# An Article on Complementarianism and Church Discipline



## davenporter (Aug 25, 2012)

Hello all,

I just finished reading this article:

Confused by Complementarianism? You probably should be. - Reformation21 Blog

I thought that what Dr. Trueman brought up was very interesting, and I am curious about how others on the Puritan board (especially our Baptist brothers) would respond to this issue.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Aug 25, 2012)

I do not think it an issue of consistency but an evolving area of theology. In many ways our theological language is forged in controversy and this particular issue has really never been raised in the church at large before this. Male headship really was something assumed and we will need to buttress our position better and not simply rely on tradition. I do not mean that in a derogatory way but I do think it is important to combat egalitarian exegesis (if you can call it that) with proper orthodox exegesis and not simply dismiss it.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 25, 2012)

Why is complementarianism/egalitarianism a bigger issue to groups like the Gospel Coalition than is credo vs. paedo-baptism? I suspect Trueman gave the answer when he mentioned that it might be due to egalitarianism being seen as a sign of theological liberalism. We can stomach someone who disagrees with us on baptism but not one with a weak view of Scripture. And perhaps that is as it should be.


----------



## davenporter (Aug 25, 2012)

Jack K said:


> Why is complementarianism/egalitarianism a bigger issue to groups like the Gospel Coalition than is credo vs. paedo-baptism? I suspect Trueman gave the answer when he mentioned that it might be due to egalitarianism being seen as a sign of theological liberalism. We can stomach someone who disagrees with us on baptism but not one with a weak view of Scripture. And perhaps that is as it should be.



I can see that, but Trueman also points out that paedobaptists are often excluded from the Lord's Table in Baptist settings, and asks the question of which is, in actuality, a bigger deal. The paedobaptist gets to preach at the Baptist church but may not take communion; a female minister would never be permitted to preach at the Baptist church, but could she take the Lord's Supper with them?

I am also really interested to hear whether the Baptists here would permit a committed paedobaptist (baptized as an infant) to partake of communion with them.

I also want to mention that I am not trying to start a big argument, but I want to see a realistic picture of how my Baptist brothers would act in such a situation as Trueman portrays.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 25, 2012)




----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Aug 25, 2012)

davenporter said:


> I am also really interested to hear whether the Baptists here would permit a committed paedobaptist (baptized as an infant) to partake of communion with them.



My (now) wife who was baptised as an infant in the old UPCUS was not permitted to take communion in the SBC church that I attended in college/law school. I would be very surprised if any "baptist" church would allow a non-immersed, non "public confession of faith" person to take communion. Its simply not part of their ecclesiology.


----------



## JoannaV (Aug 25, 2012)

I guess maybe some evangelical organisations are more concerned with making sure everyone involved with preaching is qualified (ie male) than they are concerned with everything that comes after the preaching of the gospel.

We don't have a "no paedobaptists allowed" sign at our church.


----------



## davenporter (Aug 25, 2012)

JoannaV said:


> We don't have a "no paedobaptists allowed" sign at our church.



I can't imagine seeing any such sign, of course paedobaptists would be allowed to attend, but are paedobaptists (who were baptized as infants) welcome at the Lord's Table? That's the question...


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 25, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> Male headship really was something assumed and we will need to buttress our position better and not simply rely on tradition. I do not mean that in a derogatory way but I do think it is important to combat egalitarian exegesis



Tradition born of the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture and the evidence of nature. 

We live in a time where we are losing all of that, even what has been patently obvious. Even the term 'complentarianism' is a concession to that confusion. It's not a peculiar belief, one of two from which to choose. The creation order, the order of God in the trinity, the curse established in the Fall, the pattern of our Lord choosing men as apostles, the early church choosing men filled with the Spirit as Deacons, Paul explicitly qualifying men as church officers.... its so obvious (biblically).

It's not so much being able to come up with new and better exegesis as it is to clearly teach the full counsel of God's Word which will refute the imaginations of creatures that would invent rationalizations to disobey God, nature's God. And to stand for that, and against a world system that would, in its blindness, turn everything on its head.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 25, 2012)

davenporter said:


> but are paedobaptists (who were baptized as infants) welcome at the Lord's Table?



In our congregation the answer is yes. Perhaps in some congregations it is not, but I do not see anything in the LBCF that keeps the Lord's Supper from Paedobaptists. The only explicit prohibition is this from Chapter 30, paragraph 7: 

"All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto"


----------



## JoannaV (Aug 25, 2012)

davenporter said:


> JoannaV said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have a "no paedobaptists allowed" sign at our church.
> ...



Yes. We are however reminded that ((credo))baptism is ordinarily to precede the Table.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Aug 25, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Tradition born of the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture and the evidence of nature.
> 
> We live in a time where we are losing all of that, even what has been patently obvious. Even the term 'complentarianism' is a concession to that confusion. It's not a peculiar belief, one of two from which to choose. The creation order, the order of God in the trinity, the curse established in the Fall, the pattern of our Lord choosing men as apostles, the early church choosing men filled with the Spirit as Deacons, Paul explicitly qualifying men as church officers.... its so obvious (biblically).


By no means was I doubting that. All I am saying is that our approach should be an over reliance on tradition to answer the challenges of today. Because I believe our traditions are born of solid exegesis, I think we should be constantly ready to answer the challenges of the egalitarians or whatever they want to be called. We should be more than happy to point to scripture and say this is what the Lord has said.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 26, 2012)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> I would be very surprised if any "baptist" church would allow a non-immersed, non "public confession of faith" person to take communion.



I've not been immersed (though I have professed), and the Baptist church I attend allows me to partake, and to teach in the church. Only my teaching was a decision that received serious scrutiny. In fact, the majority of Baptist churches I'm familiar with go along with the general evangelical mindset where the table isn't fenced much at all. They might not even really know who's been baptized. Of course, there are plenty of hard-core Baptists who clearly aren't that way, and truly Reformed Baptists won't be that way. But many others don't really seem to care that much. Some, like my church, see fencing the table as a personal matter the church largely stays out of.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 26, 2012)

Regarding the Trueman article, I admit being pretty far out of the loop, but what is he talking about here?:



> why 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?



Can someone clue me in on where this fierce debate is occurring? And if it means we have to read a bunch of blogs to follow it, is it really a debate?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 26, 2012)

VictorBravo said:


> Regarding the Trueman article, I admit being pretty far out of the loop, but what is he talking about here?:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, for the first part of the quoted statement, he is right. The Gospel Coalition talks about other issues, rather then sticking to their purpose and proclaiming the Gospel as one unit in Christ.


----------



## Elizabeth (Aug 26, 2012)

We visited an IFB church for a time last year. I could take communion, as I was immersed as a young woman. My husband could not, as he was baptized as an infant. At that particular church, profession AND immersion was the test. 

We now occasionally visit an LCMS church for midweek services(at hubby's behest), and neither of us can communicate as we are not members.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 26, 2012)

I'm not sure if this has been posted but it is not on this particular thread: here is TGC folks explaining why they think Complementarianism is a big deal for the organization - http://vimeo.com/44525286


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 26, 2012)

ChristianTrader said:


> I'm not sure if this has been posted but it is not on this particular thread: here is TGC folks explaining why they think Complementarianism is a big deal for the organization - http://vimeo.com/44525286



The issue isn't "why does the Gospel coalition hold to a complementarian view", but rather, stated by Carl Trueman, "Why, for instance, is this issue of more importance than, say, differences over baptism or understandings of the Lord's Supper?" I think you miss the point. Here is the main point Trueman makes:

"This is not the only awkward question one might ask: for example, which is more unacceptable to a Baptist - a woman preaching credobaptism or a man preaching paedobaptism? But that is for another day. In the meantime, do not misunderstand me: I do write as a convinced complementarian and a member of a church where no elders or deacons are - or can be -- women, though none of them are - or can be - Lutherans, Baptists or Dispensationalists either. It is thus not complementarianism in itself to which I object; 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."


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 26, 2012)

Andrew P.C. said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure if this has been posted but it is not on this particular thread: here is TGC folks explaining why they think Complementarianism is a big deal for the organization - http://vimeo.com/44525286
> ...



Did you watch the video?


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 26, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Tradition born of the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture and the evidence of nature.
> ...



We might also add that the church in our generation (broadly speaking) is not so much teaching the traditions of the (evangelical) church historically, as constantly trying to re-invent every idea autonomously. That's why there is a decline in confessionalism as basis for unity. With that has come a lower view of the church- more of a loose association of consenting adults, independently evaluating all matters, and conditioning their association based on their analysis of that moment.

Part of what is needed is a respectful teaching of and acknowledgement that, while the witness of church history is not infallible, and is not above Scripture, it is worth considering.

God has always had a people, through turmoil and tribulation, and has been faithful to His people, leading in spirit and in truth. Part of that witness is that men are reflective of the creative order in normative ecclesiastical authority.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 26, 2012)

Andrew P.C. said:


> "This is not the only awkward question one might ask: for example, which is more unacceptable to a Baptist - a woman preaching credobaptism or a man preaching paedobaptism?



I'm still scratching my head over this. I don't know what baptists Mr. Trueman is familiar with, but in my little circle of 1689-holding Baptists, it's not an awkward question at all. The woman preaching is far more unacceptable than the man preaching paedobaptism.

Perhaps it is because disapproving of women preaching is pretty clearly derived from Scripture (in other words, you really have to stretch to read the plain meanings of the words in any other way), whereas there are good-faith arguments supporting the paedo and credo positions. Because of this situation, confessional baptists are bound to acknowledge the propriety of men preaching their convictions from Scripture.


----------



## darrellmaurina (Aug 29, 2012)

I picked up on the same issue -- why is he talking about Baptists fencing the table when even many confessionally Reformed churches don't do that anymore?

Trueman is coming from a British context where he was, if I remember correctly, a member of the Free Church of Scotland. I think his experience with both conservative Baptists and conservative Presbyterians may be very different from many of us.

I'll defer to the Baptists, the British, and the Free Church of Scotland people here for further clarification. I do think context counts and his context is not ours.

Now on the women-in-office issue, the whole article sent up a yellow flag with me. Not red, but yellow. I would not want to see this become a camel's nose in the tent for toleration of women's ordination.

My comments are coming as someone who believes in deaconesses, BTW, and who works with a number of women minsters in pro-life and other conservative causes. I am not a hard-right winger on this issue. Other churches can do what they want, and because many of them do not have a biblical view of office and ordination, it's a lot easier to let women be on a church's lay governing board or be an "anointed prophet" if a church is not Reformed and doesn't view the pastorate and eldership the way we do.

Within the Reformed community, I do believe we need to be absolutely adamant on the ruling and teaching offices of Christ's church being restricted to men alone, and any whiff of compromise on that concerns me greatly.



VictorBravo said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > "This is not the only awkward question one might ask: for example, which is more unacceptable to a Baptist - a woman preaching credobaptism or a man preaching paedobaptism?
> ...


----------

