This question was asked by The Common Loon in his article Is There A Calvinist-Complementarian Connection? Kevin DeYoung interacts with this article in his own Why Do the New Calvinists Insist on Complementarianism?
DeYoung’s article reveals that he belongs to a denomination which is Egalitarian, but which permits him to preach complementarian sermons and have a church that embraces complementarian principles. He goes on to say that he thinks it is possible to be a Calvinist and Egalitarian, but also says that he is happy that the New Calvinists also embrace Complementarianism. He gives several reasons for this, which include the following:
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. 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.
3. Practically, it is very difficult for groups and organizations and movements to make both complementarians and egalitarians happy… 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.
Comments on DeYoung’s article are interesting, and include observations by Scot McKnight, Arthur Sido and The Common Loon himself.
1. Historically, opening the door to egalitarianism in one generation leads to bigger errors in the next.
Historically, opening the door in the generation of the first century to declaring that Jesus was the Messiah led to bigger errors in the next (i.e., the beginning or growth of all kinds of heretical and gnostic teachings about the church, Jesus, etc.).
Historically, opening the door to Pentecostalism in one generation led to bigger errors in the next.
Historically, opening the door in Luther’s generation to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura and Sola Gratia led to bigger errors in the next. (Read Pelikan’s Christian Tradition series. It ultimately led to the Age of Enlightenment with its rampant atheism and skepticism.)
So, what does DeYoung’s statement/warning prove?
My response to the DeYoung blog…..
”others (egals) have studied the scriptures and are convinced that the Bible allows for and encourages women in every kind of ministry.”
That would be me and in fact a very large portion of Christian egals in general.
”Historically, opening the door to egalitarianism in one generation leads to bigger errors in the next.”
That really depends heavily upon what you mean by ‘egalitarian’. The origin of the word was from ‘equalitarian’ and simply conveys the concept of belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people., which BTW is within our constitutional foundations.
You suggest that a belief in equality will make it difficult to stand firm against the sin of homosexual practices. IMO this is a separate question. All people have sinned. Yet, all are equally human and have been endowed with certain inalienable rights under our constitution. This does not condone the sins they may become involved with.
”There is so much confusion on manhood and womanhood, that wherever we can speak clearly and with one voice that’s a good thing.”
Agreed! Although we may disagree on the answers.
”I don’t know any complementarians who don’t also affirm inerrancy, penal substitution, and eternal punishment”
As do the high majority of egals.
”With the exception of Nicole, how many of these scholars would embrace inerrancy? Some perhaps, but I bet most wouldn’t.”
Most egals also believe in the inerrency of the original manuscripts. Those who don’t, it is largely semantics dealing with the fact that we don’t have any original manuscripts anymore. All we have are copies.
”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.”
LOL That is likely what would happen and yes, it wouldn’t fly too well with comps. Just like it doesn’t fly too well with egals to deny women who have been called by God to serve the Body of Christ with their gifted ministries. But I do not think it is necessary to “go one way or the other” in the whole concept of Reformed and Calvinistic practices. I’m all for different groups/gatherings of believers structuring themselves as they see best. We don’t all have to fit in the same humanly understood framework.
It has been my experience that churches which share leadership with women in all avenues according to individuals giftings are more balanced in their ministries and services.
This comment was sad:
In the fight to keep slavery similar things were said about slaves. It is essentially a rather patronizing statement.
And of course, God not only allowed many women in leadership roles ( and likely many more we haven’t heard of) but called and equipped them for their ministries. Whom God calls, He equips. Our weaknesses are not stronger than God’s strengths to equip us.
Why Do the New Calvinists Insist on Complementarianism?…
New Calvinists are simply more interdenominational than their predecessors (Not a bad thing!). But there seems to be a limit. Well, this is the observation of blogger Common Loon:
If I were capable of passing through the narrow doctrinal checkpoint a…
I think the connection between compism and calvinism is an accident of history due to several factors:
1. reaction to postmodernism
2. reaction to secular feminism
3. influential celebrity figures (preachers)
4. clinging to traditional ways as a reaction to the general direction our culture is taking (traditional ways in this case being a throwback to patriarchal/calvinist puritan days)
Also, so-called “New Calvinism” is a movement. It’s much broader than a basic theology. I think we’re seeing much (public) eagerness to define and refine the movement.
I say “accident of history” because of the different theological and practical combinations history gives us. For instance, see Janette Hassey’s description of egalitarian fundamentalism in the early 1900s (in Discovering Biblical Equality.
Honestly, speaking as a reformed(-lite) egalitarian, I think the trend toward compism just feels safer. Freedom is dangerous.
Change is scary also.
Good thoughts.
I’m a soft egal and am Calvinistic. I don’t imagine it happens often, but it’s possible.
Are you full Tulip or partial Tulip?
I also know of friends who are both egal and Calvinistic.
This portion of a comment on one of the blogs has been stuck in my head for a few days, as it brings up a thorny subject (please excuse or handle as necessary if this is deemed too far off-topic). A commenter on the DeYoung blog words this, I think, very carefully, “perceived “gifting” is a green light to ignore explicit Scriptural commmands.”"
“Perceived”. I suspect that the purpose of that word is to avoid the topic I am about to bring up.
Part of the response to what I’m going to say may be, “No, we’re testing it against scripture.” But this has been bugging me, so I’m going to mention it, anyway.
Gifts that are given to be used for the edification of the church come from the Holy Spirit, who lives within us. Are we subordinating the Holy Spirit–one of the trinity, in other words–to scripture?
I realize that scripture is often viewed as…a definable, stable rule against which everything that is called “Christian” should be measured, which seems “logical” and very much in line with much U.S. thinking, and U.S. values. I’ve aware of dangers in *not* doing this, but what might be the dangers in thinking/believing in this way?
Gifts that are given to be used for the edification of the church come from the Holy Spirit, who lives within us. Are we subordinating the Holy Spirit–one of the trinity, in other words–to scripture?
I realize that scripture is often viewed as…a definable, stable rule against which everything that is called “Christian” should be measured, which seems “logical” and very much in line with much U.S. thinking, and U.S. values. I’ve aware of dangers in *not* doing this, but what might be the dangers in thinking/believing in this way?
I’ll hazard an answer that may be as controversial as you suppose your question to be.
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2 that we have the Spirit from God so we may know the things freely given to us by God, things which we discuss with others who are spiritual. But the unspiritual person doesn’t understand the things of the Spirit, because they’re spiritually appraised.
Just because a person has received the Spirit doesn’t mean that every time and every way he/she reads or interprets or teaches or applies the Scriptures is with the proper Spiritual understanding and discernment. A person who has the Spirit – i.e., a Christian – can still operate with respect to the Scriptures as an unspiritual/natural/psuchikos/-ê person does. In those instances, he/she would be subordinating the Spirit, not to the Scriptures, but to an unspiritual rule, to use your terminology.
Paul also seems to suggest in Romans 7 and in Galatians and in 2 Corinthians that viewing the Scripture as “letter” and “rule” does not achieve Spiritual results, but in fact energizes the power of sin in the flesh so that a person does the opposite of what they intend to do or what the Spirit seeks to achieve (works of the flesh – both good and bad – as opposed to the fruit of the Spirit). The letter kills, whereas the Spirit gives life.
Just some thoughts that I think your question might be hinting at.
David, thanks so much for posting this — I am so glad to see this discussion happening among men! I can’t tell you how glad.
I thought what Scot McKnight said on Kevin DeYoung’s post was really interesting: “The whole egalitarian shift is, in my view, one created by modernity and late liberalism and not by how the Bible frames things, which I think is best labeled ‘mutuality’.” This is a terrific distinction. Call me a “mutualitarian”!
I also have to say that I would really welcome more discussion on comp. vs. egal doctrine that amounts to more than just tired, inept rejoinders which are clearly not well understood by their repeaters, who are merely parroting what others have said.
I like that Bonnie – mutualitarian~
Equalitarian has been my high choice for a long time. Although the word isn’t actually mentioned as is ‘mutual’, the meaning is inferred all over the place in the NT. That was Paul’s intent in breaking down the walls of separation between the Jews and the Greeks. In Christ we are all on the same level ground at the foot of the cross.
Wonder if there is a way to combine the two
Wonder if there is a way to combine the two
That could be even worse than “complegalitarian” LOL
LOL true…..
equalimutualitarian! Mutualqualitarian!
It would give pause for thought. Difficult to skip over someone saying they believed in Mutualqualitarianism.
I have used the term equalist for many years, especially when working with a group of hard line feminsits who said I couldn’t possibly be anything but a feminist since I advocate for women… but I advocate for anyone who is treated as less than… so I think when Scripture says there is no male nor female, Greek nor Jew, it is saying we are all equal – hence equalist.
Of course, that is not a combination of the two….
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.
Kevin DeYoung. Hmmm? Does he really believe the Bible?
Or has the traditions of men made the word of God of non effect?
Where in the NT does Jesus say that 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.
If you’re in a denominational system; is there male and female?
If you’re in Christ; is there male and female? Hmmm?
Does this verse say male and female are equal?
Or does this verse say male and female do not exist?
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
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
Are you a member of “The Church of The Institution?”
Are you a member of ” The Church of God?”
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?
In His Service. By His Grace
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 seperation?
Don’t titles say, I am, you’re not?
Don’t titles say, we are, they’re not?
Baptist, Lutheran, Assemblies of God; seperation.
Reformed, Evangelical, Charismatic; seperation.
Clergy – Laity, Leaders – Followers, Shepherds – Sheep; seperation.
Apostles, prophets, pastor, teacher; seperation.
Don’t titles become idols?
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 it down, become a bretheran, become one with me,
a servant.
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.
Welcome A. Amos. Nice thoughts.