Here’s the end of a post from Denny Burk that should be read in full:
At the end of the day, however, this really isn’t an argument about words. Whatever we call it (complementarianism, patriarchy, hierarchy), Moore’s point still rings true. Evangelicals who are unwilling to be counter-cultural are going to find themselves one way or the other accommodating themselves to the feminist spirit of the age and falling short of the biblical ideal. Egalitarians accommodate themselves one way, and complementarians-in-name-only do it in another. But the result is the same when Christians refuse to be counter-cultural. Moore concludes:
Egalitarians are winning the evangelical gender debate, not because their arguments are stronger, but because, in some sense, we are all egalitarians now. The complementarian response must be more than reaction. It must instead present an alternative vision—a vision that sums up the burden of male headship under the cosmic rubric of the gospel of Christ and the restoration of all things in him. It must produce churches that are not embarrassed to tell us that when we say the “Our Father,” we are patriarchs of the oldest kind.
I encourage you to read Moore’s entire essay. I think you’ll find there a much more compelling and prophetic account of the gender debate than what Evans has to offer. You’ll also find out that after all the feminist propaganda is stripped away, biblical patriarchy isn’t such a bad designation after all. It’s simply what the Scriptures teach about manhood and womanhood.
And I join him in recommending Moore’s article: “After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Gender Debate” JETS 49.3 (2006): 569-76.
Baloney to Burke and Moore!. Kostenberger sees some problem with patriarchy, and the truth be told, there is a problem with patriarchy, radical feminism, and complementarianism. The latter is still so much under the influence patriarchy that one is hard pressed to tell one from the other. Their excesses and their failures to recognize valid reasons for exceptions that make for a broader understanding feed radical feminism and its follies. All three are lacking in a rigorous intellectual analysis. In the main while God goes His way with hearty belly laughs at such limited perceptives. He raises up an American Indian woman who wants to pastor and preach original Southern Baptist doctrine (meaning she came to love Sovereign Grace) and she was blessed to establish a church and hand it over to Southern Baptists who immediately informed her that she would never be recognized as the founder of that congregation. It is enough to make one roll on the floor with howls of laughter. And then there are the African American female preachers, some of whom, I dare say, will preach the truth and be blessed of God as Lottie Moon was in asserting that while she was never ordained, she was foreordained. Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!
Amen to Denny Burk and Russell Moore on Patriarchy
Some Iranian converts in my area are completely puzzled over this “patriarchy” thing. They said that Muslim women in Iran have more equality and that the evangelical church here in America has surprise them as far as our prejudice against women goes. These are Muslim converts. And they understand where patriarchy goes wrong. Why can’t we?
JR, I find it a little hard to believe that a society in which women are not allowed to vote, drive, and are treated as beneath a dog would be puzzled over true “patriarchy.” Stop grasping at the straw of personal opinion and use logic backed by scripture.
Leave a comment