Life and Books and Everything
Life and Books and Everything

Episode · 6 months ago

Men and Women in the Church

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

There is much at stake in God making humanity male and female. Created for one another yet distinct from each other, a man and a woman are not interchangeable—they are designed to function according to a divine fittedness. But when this design is misunderstood, ignored, or abused, there are dire consequences. 

Life and Books and Everything is sponsored by Crossway, publisher of Men and
Women in the Church: A Short, Biblical, Practical Introduction by Kevin DeYoung.  

Men and women—in marriage especially, but in the rest of life as well—complement one another. And this biblical truth has enduring, cosmic significance. From start to finish, the biblical storyline—and the design of creation itself—depends upon the distinction between male and female. Men and Women in the Church is about the divinely designed complementarity of men and women as it applies to life in general and especially ministry in the church. 

For 30% off this book and all other books and Bibles at Crossway, sign up for a free Crossway+ account at crossway.org/LBE. 

Timestamps: 

Background of the Book in Question [0:00 – 6:01] 

We’re more confused than ever. [6:01 – 18:11] 

Critiquing the Thin Complementarians [18:11 – 36:21] 

Critiquing the Thick Complementarians [36:21 – 48:44] 

Stop Cherry-picking Examples [48:44 – 58:20] 

The Publishing Conundrum [58:20 – 1:04:24]  

Readings and salutations welcome backto life and books and everything I young and I am joined by Justin Taylorand Colin Hamson have bandback together as we talk about Varius and Suntry itemsrelated to life and Orebooks, and for everything, as always, greatfull tocrossway for the excellent resources that theyproduce, and at least one third of this triumprit whom they employ and for themany fine books and rangees it may be. The book they wish to highlight todayis called men and women in the church, a short biblical, practicalintroduction by me. So what's a non selfserving non awkward transition intotalking about this book and Colin and Justin will chime in maybe they'll havesome questions, but I have some questions for them as well, and we'regoing to use this episode to talk a little bit about the book, but no wantto be just a commercial for the book, but talk more broadly about the stateof complimentarianism and what we're seeing and what we think thechurch needs to be doing. So let me give a little bit of background on thisbook and then let call in and Justin jump in so this is called men and womenin the church is just coming out as we speak, that trucks are driving acrossthe country, unloading, just palates of books Yonder- and this goes back to a little known book that Iwrote many years ago. Called Freedom and boundaries actually started.Writing that my first pastoral charge in Orange City,Iowa and wrote started writing that then, in two thousand, a three twothousand and four and of course Justin wasn't returning my calls at the timeto get anything published with crossway. So I self published it. It came out intwo thousand and six and since then that self publishing company went bellyup. Thankfully I have the copyright, and so in the last few years, just inan crosswave said: Hey can we can we publish that and horders had it on Amazon for a hundreddollars and sure they didn't sell any at that price, and I have like the lastfifteen remaining copies worth: their weight and gold. They are, but I keptputting off Justin and saying well, I do want to do that, but it seems likejust a reissue of the book. Fifteen years later isn't going to work,because a number of the issues are different and a number of new issues,and so I kept putting off until I had time to try to revise some of it, andso I worked on that last year. So I'd say the book is the main exogeticalsections are slightly revised and then about half the book is completely new.Some people may recognize some different things. I've posted on theblog over the years there. So it's definitely not a second addition ofthat previous book. It's a brand new book. It has new content, but it isrevising some of the exogetical sections. Thankfully, my exogeticalconclusions had not changed much except a few tweeks in one or two areas, butit is significant. I think that in fifteen years since the earlieriteration of the book came out, my...

...circumstances have changed and some ofthe situations in the conservative vangelical church have certainlychanged. When I started writing the book. I was in the REFORMD church inAmerica. I was thinking mainly about addressing agalitarians in mydenomination, even a Galitarians in my church, and I knew that there were menand women who saw these issues differently and they I, like them, they're good people. Theywere not bad people, they had different conclusions. They looked at scripturedifferently, so I wanted as winsomely as gently as clearly as possible to lay out thecase for lack of a better term and we'll probably talk about terms in amoment complimentarianism. So I want to do some of the same things with thisbook. But now, fifteen years later, the conversation partners are not all thesame and the challenges to complementarianism are wellthey're still there from Galitarianexto Jesus but they've multiplied in different ways and some ways I think maybe conservative evangelicalism issuffering from its own successes in some ways that fifteen years ago, didn't really haveTGC or just starting or didn't, have t forg. That was just starting Tyoudidn't have the same kinds of networks of reformed. I conservativecomplimentarian, and so now that there's so much of that out there andso many people that would gladly say yes, this is the Jersey I wear. Thereare a number of debates not just with those who wear a different jersey,namely agalitarianism, but within those who say yeah. I basically think men should be pastorsmen only different conversations about whatchallenges and issues there are. So that's all by way of introduction,Colin Justin. What do you see or what do you think we need to talk about onthis broad topic Kevin. One of the things that stood outto me about the book is that- and I I think this is a big burden of yours inthis project- is that if we're limiting our entire views ofmen and women to a thin prescription biblically and we're not trying to address theunderlying reasons, sort of t a the way God hasmade us, then that kind of complementarianism is likely to getblown away. It's too thin, it's two it's too weak, and certainly that's oneof the tensions that we've talked about a lot. It's been pretty openly debatedfor some period of time, and I wondered if you could expand a little bit moreon just why you think we need to give moreattention there and I'll give some of my perspective I'm trying to publish onthis topic over the last number of years. I found it very difficult to write intopublish on this subject matter, there's something about people'sexperiences that makes them very difficult to be able to hear from adifferent perspective on this. I find it very hard to be able to explainexactly what is the essence of manhood. What is the essence of womanhood? Youtook a stab at it in here Kevin Talking about beauty with women and strengthfor men. You can come back to that as well. I'm interested to hear more ofyour thoughts on that. This is kind of where I've concludedover time of just kind of pounding, my head against a wall trying to publishon these things within just an online space and not having a lot of successwith it...

...is that for me to understood,understand manhood. I can talk to my dad about that. My grandfathers were good examples forme of manhood. It was something that I was h that I caught more than wastaught, and what do you think about that Kevin? Imean how do we I mean you're thinking about this with your own kids, your ownchurch books, blogs. All that sort of stuf. It just seems like the the mediummakes a big difference. So how did you think about that? In writing? A booktrying to take a stab at these big questions of like what is God's natural intent for thedifferences between the sexes? Because, again I can look at it and I can say:Okay, you know see, I guess another way to put it would be fror my dad and momthat seemed obvious. They didn't need a book to tell them that ore a bunch ofonline articles, but now it just seems like we're so much more confused and it's harder to be able to evenexplain basic things like that, even though you know it's going to like. Iknow it when I see it right. Yeah you hit on a lot of themost important issues there and we are more confused than ever. So let me tryto hit a few things that you said there. First, you talked about and some people don't like these terms,and I guess I'm somewhat responsible for them, maybe but narrow and broadcomplementarianism or thick and thin, and what I mean by that simply is. I sense that there are a number ofpeople in our friends, I'm not trying to just create bad guys, good guys or girls as the case baby, but folks whowould say yes, I agree with you exogetically on the conclusion that menshould be pastors and elders in the church and that in some broad sense,men are the head of the household. So those two things men are the head ofthe household. That's a verse on the Bible and qualified men alone should be elders pastors in the church, andthat's that's important things to agree on. But, as you alluded to, one of my realfundamental concerns is that if we, if we don't know the reasons for reachingthose conclusions or if we hold to those conclusions with little else byway of application or the underlying apparatus, I think in time they'll seemarbitrary. Capricious people wonder well. Why are we kind of holding on to these, and I dofear at times that people may hold on to those two conclusions, becausethat's basically the feel like the team they're on the network they're on, butthe denomination they're on that they don't want to cross, that Rubicon towomen's ordination or to women as elders, but beyond that there's sort ofnothing very little else. That seems to be at stake, and so one of the things Iwant to argue in the book is that those important conclusions are justthat. Their conclusions that come at the end of a lot of other importanttheological foundation that God gives us in his word that we see frombeginning to end that it was God's idea to create a two sex: humanity, male and female, andin at least a human sense of contingency, didn't have to do that.Nou could have found some other way to propagate the human race or could havefound some other way for fellowship or intimacy. But he chose to do this sothere's something inherent in the way...

God designed us and we all were meant to live ourChristian life as Christians, but as male Christians as female Christians.And what does that mean- and you hid on something really important, Colin- thatit used to seem more normal used to seem more obvious. Now,here's the the danger that we all recognize some of those things thatmaybe our parents or grandparents generation just assumed weren't, always in the Bible andcouldn't be shown from specific text that the man is the one who has to fixthe car. He deals with stuff outside woman Y, know, cooks, the meals or doesthe dishes and deals with stuff inside the house. So there are certain stereotypes ofmanhood and womanhood that we want to be careful that we don't try to readback into scripture. And yet, if we say well, there's really nothingthere's nothing to it that that being a man or being a woman, you know itdoesn't really have to say anything to do with how you might conductyourselves in the home or who might do what sort of work you know as soon as you get to theapplications where people in our day get really really nervous, and I getthat I get nervous too, and yet, if there's no application to it, what are we really saying and is thereanything to manhood in womanhood? So I'm wanting people to step back and say:Is there something antologically biologically physiologically, maybeeven emotionally psychologically different about manhood about being aman and being a woman that is by God's design and with appropriate flexibility,ought to have some practical working out in life. So oneof the words I use in one of the chapters is posture, the posture of manwho the posture of womanhood- and I use that term intentionally, because Idon't mean a rigid form that it's always going to look like this, butthere is a certain posture of the certain leaning in toward certainrealities and more and more especially, people are younger than US er going tobe very allergic to any of this. Some just one quick illustration that showsthe inanity of twitter. I posted something. LastSaturday I was going to ask about this Cavin I didn't know how to bring it up. So I do I do my own. I wash my ownclothes now. My wife doesn't ask me to do that. She does the others in fact she wishes. I didn't do itbecause she doesn't think I do a very good job. She thinks the clothes stillhave sort of like athletic stink in them and I'm notdoing things well but partly to help out partly so I can get this stuffclean when I want, I do it so I was doing a lot mine load of laundry lastweek and I was this ont look right. I poured in fabrics softener. I startedlooking this shems kind of thin. This doesn't seem normal and I looked at it.I don't think this is the same thing actually as detergent. I went and foundwhatever tide or something N. I just put that in over all the fabricssoftener ID already put in and turned out the clothes smelled really reallyfabric softener and woman actually came upt to me inchurch that next Sunday she said. Did you really do that pastor? I said Ireally did do that. Well, you probably had to wash all the clothes yeah. Ijust lived with it. Well wash him again next week when we get to it so thankfureverybody's wearing masks, right, yeahthat's, right Eso. I tweetedsomething: Hey guys her husband just...

...word to the wise fabric: softeners, notthe same as Deturchin, entirely a joke at my own expense,entirely pointing fun at myself and the response from some was how dare you that was a dress tohusbands as if it's assumed that they wouldn't be doing the laundry and allsorts of testimonials. The best thing I ever did for my sons, as I taught themto do the laundry and praise God for my mom, who taught to do the laundry andit in it should be fifty fifty. I think I didn't. I didn't tell anybody what todo with your laundry or how to do it, and I made a joke and that's how howsensitive we are to these things and the reality is, and you can see studiesit it, especially in Christian old, but even anon Christian. It's still the case that the wives are mostly doing the laundry,if you think, that's normal, if you think that's good bad, oppressive orother it's there, and actually it can be a little bit offensive to wives, awomen to act as if every bit of housework they do is oppressive to them that they haven't worked out whateverarrangement works well with their husband and that if they were trulyenlightened and truly liberated, they wouldn't be doing these things. So, yes, anything you say on twitter can andwill be used against you, Justin Ale, great fretiquing, you forthat tweet Kevin, sorry, so, going back to the thincomplementarians, I'm not a thin complimentarian, any sense of the work. If you can, if you only now me from myvoice, maybe that Jopol PA yeah, so I'm one of the is complementarian onthis. You are quite true, okay. What was my point so we want tobe fair to the thin complmentarians right that the narrow complementarians. I have never heard a good answer fromthem on the. Why Question? Why did God? You know they affirmed that onlyordained qualified men should be officeholders in the church, but thatquestion of why? What is the fundamental difference? Praise God thatthey do hold to that Biblical truth? But I've never been able to discern howit's not a similar case to God. Arbitraly decreed that redhead peopleshould be elders and blonds of Brunette shouldn't be. Have you heard a goodanswer to that? Or is that just me not looking carefully enough for askingenough people? That's a good question. I'm trying tothink what what someone you know we have friendswho would you know be in that camp whether theywould use that language or not? I think they might say well Justin, it's it'snot that I deny that there are real differences. But if you go beyond that you're adding to scripture, becausescripture doesn't spell spell that out N and then they probably go to know the the infamous sort of a woman shouldn't, be a male man or you know, sort of things that have been said outin CIBER space. So I think you're right and the other question- and I talkedabout this in the book and pipers- been good to bring up this question. It iswhat is the answer to the question: Mommy Daddy? What does it mean to be aman? What does it mean to be a woman...

...mean? Do you that's that's. That is thesort of question a child. Can Ask and often do, and you say well, it meansthat mommies have babies. Often you know that's even counter cultural.Today, an you can't even say that, but you have to say that to be biblical,but I would hope we would say more than than that or well to be. A man meansyou can be a pastor to be a woman means you can have a baby, but you can't be apastor. I think scripture gives us more thanthat and part of what the difficulty is, and Ithink I hit on these three words and my chapter on the Old Testament is: weneed to distinguish between prescriptions principles and patterns and at the one end, maybe there aresome complimentarians who have looked at patterns in he bible or Principales, and thenthey've made them iron, clad prescriptions. You can't do that orwomen can't work outside the home or now that's a problem, but t there's a danger in the otherdirection too and that' saying unless you give me a prescription, unlessthere is a statement from Paul saying women, don't do this men don't do that men wear these kinds of clothes, notthose kind of clothes. Then we can't say anything else, but that's not real,fair way to look at scripture either when we are meant to notice all sortsof principles and patterns that we see of how men and women relate to eachother, how they relate and leadership how they relate to the family. And soyou know one of the the patterns I drowut from the Old Testament. You lookat the opening chapters of exedus and you have the this Grand Story ofredemption, really maybe the centural event in the Old Testament, the Liberation and redemption from slaveryin Egypt and those opening chapters ind exodus, that whole story is drivenforward by women seeking to care for and protectchildren, Chiffron Pua, the nedwives protectingthe children. You have Moses, mom and Mirium, of course, trailing behind totry to find safety for Moses, not to be killed, and then you have pharol'sdaughter who takes in Moses. So you have people of different ages,different social standing, some even outside the Covenant Community- and Youhave clearly this story is now that's not a prescription. Women must work with children. Womenmust work in the nursery. Men cannot work in the nursery, but there is an important pattern thereand something that's worth celebrating something that's worth celebrating inthe work that women do know. One of the one of the readers of the book and sheprovided blurb is Abigail dods and Ebigil wrote on her blog. Was ityesterday about being in the ICU with her with her son? So you think of it webe praying for her and for her family. She made a very good comment to me and reading throughit. She said: Why is it that complomentarian sometimes and they getvery nervous, but they just talk about well men and women, here's all the thingsthey can do, but complimentarian is basically men and women. They each cando one hundred you know they can men can do a hundred things and women cando ninety nine things, and you know...

...they just women can't be elders orsomething. She says. What about the things that women can do, that mencan't do and chief among those is give birth to a child, know the joys ofmotherhood and, again not everyone will experience that, but but most womenwill or nursing or incubating human life want to talk about which sex hasan unimaginable privilege E. I wel, you know, that's sexist, you don't know howmuch yeah I don't know how much it hurts. Okay, I'm not I'm not minimizingto the effect of the curse, but it is something to be celebrated and if weget to a point in the church where we can't celebrate moms being moms and thehigh calling of Motherhood, then we've I mean we've completely lost what anysort of healthy complimentarianism should be like one follow up on the on the thin side.I do think you you got to the heart of the matter, Justin with the question of. Is it because the Bible doesn't say asmuch as we might expect, and I think you talk about that in the book. Don'tyou Kevin about how the Bible doesn't say as much as you might expect aboutexactly what this looks like, but when we come to that hermonutical principlewide of the Bible's silence, it could lead us in a few different directions.I'm wondering Kevin Which Direction you think this might lead us in. It couldleave us in the direction to say the bibble doesn't say more because Godwanted to give us flexibility, Know Cultural Flexibili, its one of thestrengths of Christianity. It is cultural, flexibliy hat's one option.Another option is because it was so obvious. I didn't have to be explained in the inthat culture. That's what we often hear about Jesus talking about homosexualityas an example. Why would Jesus talk about this so much because he alreadysaid he upheld the law. He fulfilled the law and we know what the Bible says.We know what the law says: WOUT, homosexuality, another option could be because, as we tried to go from why itwas so obvious at that time to today it's interesting how many things havechanged dramatically. So, for example, I think I don't know how you're notgoing to get much disagreement, that the biggest discernible differencebetween men and women is the difference in strength. Now it's not every man to every woman.We know that we're just talking about the aggregate and I wonder if we've lost touch alittle bit with how common like how often those forms of strength wereneeded not just for men also for women, but especially for men. How manyvocations that men pursued would not have required quite a bit of physicalstrength and stamina, anything from farming to war? Let's just take thoseto a examples right there. Now, how many? How essential is it tobe a man, or at least to be a lot stronger to be a farmer way less than it used to be? There are way fewer examples of thatwhere that would make a big difference. War would be another example, given how much warfare now is foughtthrough drones or airplanes or ships, or things like that missiles thingsthat in many cases a man and a woman can easily do they're, not dependint onphysical strength. Well, that would explain some of why our situation is sodifferent, because the many differences or the main physical difference isreally mitigated by our technological transformations in there. So I guessgoing back Kevin. What direction might you you point us in there of? Is itthin, because it was trying to give us flexibility to work that out ourselvesor it was thin, because I mean back, then it was so obvious. But, of course,if we go that route in some ways, it...

...definitely is not as obvious anymorebecause of just some some basic technological changes. Yeah, that's a really good question.I'd have to think. If I'd want to side with one or other of those x, you canyou go a whole different route, I'm just giving at those are the astionsthat I I know, but I certainly think I mean. Certainly we know that thingswere obvious in a way that they aren't now in certain patterns in certain ways of doing things could beassumed. N. We do want to always be careful not to go beyond scripture, butwe also want to be careful that in our own cultural moment we aren't trying toread out of scripture certain patterns and principles that bethere. You mean you raise it a great point that the most obvious, immediate differencebetween men and women is what you said. Biological PhysicalStrength and the need for that is has never been less in human history,and so the the difference is between men and womenhave in many ways, seemd to have been reduced, eliminated. Mitigated that if you, if you don't have to havebrute force, to carry out certain things, then how important is masculinity andfemininity to that? However, I would make a couple of arguments. One is that, even though it's often in the name of feminism or in the name of Women'sequality, I think what we so often see in cultural narratives movies is the a woman's valor is pitched in termsof masculand virtues. I mean it's, the the kick. You knowwhat heroine in a movie who could you knowdoesn't matter, you know how thin she is and she can stillabsolutely get in there and with the best guy can crack your neck can go inthere. She can be as bad and is tough and as rough as any man. Those arethat's the strong woman, that's the the heroine when we so rarely see- and I think you know others have made the same point, but weso rarely see a movie where a strong woman is sacrificing for a child is a nurse inan IU unit, is loving in ways that show great selfsacrifice. In other words, what we might typically associate with morefeminine virtues of self sacrifice, communal gathering those sorts ofstrengths. I would also say in you know any time you talk about this wholesubject. You know people re are not going to like everything you say, but I think it's the fact that once men and women will be different, theyare different and when we bring men and women together in certain circumstances,there is, on the one hand, a great sanctifying effect that women can haveon men. So I think marriage is a very good thing. We know Jesus was single,so it's not absolute. All of that, but it's a very good thing. I think thereis something that God means when he puts a man in marriage and when hegives him the blessing of children, that theyre meant a man is meant to bein a healthy way, sanctified...

...domesticated that having to love andprovide and protect a wife and care for tell is supposed to be a good governor upon the worst sort ofmasculine instincts. On the other hand, I would, I would say so: Soundou justput it boldly. I think when, for example, you havewomen become elders in a church, I think the male elder stop acting likeelders. I think the nature of eldership changes. I think it because women aredifferent, even godly women who come into that and bring Christian virtues to bear, think they are different and I thinkmen are men are wired to act differently around women and we tend to guard ourselves more. Wetend to be less aggressive and that's a that's a good thing. That's that's howthat's how God made us and yet then, maybe there is a reason why, having some female only spaces, somemale only spaces is healthy, and so I would argue that ethe Internet has has just further precipitated all of thisout I', be so bold as to say in general, you see men and women often arguingdifferently on the Internet. They make their sort of arguments in differentways. They argue with different sort of amotive force. They argue with either less or more drawing frompersonal experiences. They argue more or less appealing to personal suffering.Men and women argue things differently. They wield power differently and when we pretend those differencesaren't there, we not only don't do justice of God'sdesign, but we end up hurting both men and women and we lead to less healthychurches and less healthy homes. I'll be quick on this one justin. Iwant to follow up Kevin on there. Men Stop acting like elders question there. I wondered, I mean a lot of yourbackground of this book. You talked about writing your first draft in twothousand three, two thousand four and you ere in the RCA pretty young. Thisis something that you saw in that denomination, I'm assuming yeah nd and you know I have people thatI love and care for who differ with me onthis and friends or family women who areordained, and so I always speak respectfully but yeah. Ithink theyre. There is a a difference and I think there's a adifference. To you know. One of the differences sometimes between than andthick complementariang is, is what is an appropriate role for a woman. You Kow to be addressing men. On the one hand we say, of courseI don't want to say it's wrong for a man to learn from a woman, noPriscillan equilla with Apollos and all sorts of context, all sorts of nuances.And yet I would argue that, whatever you say about complimentarianism, if are sitting there, cheering on as awoman be rates the men in the audience. Ithink you've you've given up something of complimentarianism already, and so I there are inherent differences in men, women thatno matter what we do, no matter what our theology says, our socialengineering does, they will be there and they will find ways to come out,and so I think the Bible gives us ways...

...to have them come out in healthy waysand will get to in a moment where Complimentari ist maybe hasn't beenhealthy. But that's the aim and to pretend like we can do away with thedifferences, will not in the end be possible Justin Yeah. So let me ask youtwo part. Questions are two very different questions, but it starts tokind of critique to the right a little bit. You know: We've we've critiqued thatGalaterians, we've critique the think, complementarians and we all know thickcopple vetarians, who can be the cedit yes be thick in all senses of the word.Are there some ideas that you hear theological ideas from fellowcomplimentarians that make you cringe and are there and or are there postures,perhaps where you might agree theologically, but the Eq for lack ofbetter word is off kilter. So this gets to what's really difficult about this topic and you hiton it. Do we do we think the challenges to complementarianism are mainly insideor outside of the movement and again it's it's inevitably both andit depends on where you live and what you see and how you grew up and yourown experiences on whether you tend to think it's one or the other. So I think we need to talk about the theunhealthy sort of feminism. We need to certainly talk about the movement ofsexual liberation and how transideology undermines differentiation all of thosesort of outside secularizing liberalizing forces which your rightjustin and there would be many of our friends who would say really that'sthose aren't those don't seem to be the the big issues. Hof Big issues are thethings that we see and our complimentaryan churches, whether it's toxic masculinity, it's abuse and so toyour. So we have to anowege that these thingsare there and if someone, a man or a woman, says well Kevin here's what Igrew up with here's, what I saw here's what happened to me. I mean my first posture is going to bet believe what they're telling me and F it's an awful story say: THAT'S AWFUL!That's not what complimentarinism should be so to briefly answer yourquestion. What might be some ideas or postures that seem unhealthy among thethick Thi headhead complimentarianism, I would say a a hyper testostaron yea. Let's everything is turned up. The volume toeleven in everything. Is men go out and have your wincseton Churchill moment tofight them on the beaches and go out and yea that's called for at times, andthat is an expression I think of masculine courage and protection, butif that's the only mode, so that's one I mean I think related to. That is theflip side. What we're talking about earlier and that's when there are rigid stereotypes or when whencomplimentarians want to be overly prescriptive and to say well, you know real men, don't wear pinkpolos come on well, Oyou can't make that sort of statement,and yet there's something to what Paul saying in first cranthenseleven thatdress does show something about our bygendered identity, either male orfemale, and so we can't completely say...

...what you wear is irrelevant and we haveto deal with the cultural qes that tell us what sort of things are associatedwith manhood or womanhood. And so, if you know one of my sons wanted to wear think sure wouldn't be the end ofthe world. I wouldn't say: Well, you can ever do Thas, I would men do and on the other hand, if everything he wanted to wear was pink or frilly or or an. I would wantto talk to him about. What's going on, what's going on in what are you thinking here and have anhonest heart to hart about that? So I think there are certain postures whichare unhealthy and then the last thing and I'm interested Justin or Collin.How you'd answer that that question? I think so often. Actually I don't know how often, butI'm sure there are the kind of clueless pastors who haveas you saidjust in low Eq, emotional quotion. You know we hear a lot recently about the sort of mindset thatsays women are just temptations, they're,all just pot of hers, wife, and you can't talk to women and you boy. I hope I I don't think I've donethat there's something healthy in the billygrahmmarol there's something healthy and you know I'm gonna text. If I haveattemt to text you back and forth about a bunch of things, I may copy yourhusband on it. Thathat doesn't seem to be a bad idea.My wife is my wife's. Never come to me and says:No really makes me upset. Is You don't you don't talk privately withmore women? You don't email privately with more women. You don't textprivately with more women. I feel really demeand. No, I think she doesn't, but there are those pastors who seem so terribly awkward around womenwho never learned how to talk. I mean they may even be married,and it's always at arm's length. It's always in a they. They may not even mean to bedemeaning. They may not be sensitive to the factin a church that if you have a woman on your staff, she's very likely to be theonly one or one of very few and if you're not at least aware ofthat dynamic that that often can be hurtful to women. So I would guess inthe rank and file complimentarian churches. Yes, there's the horriblestories about which we hear too often, but I would guess it's more: The sort of clumsy awkward, low, Eq sort of momentsthat would be there anyways. But then, if you super impose upon that, this iswhat complimentarianism is about either, because the pastor did that or thewoman received it that way, and it feels really unhealthy w justin. Howwould you answer your own question? There yeah. I think I would answer real similarly to what youdid that I think it takes place in the race discussion, as well as the genderand sex discussion when it comes to Eq and it's one of those things that youcan kind of. You know it when you see it, althoughit can potentially be difficult to find just there are some people who are notinclined towards sensitivity who like to rub certain truths in people's face,who don't include nuance? Who Don't want to listen, and I think this is oneof those areas. The theological trues are eternal and beautiful, but we do bring experienceto the table. So, if I'm talking to...

...somebody, it makes a difference if yougrew up in Bill Gotherland of versus growing up in some very different sortof progressive permissive culturalsituation. So we bring our own experiences to the table and I thinkpart of just being a good Christian that, like me, Ana good woman, a goodChristian is to be a good listener, is to want to learn more to hear people tobe sensitive to what their fears and suspicions might be, without justtaking certain prescriptions and principles and sort of using them as ahammer and seeing liberalism everywhere and just the only solution of that is wheeld the hammer and let the truthdrop on. Whoever is on the other side of it. Yeah just say two things that real quick, Icompletely agree so maybe pushing to our folks on the right. Iwould just underline what you said: Theyre Justin a oftentimes a little bitof humility, a little bit of question listening that sounds awful.I'm sorry can really go a long way. I mean it nd, it's notyou don'twant to do it pandering you don't want to do it's not manipulating,but to really mean it- and it's true, you said both with race discussions andwith gender discussions, especially if you're the the personwho's been considered. The one to have power to have that posture that says, tell memore about that. That sounds really bad. I'm really sorry. I bet that happened and was even worsethan you can describe now. That goes a long way, my pushing to our folks on the left-and I think you would all agree with thias both of you is that we have tocome back. It sounds so simple, but we have to interpret our experiences through the Bible, not the Bible,through our experiences, and I do feel like in winternet discourse. Just encouragesthese bad behaviors that it's often an emotion in search of a rationalization.It's a personal narrative in search of some intellectual framework that can give some allusion of really hard one, rational thinking, andso we don't discount people's experiences. We don't discount,especially people who have grown up in very unhealthy environments and lack offather, bad husband, bad pasture, abusive situations and the Challengeis always to letscripture interpret those experiences not have those experiences dictate forus. Then here's what the Bible must be saying. So when I see what seems to be anavalanche of new books coming out in one way or another going after patriarchy, they would call it, and we could talk about that Patriarchyif you define it one way: N Father, rule iis a very biblical thing in anotherway. All of the cultural connotations is something ugly, but the the argument is is at least nowdoesn't seem to be so much here. Are The exogetical points that you'refailing on? Let's, let's do a massive word search on Cefhale? Let's look atouthantain and let's try to figure out how Greek infinitives work, but it'ssome mix of history, personal narrative, cultural analysis, all of which comesto the conclusion- and I might say the conclusion was already there but comesto the conclusion. This whole thing...

...that you, conservative, Evangelicalcomplimentarian people are doing is not even going to look at is are your?How do you understand your own views and are they biblical, but the wholething you're about is evil toxic denegrating to women and politicallyinflammatory, and so it's a very different kind of argument and I'd loveto hear well. Go to Colin and then Justin. I want you to just saysomething about that: Blog Post, that you reupd again on the conundrum ofcomplimentary and publishing in the challenge there, but anything to add tothis Colin. I wonder if Kevin we could trade trace, that mode of discourse toMatthew, vines, work on homosexuality and the conclusion of bad fruit, thet more or less. It's not so muchwhat the Bible says as what it's supposed to produce there and it's not hard to go through historyor today defind examples of people who are doing this poorly, especially onthe other side of your view. So if you're, a Galitarian or even beyondthat, gaffirming is pretty easy to find examples, and then you can just stringtogether a series of bad examples that seem to form this clear, unimpeachablenarrative. That shows that, well I mean only amonster. wouldever believe this it strikes me. I'm been trying to hold two things inmy head. Lately we published at the Gospel colocion recently Rebeccamcclauklan from her newbook, the secular creed N, with the Gosspelcoalition writing about how pro woman Jesus was, and one of the common critiques you getis yeah, so amazing that it only took two thousand years for any of it toactually you know happen. You know, jeevs was so pro woman and then for twothousand years the Church was totally oppressive toward women and then now,all of a sudden, it's great that's the argument that you hear, which is onmanifestly, not true. It's not, but you know again. This is the way this is way tick. Tock apologetics isworking these days, but I do think at some level we're trying to reconcile the beauty of what the Bible holds upand the promise of what the Bible holds up with the reality in some ways ofhistory and the difficult application of it. So I'm reading through BarbaraTuckman talking about the fourteenth century- and you know her overall view-is that the church's view on sexuality was inherently oppressive, but still some of the things she drawsout about the medieval churchis view toward women is plainly on Biblical. Itcannot be defense. It cannot be defended that the most ardentcomplimentarian today, where I'm watching the BBC adaptation of Warren Peace lastnight and one of the characters, a father- is just completely misagenistictoward his daughter, just absolutely horrible toward his daughter, and weknow that those things I mean a view of just actual female inferiority in thosecases, and so it seems like we're trying to deal with this. The Bibleholds up something really beautiful, but people really make a mess of it inthis world, and I want to point out that I've never seen this being acomplimentarian versus in a gallitarian thing, and I don't know how either side couldfeel real great about making an experiential argument. These days I mean it's just if you want to. If youwant to go, find examples of compmentariens doing bad things towardwomen they're out there and then I'm going to come back and I'm going to askyou about bill. hibles- and I say okay well so will have- wasone of the most staunch advocates of...

...women, supposedly in emagelicals hm andsecretly he's doing something very different, very different story there.It just seems that we've got to dial back the experiential narratives andtry to lift up the bibobiblical hope and try to live that. Try to live thatout and again. I believe the compementarian way of doing that is thebest way to do it. But there is something about complimentarinism where,when I fail to do what God calls Me To do toward my wife to love my wife asChrist love the church, it seems to hurt more. It seems to hurt her more.It seems to hurt me more because of the beautiful promise of what it holds outwhen I fall short of that. When I sin, when I don't live that out, it seems tobreed a certain kind of disappointment, and I wonder, if that's Kevin, a lot ofwhat's behind a lot of this trend that we're seeingis that commentersom holds out a pretty beautiful thing, pretty beautiful thing,but when it falls short, it gets pretty ugly, fast yeah to to quick thoughts and throwback to Justin. But one your point about history and how wetell history is exactly right: If the danger used to be Hageography, meaning we tellour history as nothing but saints. The danger now is Hamartiography, which iswe tell the history as nothing but sinners. Now we don't usually tell ourown history, though. Sometimes we do it and again that goes to race, too, were right, it's right to be to have itbrought to our attention that white American Christians over thehistory of this country, by a large on the racist you'V, gotthings wrong the different degrees, but that's not really fair historyeither. Nor is it a fair way to love our neighbor as ourselves. Our deadneighbors also ought to be loved, as we would want to be loved some day toreduce people to the one thing that our culture prizesmost, that they got most wrong without any benefit of context, without thebenefit of the doubt, without weighing against other options or othermanifestations, and so just on this issue of gender and sexuality. It's alltoo easy, take anything and give me fifty years to pick bad examples. Bad statements when what would really be morescientifically plausible, though can't really be done, is to say well what did the alternativeproduce? Did the alternative idea produce something much better or if those are the bad examples? Whatabout the hundreds of thousands of millions of people over these decadeswho have lived with these ideas and produced much good fruit in their homesin their marriages and their churches, but we're always that bad news alwaysmakes news, and it's not to discountit, I mean we need to see history, wartsand all, but now we have people telling history warts and nothing else, andyour warts, not mine, your your problems, your side and themore monocausal. Almost the more difficultit is to try to disprove, because you just take one big idea: you trace itwith all of the whatever bad examples you can find and therefore that equalsthis so hat. That's one thing second, is, I hope our listeners understand. I hopemy children understand Ow ourt hour...

...churches understand as much as we mightwant to not deal with issues of gender and sexuality. We cannot avoid them and be faithful in in this country and in the Westernworld. How often have I wished? I could be back in the sixteenthcentury where it was justification or back in some other century, wherethe reason that empires were against one another was homo. UCEON wasChrist of the same nature with the father, but you know that's onlybecause from an historical d distance, those seem like rather safeintellectual theological debates, but in the moment, in the time they feltjust as devisive just as explosive, just as absolutely combustible as these issues are so wecannot ignore issues of sex and gender and be faithful in this cultural moment,and we might wish that we had something else and there will be many otherthings we should talk about, but this is one that we can't avoid just in anything to pickyou back onthat or to go back to the question I asked ten minutes ago about the conundrum for complimentarianswriting on this issue. Yeah Il to say something briefly: Thad Your Little Jeramyad there warmed myhistorigraphical heart. I mean it really is lamentable that wehave professional historians trained at the highest level who are teachinggraduate students in historiography who are doing really bad mthdologicalhistory. That is unfair. That does not even attempting to be fear. That'susing history as a weapon, so I agree with you completely and I think thethree of us who all love history want to see honesthistory. If that makes us look bad, it makes us look bad. Let's just be honest:Let's get the facts out there. Let's look at this from all sides and notjust use it as a weapon against those mean people that we don't like therepugnant cultural other, exactly Yep yeah, so you've asked a couple damsabout this blog post. That is, I reupit every once in a while and its from TomShriner Dude Testament, professor at southern seminary, it's almost twentyyears ago, now that he wrote this, but he said sometimes I wonder if aGalitarians hope to triumph in the debate on the roll of women byPublishing Book afterbook on the subject, each work propounds a newthesis which explains why the traditional interpretation is flawed.complimentarians could easily give in from sheer exhaustion thinking that somany books written by such a diversity of different authors could scarcely bewrong. Further, it's difficult to keep writing books promoting thecompleentarian view. Our view of the biblical Texas not changed dramaticallyin the last twenty five years. Should we continue to write books thatessentially promote traditional interpretations? Is the goal ofpublishing to write what is true or what is new? One of the dangers ofevangelica publishing is the desire to say something novel our Evengelcapublishing houses could end up like those in Athens long ago who used tospend their time ind nothing other than telling or hearing something new codingX. Seventeen Twenty one- and I do think that is a really significant insight that thecomplementarians in terms of ex a Jesus say still hasn't changed our minds. We havenot been persuaded that the text means something different than what it lookslike it means. But how can you keep saying that year after a year afteryear, where the Galicarians can always propose something novel, some nute withsome new insight, some way that we've all missed thingsi think what...

...strikes me is that a Galitarians by andlarge, the most popular books don't even feel like they're trying to makethe biblical case anymore. It's just so blindingly obvious that these peopleare bearing bad fruit and therefore, no matter what the text means. It cannotmean that so I'm thankful Kevin in light of thatkind of gloom and doom report that you have written this book, because I thinkthat you do have a unique voice and insight and we do need to go back tothe text to go back to say what what does the word of God say is it' open tointerpretation? Is it clear? Is Their compelling reason beneath it and thento give people some practical helps? Not just you know. How do we pars thisparticular word, but it is one of those issues that you haveto make a decision if you didn't belong to a church and you just kind of debate it theoretically, if you'reinvolved in a church, you have to make a decision of, do you have women whoare elders or not? How do you treat women in the church? There is nopopential sitting on the fence with this issue, so I'm really Greatelly forthe book. Well, I'll use that as our segue towrap things up. Well, I'm mentioning my own bookmen andwomen in the church, a short biblical, practical introduction. It is all ofthose three things. It's only a hundred and fifty pages of text. Thefirst part goes through BYBLICAL, expiration part to questions andapplication. I say at the beginning: I want this to be a meat and potatoesbook, not a fire hot salsa book. So this is it's conversant and aware ofsome of the current issues that are out there, but it's not a book going to setthe record straight on everybody else. Who, I think is is wrong. It's it's. Ireally hope a non anxty kind of book. I wanted to be contemporary enough thathey it speaks into our moment, but I didn't want I to be the sort of bookthat three years fom now you say ah nobody's reading that other bookanymore or those blog post, don't matter anymore. So I would love for this to be a book that peopleon the Church Book Stall can pick up. Bible Study, the college student, ahigh school student, could say: Hey. I want to read something: That's prettyshort accessible but hopefully learned. So that's what I've tried to do, and Ijust picky back on your exhortation: There Justin to go back to the text. IfI know evangelical people want to give up on the term- and I understand somereasons why. But if that term has any historical value, we have to be thepeople who are going back to the text. That was the reformation sloganadfantise back to the sources. Let's go back, let's always go back and see whatthe Scripture says about this, that the Bible can shape. Who we are. The Biblecan interpret our own experience and then I think, as we come to theseconvictions- and maybe most of the listeners here- share thesecomplimentarian convictions. My pastoral exhortation is to be to befearless and to be happy if happy sounds too bad. Han Joyful isa good biblical word, but to be fearless, not apologetic, but there issomething very jarring to people when you hold thesesort of views in a way, that's happy and healthy and joyful and willing to make light of yourself and admit yourown faults, and especially to the men out. There laydown your life to to love and sacrifice for your wife and to if you have e theprivilege of raising children to raise them as becial can to be men and womenandtegodsown heart. So thank you,...

...brothers and Lord Willing, we'll seeeach other in person golsiple coalition next week M. looking forward to thatand t talk about some more books so untilnext time hope you will glorify God em join forever and read a good.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (41)