From The Local – Sweden’s News in England -

A couple of Swedish parents have stirred up debate in the country by refusing to reveal whether their two-and-a-half-year-old child is a boy or a girl.

Pop’s parents, both 24, made a decision when their baby was born to keep Pop’s sex a secret. Aside from a select few – those who have changed the child’s diaper – nobody knows Pop’s gender; if anyone enquires, Pop’s parents simply say they don’t disclose this information.

In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It’s cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

The child’s parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

Pop’s wardrobe includes everything from dresses to trousers and Pop’s hairstyle changes on a regular basis. And Pop usually decides how Pop is going to dress on a given morning.

Although Pop knows that there are physical differences between a boy and a girl, Pop’s parents never use personal pronouns when referring to the child – they just say Pop.

“I believe that the self-confidence and personality that Pop has shaped will remain for a lifetime,” said Pop’s mother.

How do you react? But beyond that, how do you think we can model healthy conceptions of gender to children? Is avoiding gender so as to avoid negative preconceptions valid? Is it possible to teach healthy perspectives in a world full of unhealthy examples?

(HT Shane Magee)

As an outside observer of the movement, I’ve noticed that in addition to Reformed soteriology (often summarized by the acronym TULIP), 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…

Despite our disagreements on gender roles, I share a lot in common with my New Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am very much drawn to the Reformed tradition, its covenant theology, historic confessions and doctrines of grace (TULIP included)…

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….

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. From what I gather, egalitarianism is categorically rejected by the full spectrum of interdenominational networks, ministries and conferences home to New Calvinists (including Tim Keller and Don Carson’s Gospel Coalition, Piper’s Desiring God Ministries, Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network, Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries, Dever’s 9 Marks, R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, Duncan’s Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference among others). I hope I’m mistaken, but the young, restless, Reformed subculture seems to have built an impenetrable wall to keep out those who are not both Calvinists and complementarians. One out of two is not enough, and thus I have failed to qualify.

His post is insightful in wondering why this is such an issue and wonders if there are egalitarian Calvinists. One of the leaders of the New Calvinists, Kevin DeYoung (co-author of Why We’re Not Emergent) responded to the post on his own blog. 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. His reasons include -

1. Those that accept egalitarianism, over time accept sexual immorality.
2. If we are confused about manhood and womanhood then we can’t minister to our culture.
3. Egalitarians don’t always affirm core doctrines like inerrancy, penal substitution, and eternal punishment while complementarians do.
4. If we want to work with other people/denominations Calvinists need to be clear on who is allowed to be in leadership or speak at those events. Its just easier to assert that women aren’t allowed.

I know here at Emerging Women we have complementarians as well as egalitarians, and I am sure at least a few Calvinists. So how do you respond to these assertions? Can a Calvinist be an egalitarian, or at least associate with them? Is it better to take a stand and not work with those who are different from you? Should we as Christians seek unity first, and denominational doctrine second (or the other way around)?

I admit that as an egalitarian, it is easier sometimes to simply not have to deal with the complementarians. I don’t want to be a part of a church that denies the call of God in my life or that tells me that I am lesser than men. It’s a position I struggled to come to through long biblical study, and I can’t place myself back into a world that actively oppresses me. That said, I have issues with saying that I would never work with a complementarian (no matter how much I disagree with his theology). I am for building the body of Christ and loving others even if I disagree with them or see them committing injustices. It’s hard, but I feel like that is the response I have to have.

So what are your thoughts? How as Christians should we interact?