (or should be) not all preachers are Pastors. Undoubtedly, Moon would have rejected an attempt to "ordain" her into the pastoral ministry, probably for similar, if not identical, reasons I would object.

What is more, 19th century Separate Baptists were notorious for allowing women to fill the pulpit, hardly a practice about which we "Trads" who boast of our Sandy Creek tradition would gleefully maintain (Separate Baptists had a few other practices that would spin our heads around at least a couple times!).

Tragically, today's gender complementarians have become so obsessed with "proving" their view to be the correct one, some of them have gone Tarzan bananas in their insistence over it. Moreover, to exploit the Eternal Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity in an attempt to prove their point is not only overkill, it's theologically dangerous to do so. I want no part of it.

Robert Vaughn

Thanks, Peter. I think you are right that a difference into hermeneutics accounts for some of the difference between certain modern strict Calvinistic Baptists and the Baptists of the Philadelphia Association on eternal generation and complementarianism. I guess I'm old enough or backward enough (or both!) to not know much about "Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics". I was schooled in the historical-grammatical approach. I think there may also be some of what Lydia alludes to. Because the complementarian view of some of these modern strict Calvinistic Baptists sticks out from the general societal expression of male-female relationships, they may feel compelled to find any and all extra support that they can.

To be clear to Eric and others, I take a complementarian view myself.

Tom

Robert: Sincere question when you say--" I take a complementarian view myself." What does that mean?

peter lumpkins

Another little secret few have been or are aware. One of the "founding" editors of Founders Journal, a theological journal of Founders Ministries, was none other than the late Dr. Roger Nicole (Nicole, though deceased, is still listed on the Founders site as editor of its journal). What's interesting is, Nicole happened also to be one of the founding theologians of Christians for Biblical Equality, the lifeblood of evangelical egalitarian thinking and reigning nemesis of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. What an interesting time to be Baptist!

Lydia

I always forget about Nicole. Back when I was doing research on this sort of thing and looking at different approaches to scripture interpretation and historical context, I was shocked to see how many of the older scholars were from the reformed tradition

eric

Scott,
I would limit my discussion to the SBC. Only because that's what I'm a part of.

I don't see a biblical prohibition for the "women bringing home the bacon", I have friends that do, I'm not one of them. So I wouldn't say a man is missing the mark when it does happen. Listen, if my wife wants to climb to the top of the corporate chain...she has my support.

Nor do I know of a biblical prohibition for a woman having authority over a man in a job setting or more specifically outside of the home or church.

What I and everyone else here sees is the abundance of biblical text which addresses the subject of church leadership. I don't have the authority to change what God has written. (I'm not suggesting anyone here thinks they do)

Robert Vaughn

Tom, I made that statement mainly in reference to Eric's wondering what positions were being taken here. I have no interest in debating the topic. In short, to me complementarianism means that men and women have different roles in the church and in the home. Is there something more specific you'd like to know?

Tom

Robert: Thanks for the response. You answered my question.

eric

Lydia,
You wrote:
And many Christians, outside certain bubbles, think it is ok to agree to disagree on such matters. Unless you think it is part of the Gospel and salvation is comprised listening to a female speak of Christ from scripture as Piper does.

Did you mean "compromised"

That doesn't sound like something Piper would say.

Please provide your reference so i can look it up.

Thanks,

Tom

Eric:

Do you believe their is room for the Comp and Egal views in the SBC?

Robert Vaughn

Tom, you're welcome. BTW, complementarianism is not term we use in "real life" and probably most folks in our church would have to have it explained to them. I do use it on the internet as shorthand since it is in common use here.

eric

Tom,
Of all the reading I've done (long ago) from my Charismatic friends promoting women elders/pastors, I could not see any way around the words of our God who is the author of what is and isn't permitted.

It seems some on this site will use the heavy handed tactics of some leaders to counter the Biblical view of male headship.

When both men and women are living under the God given roles they have each been given, Yahtzee...peace and harmony.

NO, there isnt room for women elders in the church until God changes our roles.

Tom

Eric: You said:"NO, there isnt room for women elders in the church until God changes our roles."

Thanks for your honesty.

Do you believe in ESS?

eric

Tom,
I Think God has revealed that HE (father/son/spirit)is the same yesterday/today and tomorrow. He certainly has not revealed everything about himself and I don't think this side of heaven (if then) we even have the capacity to understand all that he is.

Tom

Eric:

Do you believe in the Eternal Subordination of the Son?

eric

Hey Tom,
That's what I answered.
I don't know that it matters.
Good folks from both sides disagree.

Except to say "God has revealed that HE (father/son/spirit)is the same yesterday/today and tomorrow".

Frankly, I'm not qualified (knowledgeable enough)to give a theological response one way or the other.

Tom

Eric:

you said:"I don't know that it matters.
Good folks from both sides disagree."

I think it does matter. Because what I understand about ESS the earthly roles of men and women continue in heaven.

I see no Biblical support for this.

eric

Well that really shows that I'm not qualified.
I didn't know that, seems a stretch.

Could be one of many misconceptions man has of the afterlife. I've never had an interest in conjecturing what that life will be, what roles men and women will play (if we even look at each other as a gender).Its pointless because we just don't know. Except to rejoice that we will no longer be sinners, that we will dwell with our great God.

Scott Shaver

Holy Cow:

If "the earthly roles of men and women continue in heaven"...these guys have converted to Mormonism.

Pete is absolutely correct. Want nothing to do with ESS.

Lydia

"Did you mean "compromised"

Yes, I did. Thanks for catching that

"That doesn't sound like something Piper would say.

Please provide your reference so i can look it up."

Piper has been prolific on this subject and it is no secret. At Bethleham, he did not even allow Women to read scripture aloud to the church. The pastor who took his place changed that rule, thankfully.

Piper has consistently promoted complementarian doctrine as part of the gospel. There is plenty of Piper out there to research yourself. After 16 years of it, I think the man is a bit looney and not going to do your homework for you. . Do you read his tweets? it could very well be that you just don't see it because you bring your own preconceived notion's to the table when it comes to piper and because of his fliwery verbosity, arm waving, voice inflection and overuse of adjectives, many young men miss it because they are focused on the passionate delivery. He is practically worshiped by a large segment of the Neo cal movement.

peter lumpkins

Lydia,

I agree with your reservation concerning the extreme, hard-line complementarianism into which, I think, both Piper & Grudem led the CBMW. Indeed I think it's the hard-line hermeneutic that created the need for ESS to ground its functional implications in the first place.

The truth is very few SBC churches follow hard-line complementarianism in actual practice. Both rural and county-seat First Baptist Churches historically and routinely allow and encourage women in leadership roles that would drive hard-line complementarian guys like Piper & Grudem to conclude they were heretics--or worse still, egalitarians!

Not that they believe in women as pastors nor would ordain them to do or be so.

Rather that they routinely allow women to pray publicly, address the congregation from the pulpit, offer personal testimonies, teach co-ed adult Sunday School classes, and in more rarer cases, allow women to lead congregational music. One reason they do so is because of the laziness of men. But moreso it's because they don't usually possess a hard-line complementarian hermeneutic.

eric

Lydia,
Not asking you to do my homework.

You said piper said the following.
Gospel and salvation is compromised listening to a female speak of Christ from scripture as Piper does.

I'm saying that doesn't sound like something he would say and simply want the source.

I think you made this up, he does promote female missionaries.

Anyway, there is plenty of fodder from what Piper actually says....don't have to make things up or take things out of context.

Lydia

Evidently I did not double check my words. For some reason my device is not excepting my Corrections. It is even capitalizing when I don't want it to. Can we just overlook the bad grammar? :o) I am an old fashioned gal who likes a keyboard I can type on.

Let's start over.

". Unless you think it is part of the Gospel and salvation is comprised listening to a female speak of Christ from scripture as Piper does."

It should read:

Unless you think the Gospel and salvation are compromised by listening to a female speak of Christ from the scripture as Piper does.

I will try to refrain from being in such a hurry next time.

Lydia

Pete, My 97 year old step dad, who has been SBC all his life and quite active as deacon and messenger, will tell anyone willing to listen, in his curmudgeonly way, that women have been the historic backbone of the SBC and especially in missions.

Things have really changed when a 97 year old man is more accepting of women functioning in the body than a 30 year old lead pastor. (Sad face)

Lydia

"For some reason my device is not excepting my Corrections."

I hate voice recognition and simply have to stop using it. That should be "accepting". Sheesh!

Lydia

"Indeed I think it's the hard-line hermeneutic that created the need for ESS to ground its functional implications in the first place."

I know variations of ESS have been around for a long time but the addition of roles in the Trinity mapped to marriage and pecking orders seems to have come from the Presbyterian theologian Geoge Knight III in a book he wrote in the late 70's that started making the rounds in theological academia.

It is interesting to map how such teaching makes its way to the pews. I really wish some of the young seminarians would do deeper digging instead of just excepting what they are taught. When ESS is coupled with Bruce Ware's teaching that women are not made in the direct image of God but are a derivative, much damage is done to the Body and it's less important members.

peter lumpkins

I hear you, Lydia. I agree 100%. And I'm only 63, not 97!

Scott Shaver

Agreement here as well on the hard line hermeneutic. Theology forcing round peg into square hole for the purpose of justifying a previously stated dogma.

The comments to this entry are closed.