« If the Top Men take over, who will ask the hard questions? - Reformed theologian and author Carl Trueman on Reformation21 Blog | Main | H. Ray Newman, Georgia Baptist statesman, dies Nov. 25 by Joe Westbury, Managing Editor, The Christian Index »



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


Well, of course it was inevitable this stuff would go down a ridiculous road. There are too many signs to point if one was paying attention but when John Piper promotes Doug Wilson, that is a way- too- far- down- that -road, clue. But if anyone was paying attention a while back, Paige Patterson has been basically Gothardite for a while. And that is NOT a good thing.

“God designed us in such a way where we learn about him through family relationships,” Russ Moore

There is so much much wrong with this it is hard to know where to begin. In fact, one needs Paul to twist in order to not look like a ridiculous fool at such a statement. But one could never use Jesus for this one. Such is the state of what passes for scholarship in Christendom today.

So what do we do with Jesus? He is told his family is outside and what does He answer? Surprise. Then we have Him galvanting around the region with women who are supporting him financially. We know that at least one of them left her husband back at the palace to do so. Gender roles? And who does Jesus ask to look after his mom from the cross? His family? Nope. Then we have a problem with Peter. We know he was married. But taking care of his family? How did people see the Gospel through Peter's marriage? Why would Jesus call him to follow Him if the Gospel was designed to be seen in family relationships? That becomes a big problem when we look at His followers.

Then we have a shocking statement from our Lord in Matthew 10:34-40. Where does that fit in if we are serious followers today?

Look, the problem for Moore is the only way one can have control over others is to teach this stuff. You need it al the way down to the pew. When people start seeking the Holy Spirit they get way too independent and it ruins it for the authoritarians. Those who need power to feel important need someone to have power over.

I think the whole egal/comp fight is basically over. We just do not realize it yet. The internet killed it. For 10 years each side was trotting out its scholars. Many comps had NO idea the egals had decent scholars. That right there was a wake up call. You mean we were indoctrinated? You mean authenteo does not mean authority over? Ezer has warrior overtones? The list goes on.

Those who are led to "do" are leaving the institutions anyway because they are becoming stifling and more and more are wondering what they are supporting. You see this in many age groups including the baby boomers. I have never seen the likes of it I have seen in the last 5 years. People who spent their lives serving the institution are getting out or feel they were driven out.

I think it is healthy because the institutions have become about the leaders. Moores statement is just another in a long line that prove it. There are plenty of ignorant youngen's who will believe him...for a while. We have an aging SBC pastor pool who believe in the Baptist Priesthood of believer thinking. So it is almost dead.

We really did waste a lot of time fighting gender wars that were silly and delighted Satan because it kept us so busy focused on that. It was big money though for many. People love rules, roles and formulas and will pay big bucks looking for just the right formula. Anything but abiding in Christ which is much more demanding. And besides, I think single moms/dads are a family and have seen His kindgom at work there many times.

How about Russ Moore grow up? And people thought Land was embarassing. Oh and don't forget, Doug Phillips' recent scandal plays into this in ways people do not realize. Patriarchy is the comp position. A few years back, Moore was saying comps are wimps and we need more patriarchy. It was all going the way of Phillips', Wilson, etc, who were considered "fringe" just a few years back. Piper has been wacko patriarchal for years. It was always there. People just did not admit it.

Bill Mac

I have to give you this one. It is impossible not to see rigid complementarianism in today's prominent Calvinists. I remember reading one such blog post that suggested that women should not even be allowed to read scripture in church.

Paul Owen

Perhaps this shows how silly is the "Reformed" tendency to use the term gospel so widely that it applies to every facet of human existence. Husbands do not "preach" the gospel through their marital role, nor do wives preach the gospel when they prepare casseroles for the church potluck. The more you attempt to apply the gospel to every realm of life, the more you dilute its spiritual message.

I agree that the office of bishop is a fatherly role and hence male-oriented. But the problems with the church today run much deeper than misplaced gender roles, and the Reformed tendency to denigrate and downplay the spiritual gifts of women is, of the two extremes, the greater evil.

Scott Shaver

2 Peter 2

But there were also false prophets among the people just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed, these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.

Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.


A New Calvinist icon within Southern Baptist ranks is Matt Chandler. He holds dual roles as pastor of SBC's Village Church in Texas, as well as President, Acts 29. He sums his macho man complementarian view this way: "I teach to men". Women have about as much chance exercising their spiritual gifts in an SBC reformed church as a cheeseburger going uneaten in the Clinton White House! Lesser citizens they are in the reformed Kingdom - cook, spawn, and remain silent in church, woman! When the multitudes of young women trapped in this mess finally realize this, they will bail out in great numbers.


Lydia writes "We have an aging SBC pastor pool who believe in the Baptist Priesthood of believer thinking. So it is almost dead."

You can also add "soul competency" to the growing list of Baptist doctrines going the way of the bald eagle and other rare and endangered species. The 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith & Message diminished these doctrines to make room for a more reformed position under the big tent of unity in diversity. Baptist identity is disappearing rapidly. This distorted view of Christian man/woman is an intrusion in the Christian liberty of ALL believers, particularly women. I tell my dear wife (the spiritual one in the family) that she is one of godliest men I know ;^) ... and that's coming from one of the most conservative Southern Baptists you will ever meet!

David (NAS) Rogers

As I pointed out in my comments to the original article at the ABP site, I think the writer, Bob Allen, framed his summation about egalitarian marriage and "false gospel" without providing enough quotations from Dr. Moore which drew that connection. I said there:

{I find this article [the ABP article] to be a manufactured analysis. The headline misleadingly frames the issue, and the leading sentence continues it.

Moore says, “When that is broken down, you have a false gospel that is being preached.” The antecedent for the demonstrative pronoun “that” is “one-flesh union of husband and wife.” The destruction of that is the “false gospel.”

The next cited quotation is: “And sometimes you have people who are preaching a false gospel to themselves in their homes by men who aren’t loving their wives as themselves and wives who aren’t submitting to their husbands,” he said.

The article writer sums that up in the lead sentence: “Egalitarian couples “preach a false gospel” by viewing men and women as equal partners in marriage. . .”

If Moore made comments that would deserve that summation, I do not see them. It seems the writer has failed as a journalist.}

I am no apologist for Dr. Moore or Calvinists or hard complementarians, but I need more quotes from Dr. Moore in order to see that the summation given by Allen represents what Moore said. If they are in the original interview a good journalist would have done better in presenting them.

I would like to introduce the term "proportionalist" for consideration with regards to the gender role debate.

peter lumpkins

Max has the line of Thanksgiving week: "I tell my dear wife (the spiritual one in the family) that she is one of godliest men I know ;^) ..." Priceless!

peter lumpkins


Thanks. I'll re-read both Allen and Moore. Lord bless...


David (NAS) Rogers,

What you may not realize is that many of us have been reading Moore for a long while now. Did you ever read his article written for the Henry Institute a while back? Trust me, I know his views on the subject. (When you couple this with their redefining the "Gospel" and applying it to everything, there is no misunderstanding)

And there is worse coming out of SBTS. A few years back, Bruce Ware was teaching that "unsubmissive wives trigger abuse". He was also teaching that women were not made in the "direct image of God but were a derivative"

There is a sickness at SBTS that goes deep on this and some other issues.

And keep in mind, they communicate in ways that say the same thing they won't articulate directly but you come to that conclusion.



You have pulled a statement "He was also teaching that women were not made in the "direct image of God but were a derivative"" totally out of context from Bruce Ware. Your hatred for SBTS is shining through.

Here is a link to the article with the statement you yanked.


You can search for the word "derivative" to find the area. Read a few paragraphs before the word and through to see how Lydia totally takes the statement out of context.

Ware's comments a few paragraphs prior.

"I will here propose that it may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made image of God first, in an unmediated fashion, as God formed him from the dust of the ground, while the female was made image of God second, in a mediated fashion, as God chose, not more earth, but the very rib of Adam by which he would create the woman fully and equally the image of God. So, while both are fully image of God, and both are equally the image of God, it may be the case that both are not constituted as the image of God in the identical way. Scripture gives some clues that there is a God-intended temporal priority[16] bestowed upon the man as the original image of God, through whom the woman, as image of God formed from the male, comes to be. "

Now, one can take issue with Ware's view about how to understand what the Apostle Paul's is saying in 1 Cor 11, but he DOES NOT teach that women are not fully in the image of God or not equally in the image of God as men are.


Lydia writes "And there is worse coming out of SBTS. A few years back, Bruce Ware was teaching that "unsubmissive wives trigger abuse". He was also teaching that women were not made in the "direct image of God but were a derivative."

Whew, Christian women need to use that rib on Ware's noggin for such teaching! When young women trapped in the New Calvinism movement begin to seek God on these things, rather than what their 30 year old YRR preacher says, they will flee NC ranks in great numbers. Constraining the Christian liberty of anyone is spiritual abuse.


Nate, You assume he taught that once and you incorrectly assumed it has anything at all to do with 1st Corinthian 11. I ha ve never in my life seen guys take so much out at 1st Corinthians 11 that is not there. They found ESS in there,too.

All of this has been debated to death on many blogs over the years. I suppose I should assume You're blind devotion to SBTS Matches what you think is my hatred.okey dokey.


Lydia (love that name, sister!) -

"I think the whole egal/comp fight is basically over. We just do not realize it yet."

I hope so. Because patriarchy is detrimental to men and women and diminishes the wonderful freedom the Gospel imparts.

"The internet killed [patriarchy]."

Well; the Lord Jesus Christ killed it by His mind-blowing, socially scandalous treatment of women as equals to men. But - today's cyber-study tools do help to clarify the matter for those truly seeking Him ;)

"...[They]...more and more are wondering what they are supporting...People who spent their lives serving the institution are getting out or feel they were driven out."

Yes. THIS.

Why? Not just a reaction to religious confederates calling for "patriarchy", it's also, "Earth is 6,000 years old - or else you don't REALLY believe the Bible"; "MasterWorks quarterlies featuring studies by women authors will not be used because Paul suffers not a woman to teach or have authority over a man"; judging one's salvation can (and should) be done via political party affiliation; it's theological maneurverings like "the eternal subordination of the Son"; it's "Christian nation" revisionism that actually leads some to cry for public stonings, floggings, etc, for the sexually immoral.

It is, in a word, legalism.

God bless great Biblical scholars like F.F.Bruce, Stuart and Jill Briscoe, Walter Kaiser, Jr., Alice Mathews, John Stackhouse, Jr., Gilbert Bilezikian, Carolyn Custis James, John Kohlenberger III and so many others who, far from following a false gospel, teach it accurately. I thank God for them.

dr. james willingham

I,too, think this is the cutting edge of extremism, making out noted strict Calvinists who hold to gender egalitarianism as followers of a "false gospel". In fact, I think it is patently absurd on the face of it. Moore is following in leadership of Mohler who is following Carl F.H. Henry or so I understand from readings of various materials. Evidently, they do not exegete as carefully as they should; they lack the intellectual aspect of exegesis, one of the great factors in exegesis that is almost totally lacking in much of the theology and ministry of our day. Let me say that I like Mohler and Henry and much of what they have written, but it is evident the none of them have dealt much with the realities of the word and of life in the area of gender relationships. I will close by using an illustration from John Piper's blog in which he mentioned that his mother, in the absence of his father (away on revivals), could and did act with all the authority of a man. Nuff said!

David (NAS) Rogers


My response was not directly about Dr. Moore. It was directed toward the ABP article and the way it was written. Moore may very well hold the views ascribed to him. I just didn't see the quotes in the article representing what Bob Allen's summation reporting made of them. If Moore said more in the interview, responsible journalism should have cited the statements that make the summation by Allen more accurate. If Moore has said previously similar ideas then they should have been noted. My critique is of the journalism.





Thanks for your comment and reminding me of our Lord's redemption from living out the fall. That is how I view this focus on patriarchy. Selling the sin of the fall as virtue. I find it insidious.

I would appreciate it if our comp/pat siblings in Christ would explain to me how I am able to seek to be Christlike since our Savior came as a male and gender roles are supposedly all important in our walk.


"Moore is following in leadership of Mohler ... they do not exegete as carefully as they should; they lack the intellectual aspect of exegesis ..."

Thank you Dr. Willingham for confirming the concern of many who visit this site.



Considering I quoted directly from Dr. Ware and you continue to cite hearsay and personal opinion, the issue is with you. As I said, you can feel free to disagree with Ware, but to claim that he stated that women were not created in the image of God is completely false. Either cite something with a link to a Ware quote or keep it to yourself. OKIE DOKIE...



Is there such a thing as "gender role" or specialties or gifts in a church that tends to favor a certain gender, that doesn't diminish or be demeaning to either a man or woman? (without being a secular chauvinist or feminist)

I have read blogs that focus on spiritual abuse and terms like Patriarchs and Matriarchs seem to carry a negative tag.

dr. james willingham

One of the sad results of a conflict like that of the Conservatives and Moderates is that it gives entry to folks whose real aim is to push things, views, leaders, and members to extremes. Sooner or later, the extremes reach a breaking point, and, Voila! things begin to fragment. Then we have the end of the greatest mission force and agency in the history of the Faith to date. The aim in the Primitive and Missionary was to accomplish that very purposes; the aim in the slavery debate was successful and resulted in a over 650,000 deaths on both sides or the equivalent of all casualties in all of the American wars from the beginning down to the Vietnam War when it exceeded 50,000.

Gender egalitarianism viewed in such a manner says in essence that Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall (for having eldresses in the 1700s in case some did not know this fact) were full of beans and have no place in our history, because they were followers of a false gospel! Baloney! Our hope is that such idiocy is merely the reflection of a preoccupation with narrowly framed issues and even more unscientific methods now extant, methods noted for being sorely analytical and lacking in the synthetical and, thus, unable to cope with situations where the null hypothesis is also true. Bah! The intellectualism of the present generation is sorely and painfully wanting. God willing they will wake up to the reality that there were allowances for differences made during the times of the Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions.

dr. james willingham

Peter, as a Calvinist and a Historian with a persuasion like that of Roger Nicole, it is also distressing to consider their lack of historical knowledge concerning how this theology opened the door for greater freedoms by a systems of checks and balances. As a former Licensed Professional Counselor who has had to dealt with situations involving spousal abuse, I see no checks and balances in the species of complementarianism of Moore and some of the others of that ilk.

(O yes, and Peter, please let me know, if you will not use a whole statement. After all, a text out of context is a pretext for what ever the user of such wants.)I do not expect you to publish this part)

The comments to this entry are closed.