"A dialog between a complementarian, a feminist, and a patriarch..."

You can read the full article at Baylyblog.com 

Complementarian: I’m a complementarian! 

Feminist: A complementarian? What is that? 

Complementarian: A complementarian spelled with an ‘e.’ It means I believe the genders complete each other. That God made Adam and Eve to be mutually beneficial as husband and wife. Each of them were given gifts the other needs and together they are more than the sum of their parts. 

Feminist: Well of course different genders are different! Who says they’re not? But your new word gives me no indication what the difference is! 

Complementarian: Well, we can talk about that. But I want to make clear that I’m thankful for feminists’ work calling the church to repent of the oppression of women that has been characteristic of Christians and the Christian church for too, too long. I'm deeply sorry and I apologize. 

Feminist: That sounds good, but beyond that, what do you stand for? I can’t figure it out. 

Complementarian: Well, I believe that both man and woman equally bear the Image of God, and therefore both man and woman are equal. I love my wife and mother and daughters and I treat them with respect. 

Feminist: Again, that’s good. But I thought we disagreed with each other? 

Complementarian: Maybe, maybe not. Sounds like we both agree that women and men are equal, right? 

Feminist: Right. 

Complementarian: So we agree there! Isn’t that neat? 

Feminist: Maybe, but would you please get to the point! 

Complementarian: Well, I think maybe what you’re getting at is the fact that I believe that one part of the complementarian world God has created is that the husband and wife are each made to submit to each other in loving unity. That the wife is made by God to complete her husband and the husband is made by God to be a servant leader of his wife. Doesn’t that sound good? There’s no privileging there, is there? Do you like me now? 

Feminist: Ah, come on! Stop talking around the issue. Do you take me for a fool? You hold to patriarchy and I know it. You believe the husband is the head of the wife, don’t you? Come on, admit it! 

Complementarian: Well, you might put it that way but I take strong exception to that word ‘patriarchy.’ Across the centuries I believe the church has been wrong to hold to a patriarchal view of marriage and the home. It’s time for us to be the loving servants of our wives God made us to be. It’s about time for us to love our wives and treat them with respect as the equals God made them to be. Yes, I think the husband has a kind of headship in the home, but it’s not the way you think of it. It doesn’t mean the husband sits in his Lazy-Boy watching the football game and yells at his wife to go get him a beer smacking her on the bottom as she walks by. I’m quite sensitive and gentle and you can ask my children—I cry a lot. Do you see how different I am from my father and father’s father and father’s father’s father—those mean Christian men of past generations and centuries who hated and took advantage of their wives? I'm evolved! Progressive! Deeply integrated as a human being! Sensitive—very, very sensitive and engaging. 

Feminist: (pulling hair out) Look! Do you or do you not believe that the man is the head of the home—that he is the final authority in the home? Do you believe in father-rule? 

Complementarian: Wellll… Let me be very careful here because it’s so easy to be misunderstood in matters which are so very controversial. In one sense I suppose I could agree that the husband has some sort of tie-breaking authority… 

* * *
So now, do you see it? This is the complementarian. I know him well because I used to be one. He floats like a butterfly and stings like a butterfly, which is to say he dances around the issue and never says anything negative. 

Turning our backs on equivocation and misdirection and mollycoddling, let’s try another tack and see how it goes. 

* * *
Patriarch: I hold to patriarchy. 

Feminist: Patriarchy? You’ve gotta be kidding me! What cave did you just crawl out of? 

Patriarch: No, seriously; I believe in patriarchy, just like thousands of generations before me, and I’m alive today, right now standing here in front of you. Do you know what patriarchy means? 

Feminist: Of course I know what it means! It means the husband sits on his behind in the Lazy-Boy watching football, yelling at the kids to stop blocking the television, yelling at his wife to go get him a beer. And while she’s at it, to make him some guacamole. And smacking her on the bottom every time she walks by. 

Patriarch: Well, if we’re simply going to trade insults, you know how many feminists it takes to change a light bulb? 

Feminist: (silence) 

Patriarch: Hey! Did you hear me—how many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? 

Feminist: Alright, how many? 

Patriarch: THAT'S NOT FUNNY! (he chuckles) 

Feminist: (confused) What’s not funny? 

Patriarch: (cheerful) That’s the punch line—“that’s not funny!” 

Feminist: (silence) 

Patriarch: See, I told you and you didn’t laugh. 

Feminist: What’s there to laugh about? 

Patriarch: Nothing. Nothing at all. It’s not funny. 

Feminist: So why are you a patriarch? 

Patriarch: Because when God made Adam first, then Eve, He was decreeing that across all time man would reflect His Own Fatherhood, his loving rule and authority. You see, that’s what ‘patriarchy’ means. Literally, it’s the combining of the two Greek words ‘father’ and ‘rule.’ In the relations between the sexes, there are only three options: patriarchy, matriarchy, or anarchy. You hold to matriarchy and I hold to patriarchy. 

Feminist: How can you say those are the only three options? What’s wrong with mutuality? 

Patriarch: Are you going to tell me that you know couples where neither partner makes the decisions—everything is mutually agreed upon? 

Feminist: Sure, I know all kinds of couples where neither partner dominates the other. 

Patriarch: Ah, now we’re off and running. First, patriarchy never means the father dominates his wife or family. Patriarchy means the father serves his family by taking responsibility for them and leading them to understand and worship God the Father Almighty from Whom all fatherhood comes. 

Feminist: You mean to tell me you actually believe that every husband is the head of his wife? What about government—are you saying it’s wrong to have a woman president? If Hillary Clinton ran, are you saying you wouldn’t vote for her because she’s a woman and it’s wrong for a woman to hold authority over men? 

Patriarch: Good questions. The particular application of God's Order of Creation, or patriarchy, to different spheres of authority needs to be talked about carefully. Sex isn’t the only thing to take into consideration when voting for a president, as in “She’s a woman so that’s that—I won’t vote for her.” That’s not my position. If Hillary Clinton were pro-life and her opponent were male and pro-abortion, I might very well vote for Hillary Clinton. But back to the underlying principle: yes, since God made Adam (the man) first, and Eve (the woman) second, all sexual intimacy is to be heterosexual and all relations between the sexes are to start with that truth of patriarchy God wrote into mankind’s DNA flowing from the Father Almighty. As in “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.”
He placed his father-authority in the male of the species—not the female of the species, nor equally in the male and female of the species…

Card of Circumcised Hearts Always the Trump Card

Within the household of God, circumcised foreskins never trump circumcised hearts. If a grazed woodlot is neither good woodlot nor good grazing, the halfway covenant is neither good covenant nor good halfway. The Lutheran priest who promises his baptism or Lord's Supper actually does something, and that something is eternal salvation, is lying through his teeth. Wise souls will run for their lives! (BaylyBlog)

Celebrations of a Sola Scripturist

"We should not attempt to escape from our embeddedness in the Christian tradition, but should rather celebrate it" (Stephen R. Holmes, Listening to the Past: The Place of Tradition in Theology, 13).

In light of the doctrine of creation, Stephen Holmes is contemplating the goodness of "historical locatedness" (6).

Let me add that it is the doctrine of sola scriptura which enables the believer embedded in the Christian tradition to celebrate, to borrow a phrase, both "in spirit and in truth." God's revelation teaches us first and foremost that God is God and we are part of his creation. Scripture is our chief authority, it is God's Word given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life (WCF. I. 2.), and in Scripture we learn to be thankful for "historical locatedness" (i.e., creatureliness) and to celebrate tradition, which is a "subsidiary authority" (6).

The Bible is Infallible and Normative Language

"The Bible is language. It describes itself. Not only is it preinterpreted by God (as all facts are), but it also interprets and describes its own facts. And Scripture's self-interpretations and self-descriptions are infallible and normative; in the most important sense, they cannot be improved upon" (John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 78).

 

Sola Scriptura - "The wisest council of advisors."

Peter Leithart's recent musings on sola scriptura. His concluding thought:

To open the Bible is to gather the wisest council of advisors: Moses and Samuel, David and Solomon and the Chronicler, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Ezekiel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jesus, Paul, James and Jude and John. I’ll put that up against any list of theologians you’d care to compile.

Frigid Teaching

"For nothing is more frigid than a teacher who shows his philosophy only in words: this is to act the part not of a teacher, but of a hypocrite" (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily I. NPNF1 11:4).

Frigid teaching is the worst, indeed. Yowsers!

Friday "How To Video" at Tree & The Seed: "How To" Spread Wealth Around Like Jello On A Plate

Book: This Is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought by Thomas J. Davis

I just finished This is My Body by Thomas J. Davis. It is an "academic" book; the author has taken a series of prior essays, presentations, and articles and redrafted and compiled them for publication in a single volume. The book does not, however, feel regurgitated. As I read each of the chapters got better and better.

The last chapter, Hardened Hearts, Hardened Words: Calvin, Beza, and the Trajectory of Signification, is absolutely fantastic. Davis' aim is to "undercut stereotypes" of Reformers (Calvin, Beza, & al.) by arguing that "a basic change in the orientation of signification occurred . . . as early as the thirteenth century . . . which did not begin the process of gaining cultural hegemony until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries." Which means that "[s]ignification made a shift toward the literal, where direct lines were drawn between sign and thing signified, and both were drawn into closest relationship until one observes almost a collapse of distances between sign and thing signified" (172). Interestingly, Davis appeals to and comments at length on the woodcuts and paintings of Albrecht Durer, Leon Battista Alberti, and Leonardo da Vinci as evidence of his thesis.

This chapter alone is worth the cost of the book.

Andrew's Art

http://andrew-luttrull-news.blogspot.com/

Take a break from Facebook, or whichever Internets-of-choice you prefer, and spend time enjoying images of art created by my friend Andrew. He recently completed his MFA examination.

Congratulations, Andrew!

Death of Christ: A Ransom

The death of Christ is a ransom, Matt. xx. 28, paid by compact for the deliverance of captives for whom it was a ransom" (121).

Scriptural Redemption

Under the heading "Scriptural Redemption," John Owen maintained that:

1. Christ died for the elect only.
2. All those for whom Christ died are certainly saved.
3. Christ by his death purchased all saving grace for them for whom he died.
4. Christ sends the means and reveals the way of life to all them for whom he died.
5. The new covenant of grace was confirmed to all the elect in the blood of Jesus.
6. Christ, by his death, purchased, upon covenant and compact, an assured peculiar people, the pleasure of the Lord prospering to the end in his hand.
7. Christ loved his church, and gave himself for it.
8. Christ died for the infidelity of the elect (302-303).

Death of Christ: Justice of God Satisfied

The end of every free agent is either that which he effecteth, or that for whose sake he doth effect it.

. . .

The end which God effected by the death of Christ was the satisfaction of his own justice: the end for whose sake he did it was either supreme, or his own glory; or subordinate, ours with him (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,Vol. 10 of the Works of John Owen, 1852 (reprinted, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2007), 50).

. . .

Now, the end of the death of Christ is either supreme and ultimate, or intermediate and subservient to the last end.

1. The first is the glory of God, or the manifestation of his glorious attributes, especially of his justice, and mercy tempered with justice, unto us (89).

. . .

2. There is an end of the death of Christ which is intermediate and subservient to that other, which is the last and most supreme, even the effects which it hath in respect of us, and that is it of which we now treat; which, as we before affirmed, is the bringing of us unto God (90).

Easter: Atonement - Consequent Absolute Necessity

Easter is almost here. Think about Easter; go ahead and think about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why did Christ die? Was it necessary for him to die in order to redeem sinners, or could God have redeemed men by an alternative method? Some Christians have said, ‘Yes, God could have saved men by alternative methods.’ Other Christians, however, have argued for the necessity of the atonement. John Murray, for example, argued for the ‘consequent absolute necessity’ of the Atonement: ‘The only righteousness conceivable that will meet the requirements of our situation as sinners and meet the requirements of a full and irrevocable justification is the righteousness of Christ. This implies his obedience and therefore his incarnation, death, and resurrection. In a word, the necessity of the atonement is inherent in and essential to justification. A salvation from sin divorced from justification is an impossibility and justification of sinners without the God-righteousness of the Redeemer is unthinkable. We can hardly escape the relevance of Paul’s word: “For if a law had been given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been by the law” (Gal. 3:21). What Paul is insisting upon is that if justification could have been secured by any other method than faith in Christ, by that method it would have been’ (Redemption - Accomplished and Applied, pp. 16-17).

Easter is almost here. Think about Easter; go ahead and think about the necessity of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It was necessary. It occurred. Sinners, therefore, were redeemed.