A Progressive Theo-Political Blog Bringing You The Best and Worst of Baptist Life.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Wade Burleson Takes On Russell Moore

In his latest post, Can We All Agree to Disagree And Remain Friends?, Southern Baptist pastor and popular blogger, Wade Burleson, takes on Russell Moore. Moore serves as the Dean of Theology at Al Mohler's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Burleson takes exception to Moore's inflammatory rhetoric towards fellow bloggers. At one point during a lecture to SBTS students, Moore refers to some bloggers as "immature jerks" and others as "blogofascists."

Blogofascists? Sheesh.

So, who is Russell Moore?

"I wonder how many churches recruit older women to teach our girls that the greatest success they can find is not to be the first Southern Baptist female President of the United States or to tithe more money as a monied Southern Baptist bank executive but to be a wife and mother?"
"Let's outbreed the Mormons and out-preach the Pentecostals."
"I am not seeking to raise sons who are violent in the amoral, pagan sense of contemporary teenagers playing Grand Theft Auto video games or carjacking motorists. I want them to be more violent than that."

That's Russell Moore.

Burleson's post is definitely worth a read.

But, can Southern Baptists Agree to Disagree and Remain Friends? Is that a serious question? It hasn't worked in the past - what's changed?

Wade needs to remember that the ONLY way to cooperate with a Fundamentalist is to obey HIM.

Read Moore's articles in full HERE and HERE.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"With God all things are possible."Matthew 19:26. :)

5:35 AM

Blogger SWBTS Underground said...


you find this too?

3:45 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

We need to "outbreed" anyone? Who does he think we women are, mere breeders? Women are made in the image of God, with authority (Genesis 1:26); Bible women were prophetesses, judges, Supreme Court Justices, military leaders, apostles (Junia), deaconnesses (Phoebe), businesswomen, rulers (the Queen of Sheba, commended by Jesus in the New Testament); and in I Peter 2, priests before God. Yes, and wives and mothers too! This in a worse patriarchy than the world we live in today. Russell Moore's attitude toward women is not God's attitude at all.

7:44 PM

Blogger Big Daddy Weave said...

The views of Russ Moore (on women and family) seem to be representative of the SBC leadership (etc.)

If his views do not accurately portray Southern Baptists, I've yet to hear any objection...

8:12 PM

Blogger D.R. said...


Man, I think you really did a bad job here with your selected quotes of what Moore says, especially the one about violence and his sons. All these quotes need much more context than you give them, but you already know that. And these selected quotes are not a summary of who Russell Moore is. I've met Russell Moore, I've attended his SS class and I've heard him speak a dozen times. He is a gentle guy who often uses extreme language to convey his point (and I think we can safely say we all do this). And what is funny about what Kathryn said is that about every female who has ever had exposure personally to him absolutely loves the guy. He doesn't see women as simply breeders and that quote does not do justice to the context of what he was saying. He sees children as a blessing of the Lord and was comparing how Mormons view children to how Baptists view children. If we really believe that children are a blessing from God and are for our sanctification and his glorification, then we ought to outbreed Mormons. And that is not at all controversial. It's amazing what a little context will do.

BDW, I don't agree with everything Moore says and he often uses some strong language, but I don't think you have done him justice with this post and I think you should at the least either delete, rework, or add context to these quotes. Otherwise you actually undercut Burleson's argument by making Moore out to be an extremist who should be disregarded instead of the careful scholar who may have errored in his assessment of the SBC blogosphere (BTW Moore was referring to a small segment of the bloggers who do often dwell too much on the negative and end up causing unneccesary strife over issues that don't matter nearly as much as they are made out to be -- and that doesn't necessarily mean guys like Wade Burleson and Marty Duren -- but those guys are out there and they do need to be called out, not called "blogofascists", but "jerks" might be right on).

8:22 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

D.R., forgive us if we over-reacted, but this attitude is one that I've experienced all my life. It's true that I don't know Russell Moore, but I have been a Southern Baptist since I was born, and this belief is simply all too common. Maybe he is just using extreme rhetoric to make a point, but anti-woman prejudice is strong among our Southern Baptist leadership. I'm sure he's very personable, but maybe those women who like him upon meeting him simply don't know what he said.

8:46 PM

Blogger D.R. said...

Kathryn, I would understand how some would react the same way if these quotes were all he said, but there is a huge context behind all of these that BDW has left out. For example, in the first quote Moore is railing against how radical feminism has caused girls to believe that they MUST have a career to be successful, that they cannot simply be wives and mothers and feel fulfilled. If my wife felt she had to have a full-time career and couldn't be home to raise her children she would go crazy. She WANTS to stay home with kids - and this from a woman who has worked full time since she was 17 and once ran a HR department for a multimillion dollar company. She could be as successful as she wants, but she chooses family over career. For millions of women, this isn't an option because either society has made them feel inferior for being a stay-at-home-mom or greedy husbands require their wives to work so they can live more extravagent lives. Obviously there are cases on both sides of the "women's issue", but relegating Moore to the status a knuckle-dragging, woman-beater by virtue of three quotes with no context is certainly not fair (and I know that is not what you are doing, but rather what could be done by some who read this because of the lack of context for these quotes).

In the end I think that Complimentarians like myself have been mischaracterized because of abuses by husbands who do not understand the Biblical command to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. And definance to this command could be done by overbearing husbands or emasculated ones. I believe the majority of women feel most fulfilled when they are free to pursue the God-given desires of their hearts and over and over again studies have shown that the majority of women in America would like to stay home more and work less. Why then aren't they? I think society has been brutal to women, inciting them to work by making them feel inferior for staying home. In a recent book by Linda Hirshman, she claims that women who stay at home or quit working full-time after they get married and/or have children are "letting down the team" and wasting their lives! That to me is much worse than what Moore could be thought to be saying here.

I have gone way off topic here, but I hope you see the type of view that Moore is reacting against. He is not saying women should be inferior. In fact he doesn't ever claim they are not equal to men in intellect, skill, or anything else. He simply is saying they should be free to pursue what the desires God has placed within them and for most that is motherhood and home care. Shouldn't all women champion that?

9:18 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you D.R. As I said before, I grew up in a "complementarian" world, and I wouldn't go back. It limits women, and limits men too. Ultimately, it limits God. My main disagreement with comp-ism is the assumption of strict "gender roles" that allow little individuality, and no deviation from the "norm", even if God so calls. What of a woman who is called to preach? What of a father who is at home?. The glorification of the housewife is a subtle form of prejudice. Comp.-ism is patriarchy in a nice suit. It takes words such as "head" and "submit" and turns them into something they are not to prove male authority and female subordination. "Head" in Scripture doesn't mean "leader" or "authority over", but "source" or "origin", and is a picture of Genesis 2:22. "Submission" simply means "make yourselves available" and is enjoined upon all believers in Ephesians 5:21, and other places. The women I mentioned before, especially Deborah in Judges 4, wouldn't be comfortable in a complementarian church. Deborah was called to pastor an entire nation! Her husband most surely was a strong man to have a strong wife in those patriarchal times. Complementarians are generally nice people, and there are varying degrees of comp.-ism. Physical abuse is the most extreme form, but I believe most of it is subtle. Most comps. are genuinely horrified at domestic violence. I don't want to paint with a broad brush, but I've had too much experience with this form of theological prejudice. If you are a traditional couple and are not guilty of such prejudice, please do not take offense. My apologies for this long letter.

6:55 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

I inadvertently chose "Anonymous" in my last letter. If I have mischaracterized Russell Moore, it was unintentional.

6:58 PM

Blogger Kathryn said...

For more on all this, please visit Christians For Biblical Equality at cbeinternational.org for great discussion blogs and wonderful books, including Woman Be Free, and Heirs Together by Patricia Gundry.

7:21 PM

Blogger Big Daddy Weave said...

Yes, I do believe Russell Moore to be out in deep deep right field on issues of women and family.

If he's loved by those who knows him, great. I'm sure he's a really nice guy but that doesn't make his theology any less dangerous. If SBCers wish to be perceived more favorably by the general public - don't put Russ Moore on the front lines. Seriously.

I admit I have undercut Burleson's argument. Burleson is often too lovey-dovey with certain personalities. The fascist comment was uncalled for. Immature jerks? Yes. I only wish Moore would have named names of those Baptist Blogger(s). We all know who they speak of.

Radical Feminism is the Boogeywoman and Secularists are the Boogeymen. Right??

If a woman wants to be a homemaker, good for her (as long as its her decision alone). Never ever would I imply that Moore is a "wife-beating" kinda guy. But, obviously his understanding of equality and mine are completely different.

Maybe more later, but now I must cry as both my Georgia Bulldawgs and Yankees lost today...

9:38 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

Thank you Big Daddy Weave. Sorry about your teams. I've heard about "soft" patriarchs. I think they must be new to the cause. It has been my observation that complementarianism starts out soft and hardens over time.

10:51 PM

Blogger D.R. said...

Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous, I think your experience is a legitimate one, though I would question if it is a universal one that deems it worthy to make assumptions regarding all complimentarians. Certainly there are those who would practice a form of complimentarianism that don't truly understand it, as would be the same in the case of certain forms of feminism. So clearly experience alone is not enough to make a judgmnent call on the legitimacy of such a doctrine. I am glad to see that you have brought Scripture to bear on this, but I disagree with your interpretation of "head" in the Greek and if BDW will forgive me for posting this article twice in one night on his site, I refer you to Wayne Grudem's study on the word "kephale" in the Greek. As a recognized scholar in the Evangelical Theological Society and the Society of Biblical Literature and author of over a dozen books including his "Systematic Theology" which is a standard in most Evangelical seminaries in the U.S., his work is important and should be considered. Here is the link to the article: "The Meaning Of Kephale (“Head”):
An Evaluation Of New Evidence, Real And Alleged"

Kathryn, thanks for the cordial discussion. You have shown much grace in the face of disagreement and I greatly appreciate that. I will offer you a site as well that I think speaks wisely and in a Christlike manner. It is the site of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, on which there are dozens of articles by recognized scholars in the Evangelical Theological Society as well as the Society of Biblical Literature.

BDW, thanks for clarifying, but you have yet to recognize your mishandling of Russell Moore's quotes. Do you think that your posting of them without context was appropriate? Do you not think that such quotes are misleading without more details about what Moore was saying?

9:53 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

Thank you D.R. for your comments, and for the site. I already know about the Council Of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I looked up their website several weeks ago, and found a sermon title that went something like "How to lead when the wife won't follow". That's a terrible, demeaning, unscriptural attitude toward women, especially wives, under the guise of "theology". The idea that wives must be "led" like children is "soft" complementarianism at it's worst. It places an impossible burden on husbands too, as they must always be spiritually "superior" to their wives. All of CBMW was organized around similar teaching. This theology is built around men, not God. (They would disagree, I know). As I have said, I've noticed that "soft" patriarchy (male authority, female subordination) has a way of hardening as the years go by. Yay equality of authority! (Gen. 1:26).

6:31 PM

Blogger D.R. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:39 PM

Blogger D.R. said...

Kathryn, the actual title of the sermon you mentioned was "What to do When a Wife Won't Follow: Pastoral Strategies" by C.J. Mahaney, who is the pastor emeritus of the church now pastored by Josh Harris, author of "I Kissed Dating Goodbye". I wonder, did you actually listen to the message or merely make assumptions based on the title? I listened to it and found it quite loving and not at all demeaning, though it's main audience was not meant for husbands, but rather pastors who were doing marriage counseling. Thus, it is fully appropriate to see another sermon in that list (and in that series) called, "What to do When a Husband Won't Lead: Pastoral Strategies."

But, let me say that I think you make some assumptions based on incomplete information. For instance, have you interacted with men like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Schreiner, Martha Pierce, R. Kent Hughes, Susan Hunt, or R.C. Sproul and their spouces? Are you sure you have seen Biblical Manhood and Womanhood lived out properly? I ask this because it seems that all your statements regarding the Complimentarian position are tinged with personal experience. I actually know many of the men involved in this movement and have seen them interact with their wives, who are strong, intellegent and often very successful women, and I only see Christlike interaction and loving marriages. Additionally, if you notice on that list, there are a lot of women who are speaking to these issues, including Elisabeth Elliot, Mary Kassian, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, and Dorothy Patterson - all strong women who are public speakers. I simply think there is a myth that these sort of women explode regarding women who practice Biblical submission and men who practice male headship. And I wonder if you have ever explored that possibility.

9:59 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

I've also read about Wayne Grudem. He too is complementarian. The trouble with "head" as "leader" or "authority over" is that it violates other, clear Scripture teaching from Genesis to Revelation on other subjects such as creation (Genesis 1:26 & 27), Jesus' teaching on the last being first(Luke 22: 25-27, among others), on the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, & 15:26), the Apostles' teachings on the mutual submission of all believers one to another(Ephesians 5:21, I Peter 5:5), Paul's clear endorsement of women teaching men in I Corinthians 11, and Peter's teaching on the priesthood of every believer before God (I Peter 2:5); whereas "head" as "source" or "origin" harmonizes with all those teachings, or at least doesn't violate them. Simply put, comp.-ism puts too many priests between women and God.

10:03 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

One more observation: Concerning Elisabeth Elliot, Dorothy Patterson and the other ladies mentioned, the fact that some women are comps., and participate and agree in their own oppression does not make it any less oppression.

10:15 PM

Blogger D.R. said...


First, actually, I find that none of those passages you mention are incompatible with the complimentarian view of gender roles (BTW, did you actually read the article by Wayne Grudem on "head" or build your argument apart from it?). In fact, all those passages solidify complimentarianism as a legitimate Biblical doctrine. First, the creation story in chapter 2 (which I don't believe to be a contradication of chapter 1 - maybe you do) clearly asserts that man was made first and woman was created to be a "helper fit for him." Paul follows up on this comparison when he offers a theological argument for why he does not allow a woman to teach in 1 Timothy 1:9-15. In this passage he says, "12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing- if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

Here Paul clearly makes a theological argument, not a culturally one, as one might believe appropriate if this passage was meant only for one culture. And again it was based in a correct understanding of creation. Thus no contradication.

Regarding Jesus teaching that "the last shall be first", this is in no opposition to the idea that the roles of men and women are different. Jesus here is not speaking of societal roles or of submission, but rather of willingness to serve others. In this way, those who, though they could sit in a position of power, willingly serve (in that culture that would have signaled a subservient person, which is why Peter so protested at Jesus' washing of his feet), receive a greater reward. And again, this does not mean that husbands cannot serve their wives, and does not contradict the notion that men and women have distinct, God-given roles in the home. Thus, again no contradiction of those verses.

As for John 14:26 and John 15:26, which basically both say the same thing: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you", I have no clue where you are going with that, as well as your reference to "the priesthood of every believer" (which is actually the doctrine of "the priesthood of ALL believers" - there is a difference in meaning) and the quip, "Simply put, comp.-ism puts too many priests between women and God." No where, ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE, will you find complimentarian scholars say that women have less of a relationship with God, or need any priest or go-between in their relationship with Christ. In the same way, while my pastor's God-given role in the Church is to be the spiritual leader, I do not think that I need him in order to communicate with God (and he doesn't think so either). Simply because complimentarians believe that the man's role in the home is to be the spiritual leader does not mean (and again I challenge you to produce evidence to the contrary stated by a Complimentarian scholar) that he is any way superior in his relationship with Christ or his ability to intercede for his family or wife. Where you get that opinion I do not know, but certainly not from CBMW.com or any scholar in this discipline. That might well be a bias you should consider or a stumbling block to your understanding of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, as well as something keeping you from having an open mind on this issue. So, again no contradiction in those passages with complimentarianism or in establishing male headship in the home.

As far as Ephesians 5:21 is concerned, which reads, "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ", apparently Paul did not see it as contradictory to male headship since he follows verse 21 up with v. 22 and following which say:

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

I am actually glad you brought up this text because not only does mutual submission of believers to one another not contradict the idea of male headship, but apprently Paul believes it naturally flows into the idea of female submission to their husbands and the Church's submission to Christ. And here we see a passage that actually contradicts with the idea of "head" meaning "source" since Paul uses the idea of submission in regards to husbands and wives and Christ and the Church. In the same way the Church is called to submit, so is the wife called to submit to her husband. And in the way that that Christ is called to give His life for the Church, so are husbands called to give their lives for their wives. That is why we call it complimentarianism, because the roles compliment, not contradict one another.

If one wanted to interject the idea of "head" meaning "source" it would completely undercut Paul's theological argument and comparison of Christ and His role in regards to the Church and vice-versa.

Heading on over to 1 Peter 5:5, the apostle says, "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.'" First of all, this verse is not about mutual submission, but rather about younger people submitting to the leadership of elders. And this correlates to the home. In the Church, God has set up elders who are not necessarily more spiritual or more Christlike than those who are younger, but simply that is their role in the Church. The younger people are called to be submissive to them because in that way they are practicing humility. And of course we know that humility is a blessing of God and those who are humble are blest of God. Thus apparently we can conclude that submission in this context is not disgraceful or even at all "oppressive", but rather it is shown to be a beautiful, Christ-like thing. Why then would you rob women of their God-given roles to be submissive in the home if it is indeed a blessing of God and something for which they will be eternally blest for having done? Seems that is more oppressive than complimentarianism.

And finally, as for 1 Cor. 11, I think you ought to go back and read that chapter again. No where does Paul endorse women teaching men in that chapter. In fact what we find it Paul saying the following:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head- it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

If anything what we see in this passage is that Paul is clearly noting again the theological argument from Creation that the man is the "head" of the "woman" and as such she should bear a symbol of authority on her head when she prophesies, yet the man does not need such a symbol. Why is this? Because of the natural order established by God whereby man was created first and woman was created as a helpmate. This is not meant to be demeaning, as Paul quickly shows by noting that men and women are not to be independent, but rather it is meant to glorify God by revealing His created order and illustrating the relationship of Christ and the Church through the marriage relationship. So again, no contradication in regards to the doctrine of male headship.

So, I think I have legitimately answered your critiques. Now, let me offer one of my own:

Your position clearly seems to be based on personal experience. Even as you rebut my comment about women complimentarians you show your unwillingness to see any legitimacy in the other side of the argument. You said, "Concerning Elisabeth Elliot, Dorothy Patterson and the other ladies mentioned, the fact that some women are comps., and participate and agree in their own oppression does not make it any less oppression." Here you are making a logically fallacious argument by assuming your argument in order to rebut my question. My question was, "If complimentarianism is oppressive, why are strong women a part of it?" And your answer was essentially, "Just because strong women are a part of it doesn't change the fact that it is oppressive." You see, you never consider the possibility that it is not oppressive, you simply state that this is not evidence, which avoids the question and assumes the argument is true despite the evidence.

So my question to you is, "Are you really open to investigating this by talking to men and women who are scholars in this field and by observing relationships that accept complimentarianism as the Biblical position?" Futher, in light of the evidence I presented in rebuttal to your comments regarding male headship and Scriptural contradiction, "Are you willing to explore the possibility that Complimentarianism is the more Biblically accurate position?" If the answer to either question is "No", then why? Aren't you being close minded here and acting more like BDW definition of a fundamentalist than complimentarians who write scholarly articles and debate Egalitarians are? If the answer is "Yes" to either, would you be willing to read some publications and discuss them with me on my website? I would be more than willing to open up my blog for a full discussion of these issues if you would agree to open your mind and read some resources and discuss them with me. Please let me know. Thanks again for the cordial and informative discussion. I have greatly enjoyed it.

10:19 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

What of Genesis 1:26 where God plainly declares that they are equal in authority? Husbandly authority was the result of the Curse (Genesis 3:16). I believe you are good to your wife, and I believe you would never hurt her at all; I believe you plainly want to follow Jesus too; just please consider this question: What of Ephesians 5:21, Galatians 3:28, and I Peter 5:5, which tells all to submit to one another? Paul even links mutual submission to the fear of God in Eph. 5:21. What of women who are called to preach but denied their ability to exercise that calling because of her church's misunderstanding of 1 Timothy 2? This is a form of theological abuse, and it is emotionally painful. I'm glad to get out of complementarianism. My comment isn't about anyone in particular. It is only a general statement about comp. theology. I can understand what a man would get out of comp-ism: authority, rulership, the right to have the final say. The benefits for women aren't so clear. It sounds like the old "separate but equal" argument of Jim Crow segregation. It was separate, and it was Scripture-quoting, but it was certainly not equal. White people benefitted from Southern racial oppression because it kept them in power. Black people simply weren't treated as equal, despite that phrase. White people thought they had a lot to lose by letting black people have an equal voice in society. As the people in power, whites simply didn't see segregation as a problem, and I can see why, just as I can understand why a comp. husband wouldn't see the problems with comp. theology. I am not trying to overstate matters, but there are too many strong parallels between the racial segregation to promote white authority and the complementarianism designed to promote male authority.

11:55 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

Again, I urge everyone to visit Christians For Biblical Equality at cbeinternational.org for great discussion blogs and books; for more about Jim Crow segregation, please go to the National Association for the Advancement Of Colored People at naacp.org.

12:13 AM

Blogger D.R. said...

Kathryn, I answered all of your questions in my post. Did you read it all the way through? You didn't answer any of my questions though regarding a possibility of actually researching complimentarianism from a scholarly perspective. Please go back and read the entire post and respond to my questions.

In stating the following:
I can understand what a man would get out of comp-ism: authority, rulership, the right to have the final say. The benefits for women aren't so clear

You again show you don't understand complimentarianism or the role of the husband in the home in this view. I urge you to talk to women who actually understand complimentarianism and embrace it. Unless you do so, you are only speaking out of what you don't know. And this is even futher revealed in your attempt to correlate complimentarianism with Jim Crow laws, which is actually an insult to African-Americans who were subjected to such a tragedy. The two are incomparable to any legitimate observer except those who are not seeking to understand the position correctly. It's easy to hurl insults at Complimentarians by claiming they are doing the same as racists, but it is more difficult to actually try to understand women like Elisabeth Elliot, who is a hero of all mission-minded Christians.

In fact if you want to interact with woman who are convinced of the Complimentarian position, go to the Girl Talk Blog, which is run by women like Carolyn Mahaney, wife of C.J. Mahaney, about whom we have previously spoken. I am sure those women would love to answer your questions and dialogue with you about why they believe that Complimentarianism is the most God-glorifying view of manhood and womanhood. They are articulate and likely willing to discuss with you their views, given that you don't try to compare their husbands with racists.

Finally you are indeed overstating matters when you say that "there are too many strong parallels between the racial segregation to promote white authority and the complementarianism designed to promote male authority" and I again insist that you actually talk to men and women who are Complimentarians by conviction rather than making false charges like this and insulting not only your brothers and sisters in Christ, but African-Americans as well.

Kathryn, I wish you the best, and I don't really think you mean to be hurtful when you compare Complimentarians with racists, but you really should tone down the rhetoric and spend time with some Complimentarians. Hopefully your perspective would change some. Again I ask you to read my entire post above and answer the questions. I would be willing to offer some other resources to you if you would be willing to read and discuss them with me over at my blog. Thanks and may God bless.

12:10 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

I remember the early 1970's when Southern Baptists began to really be vocal in opposing the ordination of women, especially as pastors. One of the arguments they gave consistently was that women were prone to false doctrine more than men because of some supposed flaw in their female nature. They based it on I Timothy 2. This was one of many terrible things that were taught about women. Benevolent male dominance was the basis for marriage. My mother said that as a young married woman in the 1930's, all she ever heard on marriage was "Wives submit to your husbands". She eventually embraced mutual submission. After all, wives still have to submit to their husbands; only now, husbands also have to submit ("make themselves available") to their wives too. Singer Anita Bryant reportedly said the same thing about her experience in growing up. The idea that husbands must "lead" their wives is demeaning for wives. It treats wives as if they were children. It sets husbands up for failure too, as they cannot always be spiritually "superior" to their wives. "Head" as "leader" simply doen't work. "Head" as "source" or "origin" does. I can't expect you to understand how it feels to be denigrated by Scripture-quoting Christians because of your gender. After all, complementarianism gives you all the authority in your marriage. I couldn't expect you or any comp. man to give that up easily.

8:23 PM

Blogger D.R. said...

Kathryn, again you are just making an emotional argument that is only based in YOUR personal experience and knowledge. You additionally are employing another logical fallacy in appealing to authority. Still nothing you are saying is either addressing Scripture directly or dealing with true Complimentarianism (much less actually dealing with my exegesis of the passages or Grudem's fine article on "kephale"). Unless you are willing to deal with the BEST complimentarians, then you are simply building a strawman and knocking him over. That is not a true form of debate, but rather simply propaganda. You still haven't answered my questions and you are beginning to sound as if you just want the final word and not really wanting any true dialogue. And if that is all you want, then fine take it, but don't say I didn't try to offer you a place to actually engage Complimentarianism, rather than just railing about personal experiences and harping on a Greek word that you don't seem to be able to deal with Biblically, other than just suggesting it doesn't fit into your worldview.

So Kathryn, let me ask one more time -- Are you willing to debate this on a scholarly level, with a discussion of Complimentarian material we agree to or not? Please answer this question as you take the last word. If you are not willing to answer the question, then please, don't repeat yourself for the fourth time.

11:23 PM

Anonymous Kathryn said...

I was raised in complementarianism. It's ideas about women are too small, confining, and patriarchal (read: unscriptural). These cookie cutter "roles" are fine if you fit into that, but few people do, and if you are called by God to do something the comps. won't allow because of your gender, you have to go somewhere else. I've heard-many times- about abused wives who were told by their pastors to stay with their husbands because they didn't submit enough and that was the problem. This is unimaginable but true. The Word of God doesn't support this. Unfortunately, this happens in too many comp. churches. There can also be verbal or psychological abuse too. Patriarchal marriages are much more likely to be abusive than marriages where the woman is equal in authority. This makes good sense. I Corinthians 7 tells us that the "husband hath not power over his own body but the wife", dealing a death blow to patriarchy. I don't want to paint too broadly. Not all complementarian marriages are abusive, and there are levels of patriarchy, but if a man were inclined to abuse his wife, the complementarian model for marriage would be much more attractive to him than the egalitarian model. Yes, cbeinternational.org!

9:32 PM

Blogger scott ingersoll said...

I read the Russell Moored comments, and was a little suspicious, since this did not sound like the guy I heard the other night speaking on complimentariansim and egalitarianism in the church. So, I went to the supplied link to read his articles in context, where I found his statements to be reasonable, in fact, very reasonable. I like this guy! He speaks the truth boldly and refreshingly. This is the kind of pastor I have been looking for. Shame on Wade Burleson. We need to support and not criticize real men in the church, like Russell Moore, who, like Jesus Christ, the apostles, and the martyrs of the past, are not afraid to stand against the aposticism in today's benign laodecian church.

Scott Ingersoll

6:56 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker