The following was posted on Monday, July 06, 2009 by Kevin DeYoung. I am reposting it here on FIDE-O because I think that it is worth reading.
DeYoung writes:
A friend of mine pointed me to a fascinating, and I think sincerely inquistive, blog post by The Common Loon, called “Is There a Calvinist-Complementarian Connection?”
Here’s the gist:
- As an outside observer of the movement, I’ve noticed that in addition to Reformed soteriology, one of the key doctrinal distinctives for New Calvinists is complementarianism, the view that male leadership in the church and home is a Biblical imperative. It’s no coincidence that influential Reformed/Calvinist (I’m using these terms interchangeably here) leaders like John Piper, Al Mohler and Mark Driscoll are among evangelicalism’s most vocal opponents of women’s ordination. As a staunch egalitarian, I believe Scripture teaches that God gives the gifts of preaching, teaching and church leadership to both men and women, which puts me squarely at odds with the young, restless, Reformed camp…
- If I were capable of passing through the narrow doctrinal checkpoint affirming both TULIP and complementarian gender roles, I would find a community of New Calvinists refreshingly open to a range of positions on baptism, miraculous gifts, the Lord’s Supper and eschatology. This explains why a charismatic like C.J. Mahaney can partner with a cessasionist like John MacArthur at the distinctly Reformed Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference, not to mention fellow conference conveners Ligon Duncan, a paedo-baptist (one who practices infant baptism), and Mark Dever, a credo-baptist (believer’s baptism). As someone who welcomes evangelical collaboration across denominational lines, I am encouraged by these expressions of unity amid theological diversity.
- In light of such ecumenism, it’s perplexing to consider why egalitarians are not also welcomed to the New Calvinist table. Complementarianism may not be at the forefront of New Calvinist identity, but it nonetheless serves as a distinct theological boundary not to be crossed.
(DeYoung reacts to Loon)
The Loon raises a number of questions: “Why is opposition to the ordination of women a non-negotiable for New Calvinists? Why does one’s persuasion on gender roles carry more weight than one’s view of the sacraments, spiritual gifts or the millenium? What exactly is the relationship between Calvinism and complementarianism? Is there something about Reformed theology that is inherently complementarian or is the Calvinist-complementarian connection merely a feature of this particular neo-Puritan stream? Put another way: Is it possible to be a Reformed egalitarian?”
This is a tricky issue for me. For starters, I belong to a denomination that strongly supports the ordination of women to all the offices. Because of a series of “conscience clauses” in our Book of Church Order, I cannot be pressured to support the ordination of women. I am free to preach complementarian sermons and have a church that embraces complementarian principles. But I have to work with egalitarians all the time. If I didn’t, I would have hardly anyone else to work with in my denomination! Almost all the pastors I know in my Classis are egalitarians. Some of them are evangelicals with fruitful ministries.
Moreover, my church is not entirely complementarian. Most members are, but some are not. I disagree with them and they with me. But I still respect them. A few are strongly Reformed and egalitarian. They know where I stand and that the church staff and elder board embrace complementarian principles. So I make no apologies for being complementarian, but I am careful (I hope) not to demonize those who disagree. Some egalitarians are just knee-jerk following the culture, but others have studied the scriptures and are convinced that the Bible allows for and encourages women in every kind of ministry.
Back to the Loon’s questions. I think you can be a Calvinist and an egalitarian. My denomination–the one I grew up in and have always been a part of–strongly supports egalitarianism. This is very problematic to me. I can understand why some would leave an egalitarian denomination, but I don’t think egalitarianism necessitates that one must leave. For the time being, I am content to work with, through, and in my denomination, where both views are at the table (though my view is usually put at a card table somewhere in the basement far away from the corridors of power).
But (you knew there was a “but” coming) I am glad that the network of “New Calvinist” organizations and conferences have made complementarianism a plank in their platform. I can live in a church environment without this doctrinal boundary, but I think it would be better to have it.
Here are a few reasons why (in no particular order and more or less off the top of my head):
1. Historically, opening the door to egalitarianism in one generation leads to bigger errors in the next. I know slopes aren’t always slippery, but this one seems to be. Once your hermeneutic allows for egalitarianism, it becomes hard to stand firm on homosexuality. I’m not saying that all egalitarians believe homosexuality is acceptable, only that blurring gender roles and overstating the implications of Galatians 3:28 has often slid, over time, into an acceptance of sexual immorality.
2. The role of men and women is a huge issue for our day. Our millennial views matter, but in terms of ministering in and to the culture, where we stand in gender issues matters more. There is so much confusion on manhood and womanhood, that wherever we can speak clearly and with one voice that’s a good thing.
3. Complementarianism tends to signify a number of other important convictions. I don’t know any complementarians who don’t also affirm inerrancy, penal substitution, and eternal punishment (I’m not counting Catholics because though they don’t ordain women, the reasoning has more to do with their view of the priesthood than a complementarian theology of manhood and womanhood). In other words, if someone is a Calvinist and a complementarian I can generally assume a lot about their theology. These are not the two most important issues of the faith, but they are two issues that if embraced in our day, almost always include a lot of other important theological beliefs.
Egalitarians can also believe in the sort of core doctrines listed above, but it is far less automatic. For example, the Common Loon mentions several Calvinist/Egalitarian academics: Roger Nicole, Nicholas Wolterstorrf, John Webster, Mark Husbands, Todd Billings, Bruce McCormack, Richard Mouw, Bill Dyrness, Laura Miguelez, and Donald Bloesch. With the exception of Nicole, how many of these scholars would embrace inerrancy? Some perhaps, but I bet most wouldn’t. This doesn’t mean they aren’t worth listening to, but it does suggest that the Calvinist/Egalitarian package is different from the Calvinist/Compelementarian package in more ways than one.
4. Practically, it is very difficult for groups and organizations and movements to make both complementarians and egalitarians happy. If a new movement tried to embrace both views, how would this work? Would women be asked to be part of the leadership team? Would women preach to pastors at their conferences? This would not fly with most complementarians. And yet many egalitarians would see this as a matter of justice (they do in my denomination). Someone is bound to be upset. It is simpler and better for the long-term peace of an organization to take a stand on this issue. Cross-denominational movements can allow for different views of baptism, because they don’t ever have to baptize anyone. But such movements will have to make decisions on leadership structures and speaking requests. So going one way or the other on the gender issue becomes a practical necessity.
(I think DeYoung has made some excellent observations.)
Jason Robertson is the pastor of Murrieta Valley Church in Murrieta, California which he planted in 2001. He is theologically Christian, Evangelical, Baptist, and Reformed. He is married with three children. He loves riding motorcycles, fine cigars, and college football. He has a Masters of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and teaches Church Planting at California Baptist University.
Pastor, Jason, thanks for posting this. Every egalitarian church I have observed has more women than men in attendance. They also have more women in leadership than men. I can’t see where this could help the men be good leaders. I think this is causing the feminizing of churches, and I am opposed to it. The reformed/complementarian church of which I am a member have men who love to be there and who love to lead.
Great post.
I completely agree that a church that is egalitarian (whether by their admission or not) seems to have a much larger number of women than men in actual attendance week-in, week-out.
Always a pleasure to read your blog. Thank you for your faithfulness to sound doctrine and teaching in the promotion of godliness.
Here was the point of my original post:
I am a 5-point Calvinist and also an egalitarian. Yes, it’s an unusual combination, but I believe it’s what the Bible teaches.
At the same time, it’s not like I avoid complementarians or refrain from reading/recommending their books. Tim Keller is one of my favorite writers and Kevin DeYoung is excellent as well.
I wish there was room for someone like me in the T4G, Gospel Coalition movement because I deeply resonate with the Reformed tradition, but sadly, the New Calvinists have elevated complementarianism to the indisputable realm of core doctrine.
Thus, I remain without a theological home.
Complementarinism – Egalitarianism. Hmmm?
Do you ever wonder; Is that the only two options?
What if there is another option?
What is popular is not always truth.
What is truth is not always popular.
Calvinist’s. Hmmm? Do they really believe the Bible?
Or has “traditions of men” made the word of God of non effect?
Where in the NT does Jesus say men are leaders in the church?
Didn’t Jesus tell His disciples not to be called teacher or leader? Mat 23
Where in the NT does Jesus say “The Church of God”
is a building, an organization, an institution,
a denomination, a business or a corporation.
Isn’t Jesus the head of the body the church? Not man?
If you’re in a denominational system; is there male and female?
If you’re in Christ; is there male and female? Hmmm?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
Does this verse say male and female are equal?
Or does this verse say in Christ
male and female do not exist?
For as the body is one, and hath many members,
and all the members of that one body, being many,
are one body: so also is Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:12
That they all may be one; as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:
that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
John 17:21
If you’re in Christ; is there male and female? Or is there one?
AsOnetarinism? Hmmm?
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;
and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
John 10:16
One Voice, One Fold, One Shepherd.
If not now, When?
I’m sorry but this argumentation makes no sense. For example:
How in the world are you describing “Calvinism” which is a biblical systematic study of God and Redemption with “traditions of men”?
Or how did you go from arguing that men should not lead churches to churches should have no leadership?
I will not continue … for to do so would require my response to be as long as the comment above. Simply put, the comment above is illogical and uniformed, at the least.
I’m sorry to have to say that but it is true.
Read what Paul had to say on this subject. I would be more inclined to agree with his insight and wisdom. He would never agree to anything Christ expressly forbid.
Complementarinism – Egalitarianism. Hmmm?
Seems to be a dispute about who is entitled to have
power, profit, prestige, prominence, recognition and titles.
Could these things be seen as;
“the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,
which is not of the Father, but is of the world?” 1John 2:16
Why do we not believe Jesus when he said to His disciples in Mt 23,
Neither be ye called masters: (leader) for one is your Master, (leader) even Christ?
The Interlinear Bible – Nor be called leaders,
for one is your leader the Christ.
Phillips Modern English – You must not let people call you leaders,
you have only one leader, Christ.
Today’s English Version – nor should you be called leader.
your one and only leader is the Messiah.
The Amplified – you must not be called masters (leaders)
for you have one master (leader) the Christ.
Jesus says, “if any man serve me, let him follow me.” John 12:26
Paul also says, “to serve the Lord Christ.” Colossians 3:24
Paul ( Romans 1:1), Jude ( Jude 1:1), Peter, ( 2 Peter 1:1 ), James ( James 1:1 ),
They all call themselves – servants of Jesus Christ.
None call themselves “leaders,” only servants. None? None.
None call themselves “servant-leaders,” only servants. None? None.
If Jesus told His disciples not to be called master/leader
and someone calls themself a leader or thinks they are a leader;
is that person a disciple of Christ?
Or a disciple of an Institutional Church?
When those are your choices, leader or disciple of Christ,
which one do you choose?
And Jesus said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;
(Is servant-leader a justification before men? Is servant-leader in the Bible?)
but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men
is abomination in the sight of God. Luke 16:15
Have you ever wondered; What is highly esteemed among men?
Have you ever wondered; What is highly esteemed among women?
Could it be, power, profit, prestige, prominence, recognition and titles?
Could it be, “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,
which is not of the Father, but is of the world?” 1John 2:16
Can we all be one and call ourselves servants of Jesus Christ?
AsOneSevantarianism? All as One, neither male nor female, serving Jesus?
Can we lay down our lust for power, profit, prestige and recognition?
Can we lay down our lust for titles?
Don’t titles divide? Don’t titles cause separation?
Don’t titles say, I am, you’re not?
Don’t titles say, we are, they’re not?
Baptist, Lutheran, Assemblies of God; walls of separation.
Reformed, Evangelical, Charismatic; walls of separation.
Clergy – Laity, Leaders – Followers, Shepherds – Sheep; walls of separation.
Apostles, prophets, pastor, teacher; separation.
And you have some lording it over others.
And you have the beginning of spiritual abuse.
Don’t titles become idols? Hmmm. Idols of the heart?
and pastors become masters?
If someone says their title is not an idol,
just ask them, well if it’s not an idol then just get rid of it,
lay your title down, lay your power and prestige down,
walk away from your reputation, become a bretheran,
become a servant, become one with me,
become a disciple of Christ.
Didn’t Jesus make himself of no reputation,
and take upon himself the form of a servant
and humble himself? Php 2:7
Didn’t His disciples all call themselves servants? Hmmm?
Women can have equality with me, a male, and be a servant of Christ.
Not much recognition or resistance there from male “so called leaders.”
No one having to step aside to allow women their place of equality.
Plenty of room down here at the lower place at the table.
Don’t like crowds much anyway.
Be blessed in your search for Jesus.
In His Service. By His Grace.
I find that the two comments above are full of random questions, no answers, just random questions that seem to flow from a heart that is confused.
My hope is that the one who is so troubled will find their hope and peace in God. He created us by design to glorify him, both male and female. And both male and female have specific roles in this purpose. To deny that is to deny the wisdom of God.
So, again, I hope that you stop asking random questions, and quoting Scriptures out of context, and read the whole context of God’s Word and understand God’s purpose for your life.
Read what Paul had to say on this subject. I would be more inclind to agree with his wisdom and insight. Paul would never approve anything that Christ expressly forbid.
John’s point is wise and concise: Read what Paul had to say. Indeed, the Bible is authoritative and God is wise and purposeful in all that He does. Paul clearly demonstrates that his instructions are based on biblical and in accordance with God’s purposes. Thanks, John, for your simple yet profound instructions.