# Egalitarianism: Wow What a Change a Few Years Makes!



## DMcFadden (Apr 14, 2009)

I received an invitation this afternoon to a denominational meeting (not mine, praise the Lord!) where the current chair of the preaching department in my seminary (one that bills itself as the largest in the world) willl be preaching. * SHE *will be dealing with "Jesus Christ, Our Legacy and Hope." 

Yikes! Maybe Archlute is right about my alma mater! 

Egalitarianism (first of the broad evangelical variety and then in the more hardened mainline form) is only two to three decades away from _any_ denomination that does not have a well-developed theological argument against it.


----------



## PresbyDane (Apr 14, 2009)

that sonuds great


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 14, 2009)

Do you think it was a cause for the deterioration of the ABC or an effect?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 14, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> I received an invitation this afternoon to a denominational meeting (not mine, praise the Lord!) where the current chair of the preaching department in my seminary (one that bills itself as the largest in the world) willl be preaching. * SHE *will be dealing with "Jesus Christ, Our Legacy and Hope."
> 
> Yikes! Maybe Archlute is right about my alma mater!
> 
> Egalitarianism (first of the broad evangelical variety and then in the more hardened mainline form) is only two to three decades away from _any_ denomination that does not have a well-developed theological argument against it.



Not to be negative but two or three decades is being generous. I'd put it at more like 10-15 years...


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 14, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> Do you think it was a cause for the deterioration of the ABC or an effect?



in my opinion - symptom.

Wayne Grudem, however, makes a strong case, in the book by the same name, that "evangelical feminism is a new path to liberalism."



> This book is rather an expression of deep concern about a widespread undermining of the authority of Scripture in the arguments that are frequently used to support evangelical feminism. And it is also a way of posing a question: can a movement that espouses this many ways of undermining the authority of Scripture possibly be right? If God had wanted to teach us an egalitarian position, would he have made it so hard to ﬁnd in Scripture that it would require this many incorrect
> methods to discover and defend it?
> 
> The argument of this book ﬁrst found expression in a brief chapter in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (500-517). Now in this present book I have added much additional material, including signiﬁcant interaction with many of the essays in the recent evangelical feminist book Discovering Biblical Equality. *I have also documented several new developments in denominations and other organizations in which my argument of a “slippery slope” from evangelical feminism to liberalism has received further conﬁrmation. Once an evangelical feminist position is adopted, the development only goes in one direction, again and again*.



If you want Grudem's argument in a nutshell, hear it in his own words:



> (1) that liberal Protestant denominations were the pioneers of evangelical feminism, and that evangelical feminists today have adopted many of the arguments earlier used by theological liberals to advocate the ordination of women and to reject male headship in marriage.
> (2) that many prominent evangelical feminist writers today advocate positions that deny or undermine the authority of Scripture, and many other egalitarian leaders endorse their books and take no public stance against those who deny the authority of Scripture.
> (3) that recent trends now show that evangelical feminists are heading toward the denial of anything uniquely masculine, and some already endorse calling God “our Mother in heaven.”
> (4) that the history of others who have adopted these positions shows that the next step is the endorsement of the moral legiti*macy of homosexuality.
> (5) that the common thread running through all of these trends is a rejection of the effective authority of Scripture in people’s lives, and that this is the bedrock principle of theological liberalism.



“Biblical authority is at stake in the debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism—because if you can get egalitarianism from the Bible, you can get anything from the Bible. The weight of Grudem’s cumulative argument is considerable, and cannot easily be dismissed.” 
J. Ligon Duncan III


----------



## Edward (Apr 14, 2009)

They've got their collective foot firmly in the door of the PCA.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 14, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> Do you think it was a cause for the deterioration of the ABC or an effect?



More to the point of your question, here is Grudem's account of what I lived through when my region withdrew from the ABCUSA. He lays much of the slippery slope to the advocacy of egalitarianism in the denomination:



> 5. AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES
> Religion writer Edward Plowman reported that the 1.5 million member American Baptist Churches (U.S.A.) “has a strong position on homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture. But its liberal-dominated governing board has blocked all efforts to enforce the policy on member churches on grounds Baptist churches are autonomous, don’t have creeds, and have the right to interpret the Bible as they wish.” Plowman predicted that the denomination “will fracture” over this issue in the summer of 2006.
> 
> In fact, Plowman’s prediction proved correct in May 2006, when “The governing board of one of its largest and most thriving regional units, the American Baptist Churches of the Paciﬁc Southwest, voted unanimously to withdraw from the ABCUSA.” This action removed some 300 churches in Southern California, Arizona, northern Nevada, and Hawaii. The article added that “The American Baptist Evangelicals renewal group, reportedly representing some 500 churches, recently announced that there is no hope left for Bible-based renewal of the ABCUSA; leaders disbanded it . . .” Other regions are considering withdrawing as well, and it appears the denomination may soon be only a shell of its former self. *The end of the slippery slope is the destruction of a denomination. *


 Wayne Grudem, _Evangelical Feminism a New Path to Liberalism_, p. 244.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 14, 2009)

You just saved me at least $9.95 at the bookstore My wife often gets funny looks for her complimentarian comments from a bunch of the ladies. They have been educated by society and Joyce Meyer on TBN, so this is actually a new concept to them.


----------



## BG (Apr 14, 2009)

[


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 15, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> You just saved me at least $9.95 at the bookstore My wife often gets funny looks for her complimentarian comments from a bunch of the ladies. They have been educated by society and Joyce Meyer on TBN, so this is actually a new concept to them.



TBN at a liberal mainline church???


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Apr 15, 2009)

Edward said:


> They've got their collective foot firmly in the door of the PCA.



I have to disagree, friend. As one who labors within a denomination that is enslaved by radical feminism, I read with interest the papers surrounding the recent PCA debates on the issue of women deacons. That debate was totally different than the debate that went on the the PC(USA) predecessor denominations over the ordination of women. In the PC(USA) stream debates on women's ord, the debate was centered around emotion, societal acceptance and what we _felt like_ doing.

At least in the recent PCA debates there was a careful attention to Scriptural argument. Not to mention that it did not even get approved for study. Asking for some churches to have deaconesses is not the same thing as arguing for egalitarianism, especially if the overtures were soundly defeated.


----------



## Knoxienne (Apr 15, 2009)

WDG said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > They've got their collective foot firmly in the door of the PCA.
> ...



Tried to thank you and I used too many of them on this thread!  It was worth it, though!

I've never liked the term, complementarianism - it really isn't a strong enough term or stance needed to combat egalitarianism, in my opinion. And I believe this is easily proven by the fact that so many folks who call themselves complementarians, while believing it's wrong for women to preach, see nothing wrong with women ruling in the civil sphere.


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 15, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> WDG said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Do you have a term that you prefer to complementarianism?


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 15, 2009)

Toby, I cannot speak for my PCA brethren, but in conversations with PCA pastors, there is more going on under the surface that simply the deaconnesses issue. For example, the argument is being forth that a woman should be allowed to do whatever an unordained man can do in a worship service (e.g., Scripture readings, possibly leading in prayer, etc.). You are right in that it is not the same thing, but that distinction was made above in the quotes surrounding Grudem's "slippery slope" argument.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Apr 15, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > WDG said:
> ...



"Properroleitarianism"?


----------



## Knoxienne (Apr 15, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > WDG said:
> ...



Good question. I've actually thought about that, and I really don't know of a term. I'm sure there is one, though.  I guess what I don't like about the term is that there are lots of things and people which complement each other - it's almost as if _some people _who use it are trying to not say "antiegalitarian". Maybe that's the word I prefer.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 15, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > WDG said:
> ...



Patriarchy


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 15, 2009)

How about "Creation Mandatism"?


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Apr 15, 2009)

Menaremenandwomenarewomenitarianism


----------



## Knoxienne (Apr 15, 2009)

Whatthebibleteachesism


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 15, 2009)

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > Knoxienne said:
> ...



HA! I thought the exact same thing. And, it is commonly called Patriarchy. Although the popular caricature of the word is not the Bible form.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 15, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > WDG said:
> ...



Isn't complementarianism being polite to your opponent in debate? 

Seriously, though, I think it's Created Order Syndrome.


----------



## Knoxienne (Apr 15, 2009)

Skyler said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > Knoxienne said:
> ...


----------



## lynnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Re the PCA, I love Tim Keller's teaching tapes and have listened to quite a few, but this is one subject where I think he gets perilously close to being unscriptural. There is a mentality that a husband and wife can do things however they like as long as it isn't directly against the bible. He can stay home with the kids and she can go get the income career, as long as they both agree. What I think he fails to face is that lots of nice, non controlling husbands will agree to many things to keep wife happy and avoid conflict. It doens't make it true submission and true headship. 

Instead of looking for a broad biblical picture of husband and wife roles, there is more of an "anything is OK so long as the bible doesn't forbid it" mentality. I think Titus 2 is clear that sound doctrine includes the wife's place as centering on the home. I know a lot of economic activity has been taken out, and when the kids go back to school it isn't wrong to get a job, but Mom working and leaving the preschoolers, well, I just don't buy it.

I see this to some degree in the PCAs I have some knowledge of......it is fine for hub to put his career on hold for wife to pursue hers, or wife can work and be all stresed and kids get a raw deal. My husband told me recently- most emphatically- to stop defending or apologizing for my old fashioned patriarcial position when it comes up in conversation ( I don't push it, but when it comes up I say what I think). I don't need to be afraid to offend; the fact is that what I think represents thousands of years of history as well as Christianity up until the age of feminism. But yeah, the slide is well underway. And if you stick with hundreds of years of Reformed theology you are condemning and trapped in legalism


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 15, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> Whatthebibleteachesism



I like this. I may start using it to describe many of my thoughts!

I was just curious, because I always hear "complementarianism" and "egalitarianism" and I wondered if there was a third word that I was missing out on.


----------



## Knoxienne (Apr 15, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Re the PCA, I love Tim Keller's teaching tapes and have listened to quite a few, but this is one subject where I think he gets perilously close to being unscriptural. There is a mentality that a husband and wife can do things however they like as long as it isn't directly against the bible. He can stay home with the kids and she can go get the income career, as long as they both agree. What I think he fails to face is that lots of nice, non controlling husbands will agree to many things to keep wife happy and avoid conflict. It doens't make it true submission and true headship.
> 
> Instead of looking for a broad biblical picture of husband and wife roles, there is more of an "anything is OK so long as the bible doesn't forbid it" mentality. I think Titus 2 is clear that sound doctrine includes the wife's place as centering on the home. I know a lot of economic activity has been taken out, and when the kids go back to school it isn't wrong to get a job, but Mom working and leaving the preschoolers, well, I just don't buy it.
> 
> I see this to some degree in the PCAs I have some knowledge of......it is fine for hub to put his career on hold for wife to pursue hers, or wife can work and be all stresed and kids get a raw deal. My husband told me recently- most emphatically- to stop defending or apologizing for my old fashioned patriarcial position when it comes up in conversation ( I don't push it, but when it comes up I say what I think). I don't need to be afraid to offend; the fact is that what I think represents thousands of years of history as well as Christianity up until the age of feminism. But yeah, the slide is well underway. And if you stick with hundreds of years of Reformed theology you are condemning and trapped in legalism



Out of thanks, but I agree. It seems more and more church leaders are taking positions such as you mentioned with Dr. Keller. 

I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to be called a legalist (or some other fill in the blank-ist no matter what) so now I just demand that folks call me Mrs. Legalist, or whatever.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Apr 15, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Re the PCA, I love Tim Keller's teaching tapes and have listened to quite a few, but this is one subject where I think he gets perilously close to being unscriptural. There is a mentality that a husband and wife can do things however they like as long as it isn't directly against the bible. He can stay home with the kids and she can go get the income career, as long as they both agree. What I think he fails to face is that lots of nice, non controlling husbands will agree to many things to keep wife happy and avoid conflict. It doens't make it true submission and true headship.
> 
> *Instead of looking for a broad biblical picture of husband and wife roles, there is more of an "anything is OK so long as the bible doesn't forbid it" mentality*.



That's not really what he's saying, Lynnie. Here's an excerpt from his position paper on the role of women in the church. You may disagree with it, but I don't think your characterization of his view is particularly accurate...



> In marriage, wives are told to give headship to their husbands (Ephesians 5:21 ff.) This does not mean that the man simply can make all the decisions nor does it mean that he gets his way whenever there is a difference of opinion. Why? A “head” may never overrule his spouse simply to get his way or please himself (Romans.15:2-3). A head sacrifices his wants and needs to please and build up his partner (Ephesians 5:2ff.).
> 
> Well, since this is also true of the wife (Ephesians 5:21 -”submit to one another,”) then what is the difference? A head only exercises authority to over-rule when he believes his spouse is doing something destructive to her or the family. In a marriage, where there are only two “votes”, how will the stalemate be broken in cases where there is not just a difference in taste or preference, but in cases where both parties believe the other is seriously mistaken? There can be no unity unless one person has the right to cast the deciding “vote”. That person knows that, along with this "right" comes the greatest accountability and responsibility.
> 
> The Bible directs that a wife, when she marries, give that “right/responsibility” freely to her husband. The husband realizes that ordinarily, his authority does not take the form of “over-ruling”—in fact, the servant-model directs the “head” to usually put aside his own tastes and preferences in deference to pleasing his spouse. But when there is a “hung jury”, and it is critical for one person to take both leadership and responsibility, the “head’s” service takes the form of initiation. He leads by over-ruling.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Sorry mason. Love the guys tapes but I have the 9 CD set on marriage, (and old ones where he and Kathy talk on a panel with the late Jack and Rosemarie Miller, but I won't count those since they were a while ago). 

Yes, absolutely, he believes hub gets the deciding vote. ( wife gets one vote, the devil gets one vote, and you make the deciding vote....oh wait, that's the local arminian church, never mind ). Yes, he absolutely believes in husband the final head/final vote when you hit an impasse.

I am talking about old fashioned wife at home with kids model, and hub being the main financial provider. Keller thinks- as long as husband head says OK- it is fine for wife to pursue career or bring in the money while hub stays home with babies. I've heard him and Kathy say it both...as long as both hub and wife agree, it is fine.

The problem as I see it it, is that genuinely nice guys will say fine and agree to wifey pursuing her high powered career while preschool kids get babysitters, or dad is at home as babysitter. I happen to think it is wrong and lots of truly nice guys will just go along with it to make wife happy.

Whether Keller is right or wrong, the fact is that he holds to allowing a newer and more feministic model than has existed for millenia. The traditional model is wife at home with babies and hubby does the hard labor outside the home. Keller does not hold to that model as biblical according to Titus 2. And don't dredge up single Moms and disabled hubs and unexpected debts, I am talking about normal healthy adult marriages in normal economic situations where a wife could be home.

( bu the way I really do appreciate TK!!!)


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 15, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Sorry mason. Love the guys tapes but I have the 9 CD set on marriage, (and old ones where he and Kathy talk on a panel with the late Jack and Rosemarie Miller, but I won't count those since they were a while ago).
> 
> Yes, absolutely, he believes hub gets the deciding vote. ( wife gets one vote, the devil gets one vote, and you make the deciding vote....oh wait, that's the local arminian church, never mind ). Yes, he absolutely believes in husband the final head/final vote when you hit an impasse.
> 
> ...



Do you think that perhaps this is an issue of Christian liberty? I think that the "traditional" model of marriage and family is great - its largely what my parents did and its what many of my friends do. But, I'm not sure its "unbiblical" to have a different arrangement, as long as the wife is submitting to her husband's leadership and the arrangement does not hurt the children. For example, my father worked at home 2 days a week and helped homeschool my siblings and I so that my mother could work part time in a career she loved. It was my father who thought this was good arrangement - he recognized how much my mother loved her field. She didn't ask him to go along with this. I just think this is something that should perhaps be decided by each couple in accordance with Scripture than widely mandated.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 15, 2009)

Just to add also that it's not actually the biblical but merely a more old-fashioned cultural model for it to be fine to send the kiddies off at age 4 or 5 to school and then it's suddenly fine for Mom to be away too. (I'm not saying this practice is biblically _wrong_, merely that it can't be held up as *the* biblical model against other efforts to keep biblical priorities in one's cultural/economic etc. situation.)


----------



## lynnie (Apr 15, 2009)

_Do you think that perhaps this is an issue of Christian liberty? I think that the "traditional" model of marriage and family is great - its largely what my parents did and its what many of my friends do. But, I'm not sure its "unbiblical" to have a different arrangement, as long as the wife is submitting to her husband's leadership and the arrangement does not hurt the children. For example, my father worked at home 2 days a week and helped homeschool my siblings and I so that my mother could work part time in a career she loved. It was my father who thought this was good arrangement - he recognized how much my mother loved her field. She didn't ask him to go along with this. I just think this is something that should perhaps be decided by each couple in accordance with Scripture than widely mandated. _

I don't think this compares to wife away from home 9-10 hours a day five days a week and coming home stressed out, while Dad is with babies.

But the idea that there is liberty to freely abandon the traditional model of wife with little kids and hub the main income provider, does seem to be what TK said on the tapes I heard.

_and the arrangement does not hurt the children._

This is the MAIN ISSUE for sure. Try talking to any school teacher today about the kids coming from traditional homes and the ones coming from career Momma. I won't belabor the point, but the teachers I know have served to confirm my convictions, even if the bible did not speak to the subject.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 15, 2009)

I still remember, 15 years ago, when the big battle took place in our church over women in office. It lead to a split, but I recall the leaving element very clearly saying "now it is deacons, then it will be elders, and then pastors - this will be the end of orthodoxy in the church". We stayed at the time because I was only a teen and because we didn't think it would come to that and because it "wasn't a salvation issue".

Fast-forward to 2009. There are women delegates at synod, there are women elders in one of the denomination's churches not 10 minutes from my home, and there are women pastors (one of whom held the vice-presidency of the 2008 denominational synod). Sermons from younger pastors are, as often as not, now of the flavour "here's a social problem and there's scripture that supports us getting out there to solve it" instead of "here's the gospel".

It is a bitter thing to see and we left the church because of it. If I knew then what I know now (and was older at the time), I would have fought it tooth and nail. It is a death sentence to a church. It may not be a _direct_ salvation issue, but it *is* an authority of scripture issue, and once you jettison the authority of scripture on that particular issue, there's no reason to retain it for anything else.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 15, 2009)

I know PCA people who are holding the line on elders, deacons, and pastors, and will not support Redeemer on deaconesses, as much as they respect Tim Keller. (we are in his presbytery). But I have heard the opinion by the very same people, that it is perfectly fine for a woman to do anything a man does, except be an elder or deacon. Anything. Debating lawyer, hard driving CEO of a corporation, breadwinner of the family, president of the USA. Anything is permissible but being a church officer.

That to me preceeds the slippery slope. It eliminates the entire understanding of gender roles as perhaps best articulated in the Piper- Grudem book on Men and Women/leadership is male. The bible prohibition on women in church leadership does not come from a vacuum, it comes from an entire understanding of gender differences from which the subject of male headship flows naturally. 

What we have is PCA people trying to (rightly) hold the line on ordaining women, while (wrongly) laying aside the entire substructure about male and female differences and callings. I think with the undermining of the biblical substructure about God's natural and preferred roles for women, it is a matter of time before the current church roles will seem silly and be rejected. 

I don't say this lightly. I had a BA in botany with honors, and got accepted to a great graduate program that I gave up to be married. (I was gonna save the world from hunger by growing basidiomycete fungus on global trash). I had a job in the education department of one of the finest arboretums in the United States and I gave it up for husband, home and family. People there thought I was insane, it was an enviable position. I have zero regrets five kids and 30 years of marriage later. Letting all career ambitions die to put family first is the highest and most joyous calling any Mom can have.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 15, 2009)

Lynnie, you are my hero!


----------



## lynnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Thanks for the undeserved kind words.....I think it was easier 30 years ago. My church peer pressure favored staying home and living in a dump. Now it seems to favor the nice home and lifestyle. I just keep praying for revival, and especially for all the kids out there today.


----------



## Edward (Apr 15, 2009)

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > They've got their collective foot firmly in the door of the PCA.
> ...



I hope that you are right, but fear that you are not. 

I was raised in the PCUS, so I saw what went on there, and perhaps that colors my view. 

While those pushing for change do argue from scripture, it is my belief that the real desire is to be attractive to a broader market via conforming to culture. It is also my belief that deaconesses aren't the end of the game, but just a step on the road. 

Again, I hope that I am totally wrong in my beliefs, but I don't think that I am.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 16, 2009)

Seminary education of Reformed pastors does not take place in a vacuum. Egalitarian ideas are _de rigeur_ in the academy generally, universally in the mainline and almost so in the broad evangelical community. It will become increasingly difficult for the pastors to hold the line, let alone laypeople educated and socialized in the broader culture.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 17, 2009)

lynnie said:


> I know PCA people who are holding the line on elders, deacons, and pastors, and will not support Redeemer on deaconesses, as much as they respect Tim Keller. (we are in his presbytery). But I have heard the opinion by the very same people, that it is perfectly fine for a woman to do anything a man does, except be an elder or deacon. Anything. Debating lawyer, hard driving CEO of a corporation, breadwinner of the family, president of the USA. Anything is permissible but being a church officer.
> 
> That to me preceeds the slippery slope. It eliminates the entire understanding of gender roles as perhaps best articulated in the Piper- Grudem book on Men and Women/leadership is male. The bible prohibition on women in church leadership does not come from a vacuum, it comes from an entire understanding of gender differences from which the subject of male headship flows naturally.
> 
> ...



I need to quote you. This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on PB.


----------

