Comments on: Calvinists and Egalitarians

By: robyn beckley vining

robyn beckley vining — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:14:51 +0000

In line with the very serious and intelligent conversation going on here, I think I can answer your question:

If you have an iphone and type in “Neo-Calvinism”, it will automatically change it to “Bro-Calvinism”. And you can re-type it, it will change it back. Again. And Again. And…

I haven’t yet gotten it to type it out properly.

And, well, I think that’s funny

Funny, and i think Emerging Women needs to put a call in to Steve Jobs.
=)

By: Juli

Juli — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:05:27 +0000

The reason egalitarianism is not accepted by New Calvinists is because of the nature of the so-called “Doctrines of Grace”

Tyranny has always, and will always, be at the core of Calvinism. THe doctrines lead to death in the individual, brought about by the gradual loss of freedom, ability, and faith in the life of the believer.

As religious leaders (including men) continue to control the masses, including women in particular, complimentariansim will continue to be sold as the biblical model and therefore “orthodoxy”. The problem with egalitarianism is that it returns to women what is rightfully theirs: freedom, ability, and power through faith. Those who see to control others (tyrants) always look for doctrines and teachings that support their ultimate goal to create a mindset in the people that enables such control: if women are the weaker vessel, how can they have faith? If they are subordinate to men, how can they have freedom? The progression is clear, and the logical conclusions of Calvinism fit nicely with complimentarianism..which is really just subordination of women redefined and labeled as orthodoxy.

Same ol’ same ol.

By: B. Banner

B. Banner — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:45:17 +0000

I grew up in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America which has never permitted women elders or pastors. Women were sometimes permitted to be deacons depending on the congregation. With regards to the New Calvinism and complementarianism it seems like it is old wine in new bottles. It is discouraging to see how the New Calvinism seems to have mounted a rearguard action of sorts regarding women.

By: Nadine

Nadine — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:09:27 +0000

One of the things I’ve noticed is that there is less emotion generated by the soteriological aspects of this debate and much more by the gender issues. (Personally, I am a staunch egalitarian.) Even though I attend a church that is officially egalitarian, no new pastor (other than the women’s pastor) has been appointed who is other than a guess what? a man in the seven years that I’ve been there. An open complementarian I can openly disagree with, but how does one handle the closet variety?

By: sonja

sonja — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:09:23 +0000

@David … I read Mr. DeYoung’s piece before Julie posted it here. I read it in full on his website. I found it insubstantial, illogical, unBiblical and lacking the basic foundation of a good argument. In short, it was poorly written from the standpoint of being persuasive. It was quite emotive and did a good job of “preaching to the choir” (if you will), but his argument (or lack thereof) is full of fallacies. To wit: strawman, spotlight, false dilemma, slippery slope, questionable cause, and special pleading. You may read about all of them here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

By: Minnow

Minnow — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:44:48 +0000

@ David–I read the entire post summarized in the 4 points above and did not find Julie’s summary inaccurate or unfair. In fact leaving out the phrase “some egalitarians are just knee-jerk following the culture…” was actually more kind than I would have been. In fact, Mr. DeYoung did not say complimentarians should avoid associating with egalitarians. Instead he said, “I can live in a church environment without this doctrinal boundary (a plank declaring a complimentarian POV), but I think it would be better to have it.” And, while he is happy (or perhaps merely content) to be making his living in a denomimation that officially holds an egalitarian POV he is very willing to say that his church does not comply with the demoninations official stance and they can’t put pressure on him to comply. In truth he is free to promote from his pulpit a complimentarian POV any time he chooses.
To the question, “How as Christians should we interact?” In so far as we are able we should live at peace.

By: David

David — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:48:11 +0000

“In it he graciously admitted that some egalitarians come to that position from the Bible, but that he thinks it is best if Calvinists don’t associate with them.”

Julie, your characterization of Kevin’s post — that he said Calvinists ought not associate with egalitarians — is too strong. Kevin ministers in an egalitarian denomination, and made it clear that he has no intention of leaving that denomination over this issue. More accurately, he said that it is a good thing for the new Calvinist movement to have a “complementarian plank” in its platform. This doesn’t mean that the “new Calvinists” ought not “associate with” egalitarians any more than the Democratic party’s pro-choice plank means that Democrats ought not associate with pro-life people.

Also, your truncated summary of Kevin’s “four reasons” does not do justice to Kevin’s actual comments, which is far more nuanced. I would therefore encourage anyone, especially those inclined to respond here, to read Kevin’s actual comments.

Cheers,
David

By: Karl Kroger

Karl Kroger — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:54:38 +0000

I think this post reminded me of my own questions about who I want to work together with in ministry. Using the general divides of conservative and liberal, (which complementarians and egalitarian often fall into, respectively) I struggle with the idea of Christian unity because I don’t want to be associated with or enabling harmful theology and practices.

As a moderate to progressive Christian, I think conservative’s emphasis on evangelism through reaching out to people through bookstores, concerts, and speakers is a good thing. But I define the gospel and discipleship differently from them and so I’m hesitant to want to have anything to do with their ministry. Yet more liberal Christians aren’t doing much in this area. I think I could partner with more conservative folks on charity and justice work, maybe even some worship. But when it comes to providing spiritual formation to new believers, I’m hesitant to give organizations my money or hand. I’m sad about that, but I think it might be best.

By: Aideen

Aideen — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:02:27 +0000

If I was less tired I’d think up a more thoughtful response, but right now my only answer is:

WHAT. EVER.

By: sonja

sonja — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:56:37 +0000

I read that post earlier this morning and was frankly stunned.

I want to be clear. I’m an egalitarian. I have a lot of problems with the whole basis for complementarianism. That said, I’ll work with complementarians as long I’m not required to change my perspective or given any sort of ultimatum about my behavior, etc. I have a live and let live attitude.

I was stunned by the lazy, sloppy reasoning of DeYoung’s arguments. Really? I’m going to become immoral because I’m an egalitarian. I don’t know anyone like that. Not one. That was ignorant at best and mean-spirited at worst. I could go through the rest of them but I won’t. Has DeYoung read any of his New Testament imprecations for the body of Christ to live together at peace with one another?

He has a lot of explaining to do. That was divisive and awful.