The Bayly brothers and the Trinity
Feb 1st, 2008 by Cheryl Schatz
Awhile back I was asked to consider posting a comment on a very strong complementarian blog that is known to be rather unloving towards egalitarians. This particular blog, I found, was run by two pastors of a Presbyterian church who appear to think that egalitarians do not have the right Jesus or the right gospel and they have taken it upon themselves to “rip” at the sheep who do not belong to their own complementarian flock. Since there is only one good shepherd and he is the shepherd and master of the entire flock, I wondered how Jesus feels about under-shepherds who mistreat the sheep.
I was quite shocked to see how a fine Greek scholar (Suzanne McCarthy) was treated on their blog not only because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek from the original Greek manuscripts, but also because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet. Apparently they didn’t have an answer either to what I said about the Trinity because they shut down the comments within a short time of my posting my comments and recommended that a woman should do a Titus 2 work in order to help me to understand the Trinity since I apparently didn’t know a thing about the Trinity. You can read the original post of the Bayly brothers here.
Since I am in the research and writing process of our newest DVD on the Trinity and a part of the DVD will deal with the errors of the complementarian position which teaches that Jesus is eternally subordinated in role, in will, in authority underneath the Father, I am interested in how I will be corrected by one of the women followers of the Bayly brothers. Kamilla is willing to do this “correction” and I am offering this post for our discussions. This public forum is for two reasons. First of all a public discussion is always best to create a permanent record of the argument and so all can see the attitude that comes through. We are all encouraged by Paul to be gentle and respectful so that all can judge for themselves the argument without any quarreling or disrespect. Paul instructed Timothy:
2 Timothy 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
2 Timothy 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth
The second reason is that I think we can all learn and participate in this discussion and since my time is limited because of the DVD project, I would love to welcome those who have things to say about the Trinity to be able to do so in a safe environment.
Since I greatly desire a respectful conversation and since I know most if not all of you who are regulars on my blog agree with me, I think we can welcome Kamilla as a complementarian sister and ask her to make her time here an exercise in grace a.k.a. 2 Timothy 2:24, 25. Everyone who is interested in this kind of discussion is also welcome with these rules:
1. Correspond in the tone that you would if Jesus was sitting by your side and reading every word you are typing.
2. Remember that healthy discussion and passion is fine as long as there are no personal attacks and the language is respectful. Jesus said that they would know us by our love. (John 13:35) Let’s prove to the world which ones are really Jesus’ disciples in this forum.
3. Be patient and kind especially since my time is limited and I cannot always answer right away.
4. If you do not follow these rules, I reserve the right to edit out inappropriate content or remove your posts altogether. All new posters will have their first post held for pre-approval.
5. Women and men are both welcome to post and no one will be told to “be quiet” because of your gender.
Kamilla may not be on-line until Monday, however if any of you other dear souls have comments about why you believe that it is important to see Jesus as equal with the Father in will, in authority and in “role”, you are welcome to post. If Suzanne reads this post and comes to interact, I would like to just say “You go girl! You are welcome and respected here as a dear sister in Christ.”
Cheryl
One of the many problems with the concept of eternal subordination in the Trinity is that it presents more than One Will. As we can see in the Athenasian Creed that is one of the errors the creed was written to correct. Here are some excerpts to consider.
“And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.”
“So likewise the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord.”
“And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another: none is greater, or less than another.”
If the Father has a will and the Son’s will is different from the Father’s in that the Father must take authority over the Son, then there can be no Son’s will at all. A will that is never expressed is not a will at all. It is no different than one who has no will to begin with. Before the incarnation we find the Word of God as the LORD of hosts with will and action and plans. There is no sense that he has to ask permission or submit his will to the Father. It is important to identify the Son in the Old Testament so that we do a biblical test to find his will and if it is ever used.
Thank you for the show of solidarity but I would like to clear something up. I do not believe that I was asked to be quiet because I am a woman. In fact, I notice that many women comment on that blog. Rather, I was asked to be quiet because they disagreed with what I was saying. Quite frankly this is within their rights.
It has been a good lesson for me in learning to submit without actually feeling that by submitting I am therefore of lower rank than men in either essence or function. I have agreed to certain conditions. Although I am not exactly sure if I have kept them all, they have allowed me to continue to post. I appreciate that.
I am very interested in how your debate unfolds here but I will watch only. I am not an expert in the history of the church’s view on hierarchy in the trinity. To me it seems a very complex matter.
Suzanne,
Again, I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.
Thanks for your comments! I have noticed, though, that there are men who have disagreed with the Baylys and I have not seen them asked to be quiet. I do have to admit that I haven’t read everything they have posted, so I could stand to be corrected. If they have also asked men to be quiet, then you are right, it would not be your gender but your position that would make them tell you to be quiet. I also got the distinct impression that they were referring to scripture when they asked you to be quiet. 1 Timothy 2 comes to mind as well as 1 Cor. 14:34, 35. If that was the case, then it would be your gender on top of what you said
I also am most interested in the Trinity itself as expressed in the pages of the Bible. The history of the church is far behind what the scripture says and the church fathers must bow to scripture. It is my intention to give a scriptural defense and I will be asking Kamilla to do the same. Once we have covered that, we can move on to other issues.
“If the Father has a will and the Son’s will is different from the Father’s in that the Father must take authority over the Son, then there can be no Son’s will at all. A will that is never expressed is not a will at all.”
Yes, good point. That is the picture that Burk is painting, right? My thought is that if anyone has to give up his will to another, then he has lost his will. But at one time he did have one.
It is my understanding that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are always of One Will. None has to give it up to another, none requires the other submit to His Will instead of their own. Only One Will, means there cannot be one who has the authority and one who submits to that authority. There is nothing to submit to if the Trinity has only One Will.
When hierarchalists try to add authority and submission into the Trinity they divide the substance of the Trinity and they seek to add in human thinking. It is difficult for humans to conceive of the actuality of three who are in perfect Oneness. We can only conceive in human experience of one who takes authority over others in order to maintain one will. That is grossly different to the Oneness of the Trinity.
Anyway, I’ll try to find some time to see what Giles has to say on this subject also.
and of course we then have to add Christ as Messiah, the God-Man into the equation.
Justa Berean,
It is the human Son where the human will was in subjection to the divine will. Since we all agree that the human Son of God submitted to the Father and there was a will under submission, we must look outside the incarnation to prove an eternal submission of the Son’s will. The problem is exactly what you have stated. If the Son never uses his will and always submits to the Father’s will, then we know that the Father’s will is always in opposition to the Son’s will. That doesn’t sound too good does it? It kind of makes the Son out to be less than perfect if his will is never in agreement with the Father’s. However when we see the Trinity in the scripture there is never any member of the Trinity in opposition to the other members. They have one perfect will in unity.
Yes, exactly. And since the Trinity is One and always in perfect accord, then when they planned the redemption of humanity they were also in perfect accord. Thus the Word of God (John 1:1) who was in the beginning was in agreement to becoming the Messiah at the appointed time. And as the God-Man, being clothed in human flesh (Phil. 2:5-8) in the form of a man also needed to be in accord with God in all things. Since human flesh is not God, this human flesh needed to be submitted during the life of the Messiah.
I’ve often wondered about after the resurrection when Christ’s human flesh was transformed into whatever it is now. Perhaps, we will be like Him when we are raised also.
To me even talking about the mystery of it all stretches the bounds of thinking.
Cheryl, I think it is a good idea to have this discussion publicly. It keeps all parties accountable. I also thank you for being willing to allow free and open participation via this blog, and for making the ground rules clear at the beginning. Most patriarchal/hierarchal bloggers don’t even permit comments on their blog. It is as if they are afraid of someone making points that make too much sense. On some patriarchal blogs and discussion boards that do permit comments, I notice it seems to be a common practice that once a commenter starts showing how biblical the egalitarian position really is, comments are immediately shut down or comments are deleted.
Light, thanks for expressing what you did. I wanted to express the same.
Light,
I too thought it was a great idea to have a respectful public discussion. When Kamilla wrote me she suggested that I read her public comments on the baylyblog.com site (under her name) in the archives. After receiving biblical wisdom and reading her comments on several discussion boards/blogs that she posts on, it became evident to me that a public “correction” from her was the best way to keep things in a healthy, respectful manner and so I set up the blog “meeting spot” and made rules of biblical engagement. I sent this email to Kamilla:
This morning I got this email from her:
My response back to Kamilla:
While many would welcome a correction given in secret, I welcome a public “correction” if the one doing the correcting is especially prone to the type of rhetoric and insults that is common on the baylyblog. If Kamilla chooses to change her mind and wants to dialog in this respectful format, I am very willing to talk and I am willing to listen and consider her words.
Cheryl, I was very sorry to read Kamilla’s response. I thought your rules of engagment were very protective for her. And I agree that a public correction is the only option here. We must all test everthing taught and be Bereans.
I have several friends who have been kicked off the Bayly blog because they were women who disagreed..quite nicely, too. This was probably over a year ago. They were accused of being in sin and rebellion for disagreeing with Patriarchy.
As long as I have been reading you, I have found you to be extremely respectful, loving and gracious toward those who disagree. But, I am also glad you will not be bullied.
BTW: Has anyone else here read this paper by Russell Moore titled After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate:
http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf
It is scary. (And on topic with this thread as he is arguing a more Patriarchal complimentarianism based on authority within the Trinity)
Here is an excerpt:
“Authentic biblical patriarchy is necessary because the problem is not that evangelicals do not hold to “traditionalist” notions of gender and family, but rather where they find these notions. Wilcox correctly argues that patriarchy is “pervasive, at least symbolically, in the world of conservative Protestantism” since “God the Father stands at its Trinitarian core, transcending heaven and earth.”13 It seems, however, that the symbolism is not well fleshed out in evangelical churches, since “patriarchy” in conservative evangelicalism is so loosely, if at all, tied to the Fatherhood of God.
There is some progress here in evangelical complementarianism, largely in response to egalitarian claims for “mutual submission” within the Godhead. Complementarian theologians such as Bruce Ware and Peter Schemm have demonstrated convincingly that the Trinitarian “bungee-jumping” of egalitarians such as Gilbert Bilezikian and Kevin Giles have erosive implications not only for male headship, but also for an orthodox doctrine of God.14 Randy Stinson of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has demonstrated a dangerous trajectory within religious feminism when it comes to the God/world relationship.15
But there is more here to be said about the Fatherhood of God—a Fatherhood that is not just eternal and abstract but realized in a divine relationship with Jesus as the representative Man, an historical Father/Son covenantal relationship that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers. Patriarchy then is essential—from the begetting of Seth in the image and likeness of Adam to the deliverance of Yahweh’s son Israel from the clutches of Pharaoh to the promise of a Davidic son to whom God would be a Father (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26) to the “Abba” cry of the new covenant assembly (Rom 8:15). For too long, egalitarians have dismissed complementarian proof-texts with the call to see the big picture “trajectory” of the canon. I agree that such a big-picture trajectory is needed, but that trajectory leads toward patriarchy—a loving, sacrificial, protective patriarchy in which the archetypal Fatherhood of God is reflected in the leadership of human fathers, in the home and in the church (Eph 3:14-15; Matt 7:9-11; Heb 12:5-11). With this being the case, even the so-called “egalitarian proof-texts” not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, they actually prove the opposite. Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy—a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.
This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded then in the overarching theme of all of Scripture—the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).16 It does not divide God’s purposes, his role as Father from his role as Creator from his role as Savior from his role as King. To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to his headship—a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ (Heb 12:5-11). This protects evangelical theology proper from both the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and from the “most moved mover” of open theism. Indeed, the evangelical response to open theism would have been far more effective had evangelicals not severed the issues of open theism and egalitarianism. Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different. It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy.
Many egalitarians are quite willing to concede what some complementarians are afraid to say: a rejection of male headship means a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty.”
I could never take Russell Moore seriously again after reading an article where he expressed contempt for those who practice cooperation and mutual decision making in marriage.
It’s really too bad when one ideological faction of Christendom cannot just amicably and realistically concede that outside of the essentials (Athanasian Creed), not all Christians agree upon what the Scriptures teach.
I for one am more amazed at what the Bible does not say as opposed to what it does say concerning faith in Christ and Christ alone.
History does repeat itself in cycles though, and I do see the complementarians breaking off and creating a kind of eastern empire, much in the same way Constantine did in the 4th century.
‘Cheryl, I was very sorry to read Kamilla’s response. I thought your rules of engagment were very protective for her. And I agree that a public correction is the only option here. We must all test everthing taught and be Bereans.’
Lin, I thought they were protective too and I agree with the public ‘correction’. Most would like to be corrected privately, and understandably so. When one doesn’t mind a public ‘correction’, well that can say alot of things…best of all accountability could be in operation in such an enviroment.
Greg Anderson:
‘History does repeat itself in cycles though, and I do see the complementarians breaking off and creating a kind of eastern empire, much in the same way Constantine did in the 4th century.’
Greg, there is something happening, some kind of ‘break off’. Don’t know exactly what it is but something….at least as far as I can see. Wish I could see more or understand better.
‘And I agree that a public correction is the only option here.’
Nothing to be afraid of in the light.
Lin,
Thanks for providing that quote. I do have several Russell Moore audio lectures on the collapse of patriarchy. It has been awhile since I listened to the audio tapes. I will have to pull them out again. I actually have quite a number of CBMW speakers whom I have downloaded that I haven’t found time to listen to yet. I can only listen to this stuff in limited blocks of time not only because I am so busy (which I am) but because they cause me great irritation by the misusing of God’s word. For example when Moore says that Galatians 3:28 is all about patriarchy which takes the emphasis off of Jesus and on to only the Father and from there all men/husbands, is so far off what the scriptures actually say in context, that it is nothing less than proof-texting in the worst way.
Greg,
The problem with those who promote patriarchy is that their methods are akin to the world system. They speak about servanthood but their way actually promotes abuse. Where is the limits and who regulates what a man does to his wife? And why is patriarchy so important that God would create a being who will never grow up spiritually. She must look to her husband to keep her in line spiritually and the times when she feels the strongest in opposing a view of her husband’s, she is forced into submission at the expense of her free will. The biblical way is to world through the differences in order for both to end up with a united will. Whenever one bowls over the other person disregarding another person’s will and forcing their decision on the other person by pulling rank, one is following the world’s way.
So the question I have for y’all, is Jesus’ will ever revealed in the New Testament? We know that Jesus as a human submitted to his Father’s will. Did Jesus ever exercise his own will while he was here on earth? Thoughts?
Pinklight,
You are right. Anyone who has nothing to hide should not fear a public “correction”. I have nothing to hide and if I cannot support my belief through scripture alone then there is more work needed. The thing that I always like the most, though, is a respectful handling of disagreements and that is key to my decision to go public.
“‘History does repeat itself in cycles though, and I do see the complementarians breaking off and creating a kind of eastern empire, much in the same way Constantine did in the 4th century.’”
Or even during the Reformation. The groups who had been outside the Catholic church were thrilled with the Reformation until they realized that the reformers were keeping many things Catholic like infant baptism, state church, etc. The refused to join and were considered heretics. Many descendents of these groups later coming to America seeking freedom of worship. I read something recently that approximated that only 6% of the American population were members of the Church of England before the Revolutionary war. I was stunned since that was the ’state church’.
The parallel is how many comps are now teaching that egal doctrine is as dangerous as Open Theism or Liberation Theology and is sin. People are being shamed and shunned for being egalitarian. I know many who just keep their mouths shut about it at church. Why? It is very hard to find an egalitarian church that is not liberal in primary doctrine.
Did anyone notice in the paper how concerned Moore is about complimentarians being too soft? And this softness, to him, means they are losing to egalitarians? I do not understand this at all because comps pretty much hold the power reigns in many mega churches and denominations.
Light, you summed it up in what you heard him say about mutual decision making in marriage. Do you remember the reference by any chance? That is pretty hard core.
anti spam word: light :0)
Here’s what Moore says: “Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” Moore said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism — and our foremothers, too.”
And here’s the link: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22161
Thanks, Light. Unbelieveable.
Here is another confusing quote from the same article:
“Moore called for a complementarian response built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of male headship in which men lead their families and churches by mirroring God the Father, whom Scripture portrays as the loving, sacrificial, protective Patriarch of His people. ”
This only reinforces the teaching of putting Jesus in a subordinate place within the Trinity, calling for men to model God the Father instead of Jesus Christ is confusing. Doesn’t scripture call for us all to model Christ as He was on earth?
# 21 by Lin:
Yes I know what you mean about the mainline churches who are egalitarian but tend toward liberal theology, contemplative prayer, and other new age trappings, I am in one at present. (ELCA Lutheran).
Those of us there, who are of like persuasion (Bible-believing), keep our mouths shut too and don’t rock the row boat. We are a support group for each other in our adult Sunday School class.
Our only other alternatives are the mega congregations like Calvary Chapel and Evangelical Free, which tend toward hyper-fundamentalism.
Most of us have been there, done that, and don’t wanna go back.
We’re kinda like lizards caught between a man-hole cover and heavy traffic.
I didn’t know this post and comments existed till today, when I was doing a search on anti-egalitarian writings. I came upon a blog that mentioned the “Bayly brothers” and decided to look. It was a former participant of that blog who had been banned, lied to, lied about, gossiped about, and called names. She was a “Piper” comp. but disagreed with the blog owners about some minor point, and for this “crime” they treated her like an unbeliever.
This is what I call “Christian Cannibalism”. I’ve experienced it often myself in other venues.
pinklight, there is indeed a “break off” happening in the churches. God is beginning to separate sheep from goats, and we need to take warning. Persecution is coming, and the persecutors will be “of our own household”. It is a spirit of cannibalism; it devours its own kind. That’s why I do not associate with people having that kind of spirit. If anyone is treacherous, dishonest, backbiting, slandering etc., I am resolved now to not even try to talk to them. My blog is there for people to read if they choose, but they have to be willing to listen.
Paula, can you please provide a link to your blog here? I didn’t see it above.
Sure…
http://www.fether.net
Light,
Thank you for that link! That was great!
Paula,
I appreciated it too that you gave a “heads up” regarding someone else who was mistreated on the bayly blog. I did a quick search and found a blog that gave some of the discussion that resulted in a poster being kicked off. I don’t know if it was the same poster that you came across, but the disrespect that was given to her was extremely troubling to me. I see this all the time in the cults, but when it comes into Christianity, it causes me so much sadness.
Another quick word to all who read my posts and have stood with us in prayer while we fight a battle against the secular government who is intent on taking away our freedom to preach the gospel to those who are lost in the cults. I am not yet ready to give a full update on what is happening to our ministry, but today God gave a word of wisdom and the four of us who have partnered together in ministry have a sense of joy that God has stepped into a very serious situation and he has come to our rescue and he will fight on our behalf. I can’t give any details out right now but when things are completely settled I will do so. All I can say is that we are at peace and we are joyfully praising God for his wisdom and his timing! Praise the name of the Lord!! He indeed is our helper and our defender.
Hey Cheryl,
How’s it going? I haven’t read your post entirely… but I did just read their post. I also haven’t read all the comments (waaay to many). But I was thinking of some things.
They apparently believe that they have the right to as other “wives” to be silent (i.e. Suzanne McCarthy). Which I assume means that they believe woman/wives should submit to all men (not just their husbands). At least that’s the impression that I get.
They also believe that a husband does have to submit to other authorities (such as, “a boss at work, a cop on the highway, the IRS April 15th, the pastor preaching, the elders correcting”). What if it was a woman boss? or a woman cop? or a woman at the IRS? It seems like they would have the right to tell them to be silent and to submit.
Also, they seem to have forgotten Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…” That sounds too submissive for me. Perhaps it should be changed to “Husbands love your wife as Christ loved the church and made all the decisions for her…”
God’s Glory,
Lew
I read the article linked in post#22 and blogged about it today:
Straw Man Burning
Paula, Great article you wrote. You are more ’scholarly’ than the scholar! :o)
Tanx Lin
But honestly, it didn’t take much effort to “out-scholar” him. He made such elementary errors of Bible reading (I couldn’t call it exegesis because there wasn’t any) and logic, which seems to be common among comp “scholars”. Suzanne has called Grudem out on numerous blunders of basic Greek.
Reading Grudem is like driving on a Mobius strip; before too long, ya can’t tell which end is up…
True, Greg! Frighteningly true.
Hi Cheryl,
How’s your research going. I hope and pray it’s going well. I am familiar with the Bayly blog. Some of the posts regarding evangelical egalitarians are just plain horrific. I’ve been noticing a trend in the American Christian blogosphere for so-called conservative, orthodox evangelical Protestants’ rhetoric to be manipulative, divisive, and just plain pugnacious all in the name of God’s glory. These practices do more harm than good for the advancement of the Gospel. They tend to be overzealous about correct doctrine (even if they are right on essential matters) they tend to minor on correct behavior and speech towards others.
I confess the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and affirm the ecumenical creeds of the Christian faith. But since when did complementarianism a very recent theological development become the test for Christian orthodoxy?
This doctrine is based on fear due to societal change, not careful, prayerful reflection on Holy Scripture and in conversation with the Great Tradition of the Church (not that I hold Tradition on equal status with Scripture, just that it’s helpful to look and our elder brothers AND sisters in Christ for wisdom and weight against Scripture).
This really put egalitarians in a theological predicament regarding fellowship. We don’t hold much in common with theological liberals but we are scorned by evangelical complementarians. Lord help us to endure and give our brothers and sisters on the other side of this issue have are heart of charity towards us and let us do the same.
Cheryl,
I just read that recent post on Bayly’s blog about Carolyn Custis James and Suzanne’s comments. Lord have mercy! Suzanne held it down, truly! You go, Sister Sue! I’ve never read so much arrogance and lack of discernment in my life. My goodness Jesus!
Another pet peeve of mine: One guy commenting on Suzanne accused her of attacking God’s Word and his character. What is with people thinking that others can attack God. Our arms are way too short to box with GOD. True false doctrine doesn’t attack God nor his Word, it attacks God’s people and lead them from the Faith. People need to realize God has not nor has ever need people to defend Him. He calls us to repentance, trusting and obeying His Word. A deity who needs defending is not a god worth worshiping.
Blessings.
#29 Lew,
Yes, I too got the impression that they believe that as men they are allowed to silence other men’s wives. I also think they would be very disrespectful if they had a woman boss.
#30 Paula,
Great post and thanks for the link! Paula is one who likes to get to the meat of the matter.
Tanx Cheryl!
Jason, I agree, we egals are pretty much outcasts now. We are automatically lumped with the theologically liberal (yet, of course, we dare not lump comps with the abusive and dictatorial!). And the theologically liberal will not tolerate our insistence on Biblical fidelity, viewing us as those dangerous fundamentalists. It’s a real mess.
Paula, That’s exactly what I meant by the crack I made in post #24
about the lizards caught between a man-hole cover and heavy traffic.
The metaphor is typically Southern Californian; you have two choices, a mainline denomination that is egal, but inching toward apostasy, or you can get flattened by a patriarchal authoritarian regime in one of the mega-fellowships.
Take your pick.
Jason #35,
Things are going well for me but very, very busy. I am still working on the Trinity DVD but distracted with legal matters with the ministry. Hopefully it will be resolved soon.
Jason you have hit the nail on the head. There are those who are willing to separate over a secondary issue and treat their brothers and sisters in Christ as if they are the enemy. This is very wrong and hurts the Lord Jesus who desires that his body draws together in love. It is so sad.
Jason #36,
I was shocked too at the harsh comments. Suzanne really did keep her cool and exhibited true power under control. It is these kinds of blogs (baylyblog.com) that should cause those sitting on the fence to really question the complementarian position. This unloving, unwarranted attack on the body of Christ is not the fruit of the Spirit and many men have left because they could no longer stand the attacks on their brothers and sisters in Christ. Complementarians like this really are their own worst enemy.
Greg,
Great imagery as usual. Lizards and manhole covers and traffic!
@Cheryl:
“Complementarians like this really are their own worst enemy.”
Amen!
Thanks, Greg, I didn’t catch that the first time, sorry.
Well, the Baylys are an interesting breed, aren’t they? As Lin mentioned, the patriarch crowd (much like the more recent comments from Russell Moore of CBMW and SBTS) find complementarianism to be too lax for their standards. Patriarchy is far above and beyond CBMW’s stance on many points regarding gender. They quote Moore often, but I believe that all but the Federal Visionists scrupulously avoid the topic of the Doctrine of God and Trinity. (The Baylys are very friendly with Doug Wilson who is the source of the Federal Vision teachings on Trinity and the appeal to the Trinity to support female subordination, BTW.) They enjoy the ability to draw on Moore and Ware without being held to the foundational assumtions of their Trinitarian (or anti-trinitarian) views. They practice a great deal of intentional vagueness in order to enjoy this lack of accountability.
The Baylys present excellent examples of the hyperbolic verbal aggression within patriarchy, exemplifying this spiritually abusive characteristic very notably. I don’t know that it is fair to many of the men in the complementarian camp to call patriarchs complimentarians! To many, the patriarchs are a whole different breed, even though they rely heavily upon the teachings of CBMW.
If you were insulted or thrown off the Bayly blog, you are to be highly esteemed and should wear the status as a badge of honor!
Under Much Grace,
When I was doing research for my DVD series, I was literally shocked at the things I came across from CBMW and John MacArthur as I couldn’t believe that they could be so strict against women. If you would have told me four years ago that I would say that CBMW could even be considered mild compared to these ultra patriarchal groups, I don’t know if I would have believed it then. It is so unfortunate that these patriarchal groups seem to have gained inroads with home schooling groups. It is also unfortunate that the patriarchal groups are responsible for causing so much division in the body of Christ.
The more I read of bloggers like the Baylys and those on the discussion boards at Carm I really can fully appreciate blogs such as this. It seems to me that the accusation of egalitarians having a problem with authority is misplaced. Complimentarians seem to view everything through the lenses of power instead of love. The scripture says that “God is Love” and that the proof that your are one of Christ’s is the love we show one toward another not the power that we can claim over one another. I Corithinans 13 tells us that ” that love is not puffed up” and “love seeks not her own”. The ugly attitude and personal attacks errupt (when they ca’nt rightly defend thier position, Diane on Carm has called Bibically informed egalitarians stupid) are symptoms of the lack of love in some members of the body of Christ (therefore, all the members suffer.) In such an effort to be orthodox (as they see it) they have omitted the weightier matters of the law which is judgement or justice, mercy and faith. Make no mistake Egalitarians do not miss the air of superiority that leaders in the complimentarian movement exude, that spirit is really there and it thrives among authoritarians. It is not just a figment of the Feminized Church’s (so complimentarians call it) imagination.
Very good points, Terri! I especially liked this:
Complimentarians seem to view everything through the lenses of power instead of love.
This is really the bottom line. When you view things through the lens of “power” such as who is on top or who is the big boss, our world view is distorted. You are right in that Jesus taught us to love one another and to hold the other in a higher regard. Those who seek power simply cannot do that because it goes against their goal.
“. . . because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek from the original Greek manuscripts, but also because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet.”
Neither of these are reasons they gave for asking Suzanne to be quiet. In the first case, you are making assumptions about their motives. In the second, you are misrepresenting what they said, as Suzanne herself has told you. This makes a poor impression on me. (Although it does leave me favorably impressed with Suzanne.)
Perhaps you meant well by setting up a public forum for discussion with Kamilla, but it was not respectful to make such a decision without consulting her. This is not neutral ground. You were, in effect, forcing her into a position where she would be out-numbered by a hostile audience. I find her refusal to participate quite understandable.
“. . . complementarian blog that is known to be rather unloving towards egalitarians”
I have not come across any egalitarian blogs that I would describe as loving towards complementarians so why expect the reverse. Regardless of who is more correct doctrinally, I don’t see that either side can claim the moral high ground. I have seen less than gracious behaviour from people on both (as well as gracious). And both sides have banned dissenting commenters. I myself was prohibited from posting comments on an egalitarian blog: http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/are-patriocentric-views-of-a-womans-role-causing-homeschooling-freedoms-to-be-at-risk/
(I expect people here to think Karen was justified in her decision, just as complementarians defended the Bayleys’ decision.)
It is often easier to notice the ugly attitudes and personal attacks coming from the other side than our own. It is often easier to excuse negative behaviour from those with whom we agree than those we do not. It is tempting to adopt an attitude of “not only are we taking the right position, but we are just nicer people too.” Just remember that many of the people with whom you argue are thinking the same thing.
As for the Bayly brothers, they have a blunt and forceful style that I can understand some may find off-putting. It doesn’t bother me personally. Their interpretation of Scripture makes a lot more sense to me than the opposing position. And I see nothing wrong with their attitude toward women. The speak to and of their wives and daughters with respect and affection. The only interaction with me personally was kind and affirming (but then I was agreeing with them.)
I haven’t even gotten to the Trinity yet and I have run out of time. It is just as well. I don’t enjoy this area of theology.
JayneK,
Welcome!
“In the first case, you are making assumptions about their motives.”
Thanks for your comments. No I wasn’t questioning their motives, I said that I was shocked because they treated her poorly and had no answer to her Greek explanation. God only knows what their motive is for that. Regardless of the motive, they came across as harsh to someone who should have been treated as a sister in Christ.
“In the second, you are misrepresenting what they said, as Suzanne herself has told you. This makes a poor impression on me. (Although it does leave me favorably impressed with Suzanne.)”
I disagree with Suzanne because I did not see them tell men who disagreed that they were to be quiet. They believe that women are to be quiet in the church and as elders in the church, they silence women who disagree with them. I certainly could be wrong and they may show disrespect to men too, but I haven’t seen it. I do believe that Suzanne has been extremely respectful to the Bayly brothers and has shown a Christ-like attitude to them.
“Perhaps you meant well by setting up a public forum for discussion with Kamilla, but it was not respectful to make such a decision without consulting her.”
Why was this not respectful? Kamilla has been publicly sent to reprimand me by the Bayly brothers. If I want to have this reprimand done in public, then this should be my decision. If she was going to do it publicly without asking me first, then that would be disrespectful, however since I am the one to be corrected, I choose to have it done publicly. Since I have asked anyone who would be commenting to do it in a respectful manner and since I am the one who can edit out or block anyone from being disrespectful this is a safe environment for her - much safer than the Bayly blog is for egalitarians. This blog was set up as a place to have respectful dialog and I think that has been successfully done.
The whole issue regarding the secondary issue of women in ministry is whether we have a right to separate from our brothers and sisters in Christ over disagreement over secondary doctrines. I do not believe that we have that right since Christ told us that we are to love one another.
The issue of the Trinity is not a secondary issue and it does lend itself to a strong defense of the faith so that Jesus is given his proper place of honor and respect as an equal member of the Trinity in his will and his work. This will be a big part of the Trinity DVD that we are working on. The Trinity has come under attack in many ways and we cannot stand by and let it happen.
I hope that helps!
Cheryl
“No I wasn’t questioning their motives, I said that I was shocked because they treated her poorly and had no answer to her Greek explanation.”
You said they treated her poorly “because they did not have an answer to her explanation of the Greek”. Your use of “because” means that you are claiming this was the cause of their behaviour.
You also said, “because they told her as a woman that she was to be quiet.” They did not say anything about her being a woman when they told her to be quiet. You have deduced that it was because she is a woman but this is not what they told her.
You said, “Kamilla has been publicly sent to reprimand me by the Bayly brothers.” Perhaps I missed this. Are you referring to the comment from Tim Bayly which said:
“Is there a woman reading this blog who would be so kind as to speak to Cheryl privately, as a Titus 2 woman, and explain to her why she should be quiet and learn Scripture before trying to teach Trinitarian doctrine again, publicly?” He neither specified Kamilla nor used the word “reprimand”. If this is what you refer to then your comment was misleading.
You have expressed some concern about how Christians who disagree with each other get along. I suggest that we can work toward this goal by giving greater attention to the accuracy and clarity of our statements, especially when describing the positions of others.
Jayne,
I don’t have an opinion either way on the Bayly’s. I don’t care to analyse people on blogs. However, I will gladly deconstruct a published book using quotes from that book.
Cheryl is doing some good and necessary work. I heartily support it.
Hi Jayne,
Why don’t you email me. My email is in my profile on my blog.
Suzanne
JayneK,
Once again, please read my statement. I was not giving out their heart motive. I do not know the reason why they did what they did. The comment that they treated her bad was connected to the fact that they did not give an answer to her Greek. I did not question the heart motive.
You are right in that they did not say anything about her being a woman. However they told Suzanne, a woman, to be quiet and I have not seen them tell a man to be quiet who disagrees with them. If you can show me where they treat men the same as women (telling them to be quiet) then I will stand corrected. Since they believe women are to be quiet and not teach men, then telling a woman to be quiet falls right in line with this. Again, if they treat men the same way, then I stand to be corrected.
“Are you referring to the comment from Tim Bayly which said:
“Is there a woman reading this blog who would be so kind as to speak to Cheryl privately, as a Titus 2 woman, and explain to her why she should be quiet and learn Scripture before trying to teach Trinitarian doctrine again, publicly?” He neither specified Kamilla nor used the word “reprimand”. If this is what you refer to then your comment was misleading.”
This is the public call to reprimand me. Mr. Bayly did not specify Kamilla’s name but she is their friend and took him up on his request. It matters not that he didn’t use the word “reprimand”. Telling someone to be quiet and that they do not know Scripture or the Trinity is certainly classified as a reprimand. My question is are you here to take Kamilla’s place and reprimand me? If you are, then please make it known so we know where you stand. If not, then that’s fine. Kamilla has stepped back and I can accept that she would not want to “teach” or “rebuke” publicly.
Christians need to treat each other with love and respect and Jesus loves his body and gave his life for the church which is his body.
Thank you Suzanne for being willing to dialog with those who believe differently than you do. What a wonderful, godly attitude you have and I trust that we all can learn from you!
Essay question for extra points this quarter:
It appears that the Red Queen (Kamilla) is desperate to chop off the Cheshire Cat’s head but doesn’t quite know how to go about it.
Why do you suppose this is?
Is it because she would no longer be under the authority of a man and thus violate the dictates of the “Pax Baylyana”?
What would Aurelius do in a similar situation?
Greg,
I don’t think there is any point in saying things about other people on the internet.
On the other hand, if someone writes a book in order to subordinate women, I’ll take every sentence apart in public. Here is one that is really worth thinking about.
“Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Heb. ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped. In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or our modern day use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped.”
Then he goes on to quote Cline who says about God and anyone who helps,
“… in the act of helping they are being “inferior”
This is on page 461 and 462 of Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem and is available through books.google.com
There is no doubt that this book clearly teaches that in helping man, God is “inferior” to man. Don’t ask me how this book ever got published. Please will someone just take this apart.
I’ve got Grudem’s Systematic Theology. I’m going to go look at it when I get a chance (and remember). But am in the middle of a study right now.
I’m rather amazed that Grudem could actually write that and not realize how it affected his view of the Trinity and God.
Christ is subordinate to God.
God is subordinate to man.
Woman is subordinate to man.
The three tenets of the Systematic Theology.
Suzanne,
Sometimes laughter is a viable route; Lutwidge thought so anyway, and I’ll be first to caricature myself too!
Its okay, Greg, I have done lots of wicked stuff myself. I am getting prissy in my old age.
Suzanne,
That is an absolutely incredible quote. I really don’t know how any Christian could read that and not see how God has been downgraded. Thank you for giving this quote. It will come in very useful.
PS I meant funny wicked, not wicked wicked - if you know what I mean.
Greg,
You are way smarter than I am ’cause I have no idea what you said.
Regarding being corrected here, I don’t think it should be a problem for Kamilla. The Trinity is such an important topic that it really does deserve to be discussed.
Here is another important trend. On Gender Blog, Ligon Duncan wrote the following a couple of days ago.
“- Our ministry to men and women must be rooted in a proper understanding of the doctrine of God. Being created in his image means ministry must carry the different distinctions between equal persons of the Trinity.
- Biblical manhood and womanhood must be rooted in the doctrine of the work and person of Christ. Therefore all women’s ministry in the local church must rely on the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the example of perfect submission. The work and submission of Christ radically reorients Christian service for Christian women because it is following in the footsteps of our Savior. ”
Now, think about this. In ministry men reflect God and women reflect Christ.
How that is carried out is that women imitate Christ in his submission and work. We all know that the work of Christ is his death on the cross, that he was punished for our transgression and God bruised him for our sin.
I just don’t see the early church fathers and Reformers putting women in the position of sole imitators of Christ.
If there are concerned complemenatarians reading this blog, please join in and offer a alternate interpretation of what I am citing.
Greg,
I’d like to take a shot at the extra credit. God knows I need it this quarter.
A multiple choice question with only one choice? (sorry)
My “write in” answer: If I may be so bold as to quote the Wicked Witch of the West, “These things must be done deeeelllllllicately”. The Red Queen is highly trained– to not think independently. Chopping is a man’s job, of course, unless we’re talking about vegetables. So unless the Red Queen can turn her subject into a veggie, the chopping cannot be done. She can’t even suggest to a man to do it though, because she’d be “giving directions”, and that’s too authoritative. Conclusion: When in doubt, move pawn.
Good term, “Pax Baylyana”. It sounds just like “Pax Islama”, the “peace” that comes through sliencing one’s enemies.
As one of the “Five Good Emperors” of Rome, it’s interesting to note that he changed his name when he got married. Then he spent a lot of time at war. I’m sure there’s no connection between the two. Christians under his reign had the threat of punishment over them but it was rarely used– kind of like a comp. husband’s “authority”. As a Stoic philosopher and upholder of duty and honor and order, I’m sure he’d advise the Red Queen to merely threaten the chopping and not actually do it. This would not violate Order and yet would be a public “rebuke”, however symbolic, thus allowing said Red Queen to appear authoritative without actually exercising it.
So, will this credit show up on my report card next semester?
Suzanne, that’s an excellent point. It appears that when it works in favor of the premise that woman is subordinate to man, it’s just fine to tell the man to presume to the place of Christ, as in be an “authority over” his wife because Christ is the Authority over the church. But then, when it suits their purpose, they claim that Christ the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, and so THEN women must be the analogs of Jesus.
It simply never made sense to me that they’d be so foolish as to bring the Trinity into it in the first place. A relationship so fundamentally based on a divine Three-in-one isn’t going to work on any level as an analog for a human two-in-one relationship.
When objections to this kind of nonsense get raised, however, the response seems to be, “It just IS, that’s why. No further dissent allowed.”
‘Suzanne, that’s an excellent point. It appears that when it works in favor of the premise that woman is subordinate to man, it’s just fine to tell the man to presume to the place of Christ, as in be an “authority over” his wife because Christ is the Authority over the church. But then, when it suits their purpose, they claim that Christ the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, and so THEN women must be the analogs of Jesus.’
Psalmist,
EXCATLY! Excellent!
Paula #66,
You will most certainly make the Dean’s list this quarter,
and the current bustle in the hedgerow has it that the department
chair will recognize your work in one of the quarterly journals!
Greg and Paula,
I am SO jealous! You guys are WAY above my head. Oh, boy, that was a hard one for me. Way to go Paula! And Greg, we will have to work down the list a little so I can one day qualify for an “A”. I am just glad you found your match.
Tanx Prof. Greg! Now daddy will buy me that new car!
Just another thought, playing “comp’s advocate” for a moment…
In order for one woman to do the “Titus” thing to another, the doer must be “an older woman”. The Bible doesn’t say the age, but in our desperation we can stretch the teachings on widows to this situation, so she’d have to be in her 60s, while her subject would have to be younger than 60, and considerably so in order to qualify as “young”. But knowing many women are loathe to reveal their ages, this could present a problem.
If Mr. Duncan is actually serious about this:
“. . . ministry must carry the different distinctions between equal persons of the Trinity.”
And he makes it all about the “doctrine of Christ,” my question is, where is the Holy Spirit in all this? I can see how, when it suits them, advocates of patriarchy tell men that God the Father is their analog and an eternally subordinate Christ is the woman’s analog. But if we are going to properly reflect ALL THREE of the equal persons of the Trinity in their supposed “different distinctions,” where’s the Holy Spirit?
Nowhere, that I can tell, in patriarchal “doctrine.” Maybe because a human marriage relationship of two-in-one doesn’t make for a very good analog of the divine Three-in-one in the first place, and eternal subordinationism is rightly considered a heretical doctrine that has long since been proved antithetical to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Funny how the husband has to be the authority as Christ is the authority when it comes to marriage, but then somehow still the WIFE is supposed to be like the eternally subordinated Christ.
Am I the only one who sees a certain cognitive dissonance in the hodgepodge that is pro-patriarchy “doctrine”?
Not at all, Psalmist. They play both sides of the table. They want men to “play the role” of God the Father, as if only women are to follow Christ and his example of living. He taught us all how to relate to God, not how to be God! But an eternally subordinate Christ is something they cannot bring themselves to model, even though Jesus told his male disciples point blank to do exactly that. Never in scripture is anyone told to act like God. Christ is our human example, our Brother, our teacher. Yet some men refuse to bow to him or share in his humility.
You’re right, they ignore the Spirit completely. If this sort of heresy goes on unchallenged, who knows what religion it will turn into.
I nearly answered that last question, Paula, but it wouldn’t have been fair to the existing religion I would have named. In truth, it would be one never seen before except in the self-worshiping world: Masculoidoaltry.
It would help if I spelled that correctly:
Masculoidolatry
Cheryl, #’s 64 & 70,
Just because someone can regurgitate stored facts, figures, and their various stage settings, it is still no guarantor of how “smart” they are. This belief is one of the greatest fictions ever foisted upon western civilization.
All of us here have seen you think rings around many doctoral fellows; with nothing more than the straight edge of simplicity and the compass of elegance.
Psalmist: how about Masculosis? Mascectimony? Man, that could get nasty, I better stop.
Greg: I agree. Some of the most decorated academics have been so very wrong and blind. The important things are wisdom and vision, things God gives as he sees fit.
Greg,
I loved that! I’ll take that straight edge and that compass. It is God who draws the lines and the circles and we get to be the tool in his hand. If we fail to remember that (and I am reminding myself here) we fail to give him credit when he is due that credit. The wisdom of the Holy Spirit will out-think any one of the world’s smartest and most educated people. Greg, your words have a real beauty to them. Thanks again for that reminder and the elegant way that you phrased it.
Ok, Here is my stab at this:
Ligon wants men to be God as we read in the OT. Women to be like Jesus as we read in the NT and the Holy Spirit….ummmm…yeah, Psalmists…they do leave Him out a lot.
JayneK wrote: I have seen less than gr