And What Is It About Patriarchy That Scares Us?
For the last couple of years I have observed what I perceived
to be professional mistreatment of women within the Southern Baptist Convention, all in the name of biblical patriarchy. Though I have no personal disagreement with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement that declares the office of pastor to be reserved for men, I have been puzzled by the removal of female chaplains and other women supervisors on the mission field, the lack of promotion of women to administrative positions in our SBC agencies, and the termination of SBC trained female Hebrew and history professors at our Southern Baptist seminaries. I have truly wondered about the root cause for such actions. What is the philosophical or theological premise that would lead some to exclude women from Southern Baptist positions for which they are either gifted, trained, or eminently qualified to hold?
Cindy Kunsman offered a possible rationale when she spoke at the 2008 Kansas City Evangelical Ministries to New Religions Conference, hosted by Midwestern Theological Seminary. The leaders called this year's conference Biblical Discernment and Apologetics in Missions: The Language of Hope and gave to Cindy Kunsman the opportunity to examine the rise of extreme patriarchal behaviors within groups claiming to be both evangelical and Christian. Her lecture, entitled The Development and Practice for Patriarchy: Cure for Cultural Decline or New Gnostic Disease?, included a pre-approved handout, a power point presentation, and a question answer time which followed.
Cindy is a complementarian herself. She states her personal beliefs on her blog where she writes:
The above statement is consistent with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. However, it is what Cindy said about the views of Southern Seminary's Dean of Theology Russel Moore, highly esteemed theologian and Southern Seminary professor Bruce Ware, The Council on Manhood and Womanhood and Paige Patterson that caused any reference to her presentation to be removed from the EMNR's website, a change in Executive Director leadership at EMNR, and a demand for disclaimers and retractions from Cindy.
The press release distributed by EMNR reveals the specific complaint against Cindy Kunsman:
Cindy said in her presentation that the Southern Baptist Convention, specifically Russ Moore, Bruce Ware, Paige Patterson, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have influenced the statement of faith, church practices, and strategies of Vision Forum Ministries and her controversial patriarchal pastor and leader Doug Phillips and the emphasis on Family Integrated Churches.
The Lecture That Caused The Controversy
Presenter Cindy Kunsman quoted from Dr. Russell Moore's 2007 lecture at the CBMW sponsored Different By Design Conference where Dr. Moore states complementarians who live like egalitarians are functionally open theists. A similar charge was made by Russell Moore two years earlier at the 2005 Evangelical Theological Society where he added an exhortation for why his listeners should defend patriarchialism: An embrace of biblical patriarchy also protects the doctrine of God from aberrations such as the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism. Though many Southern Baptists may not fully understand the basis for Professor Moore's statements, the essence of his argument is that the roles of women in society, not just the church, are essential to the gospel itself, and protects against any slide into theological liberalism. As Russ Moore stated in his ETS lecture, for Christians to show the world the gospel it "means specificity in terms of what complementarianism looks like in the present era."
Baptist Press reported in September 2007 on a conference hosted by Southwestern Theological Seminary, where SBC leaders sought to raise awareness of Baptist Identity by emphasizing the gospel through the normative family. The BP reported:
The idea that the gospel is in danger when the 'normative' family is in danger is the same sentiment expressed by the controversial patriarchal pastor, and according to Cindy Kunsman, new Christian cult leader Doug Phillips, who on his Vision Forum Website gives The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. Pastor Phillips and Vision Forum were specifically discussed in Cindy's March lecture on 'New Cults' within Christianity, and as such, she quoted Pastor Doug Phillips:
Cindy Kunsman expressed concern in her lecture that anyone would associate 'the gospel' with specific roles that women should play in society and the church. Further, she revealed several of the 'roles,' as envisioned by Doug Phillips, that women must take in order for the gospel to revealed. Some of those mandates for Christian womens' behavior in society and in the church include:
Though a couple of the examples given above may be unfamiliar with most Southern Baptists, the majority could be taken from the headlines of Baptist Press these past ten years.
The Theological Foundation for This New Christian Cult
Again, it must be remembered that Cindy was lecturing this past March on the aberrant views of Doug Phillips, President of Vision Forum, and not the Southern Baptist Convention, whom she at no time in her presentation called aberrant or heretical.
Yet, in attempting to find the theological source for the specificities of womens' roles held by Pastor Phillips, Cindy discovered roots in the beliefs and teachings of Civil War Presbyterian theologian R.L. Dabney, Southern Seminary Professor Bruce Ware (the chief theological defender of modern SBC patriarchy), Doug Phillip's friend Paige Patterson, Southern Seminary's Russ Moore, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It was Southern Baptist theologian Bruce Ware whom Cindy credits with articulating the theological basis for modern patriarchy, and whom she quoted at the conference. She stated objections in her lecture notes to at least three theological views held and taught by Dr. Ware, which she claims has influenced the 'specificities of women's roles' as held by Doug Phillip's Vision Forum Ministries.. (If you are uninterested in the theological basis for Phillip's aberrant views of womens' roles in society, skip to the next section where Doug Phillip's Southern Baptist ties are outlined).
(1). Man is created in the image of God directly, woman indirectly
This theological belief, according to Cindy, causes some patriarchists to believe in 'the priesthood of believers,' but not the priesthood of every believer. Due to man bearing directly the image of God, the husband must be the priest of his wife, and the father of his daughter, for it is the prayers and leadership of the man that 'sanctify' the female. In short, only men, according the logical extension of some who hold to Ware's theology, can be priests unto God. This is why a woman who attempts to pray, teach, lead, or display spiritual authority 'in the presence of men' is forbidden to do so by some patriarchists.
(2). Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father, and thus, Christians should only pray to, petition, and glorify the Father, for Jesus serves His Father's will, not His own.
Cindy Kunsman stated in her lecture that Ware's belief in the eternal and ontological submission of the Son gives the basis for a woman submitting to the man in all things. Ware affirms only eternal 'funcational subordiation' and not ontological subordination. However, many take the concerpt of 'eternal submission' of Christ as the basis for the woman's submission to, and service for, the male - in speech, conduct, and lifestyle. To the hard-line idealogues who logically extend Ware's theology of the Son's eternal submission, female submission reflects the God of creation and restores creation to its pristine, orginal order, and reverses the curse. This view, according to Cindy, is similar to the views Christians in the south once held regarding 'slavery.' For some Christian leaders in the south, as recently as the 1950's, to give equal status to black people was thought to be contrary to the nature of God. As abolitionists were once called 'liberal,' so too, those Christians who promote the equality of women today are called 'liberal' because they threaten to undo the very nature of God. Thus, in Doug Phillips mind, anyone who does not follow his very specific rules for women (no birth control, modest dress, stay at home mom, no higher education, homeschooling kids, etc . . .) is undermining the very character of God.
(3). Jesus is not equal to the Father in authority. He never was nor ever will be. He comes from the Father, as the woman from the man, and is subordinate to the Father, as the woman is to the man.
Cindy believes this view may contradict historic Christianity and Scripture itself. Jesus said, "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14:13), and "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it" (John 14:14) which indicates there is no ontological, or eternal functional subordination to the Father.
Doug Phillips Ties to the Southern Baptist Convention
Doug's father, Howard Phillips, served in the Nixon Administration and was a director for The Council on National Policy. Serving with Howard in 1996 on the Council for National Policy were his son Doug, Southern Baptists Paige Patterson, Judge Paul Pressler, Judge Roy Moore, and others.
Remember that Cindy was speaking on a conference about new cults arising within Christianity, and specifically she expressed her concern with the direction of Vision Forum. Her premise was that Doug Phillips and Vision Forum have been heavily influenced theologically by a few Southern Baptists, but "the specificity in terms of what complementarianism looks like in the present era" (as Russell Moore calls it) were Vision Forums specificities and not necessarily the Southern Baptist Convention's.
Or are they?
Dorothy Patterson commends Doug Phillips book Passionate Housewives Desparate for God where women are called to stay home and not work. Doug Phillips himself speaks admiringly of Paige Patterson and the conference platform he shared with Dr. Patterson in May 2003, where the two men discussed the godliness of boys hunting, going to war, and women staying home to serve the men and children.
As Doug Philliips honors two women in his Wednesday, June 23, 2004 blog who abstained from birth control and gave birth to a total of 40 children, so too Dorothy Patterson writes on her own blog that abstinence from any artificial birth control is 'God's Plan' for women.
We could go on about Doug Phillips belief that women should not pursue graduate degrees for career purposes (but can pursue homemaking degrees such as those offered at SWBTS), and the belief that a woman must be absolutely silent regarding spiritual matters in the presence of men, and the unique 19th century dresses, hats and other modest clothing that women and girls are encouraged to wear (see here, here, and here) . . . but you get the drift.
Conclusion
Cindy Kunsman lives just outside Detroit. Her husband, Gary Kunsmen, Phd. is the chief forensic toxologist at the Oakland County Medical Examiner's Office. Cindy and Gary have been members of two churches that mistreated women because of extreme patriarchal views of the leaders within those churches. As stated, Cindy is a traditional complementarian but is concerned with a new brand of patriarchalism that is subjugating women in ways not seen since the 1700's. A friend of Cindy's has coined the word "Patriocentricity" to define this new movement. Cindy is concerned enough to research the subject, present her views on it, and at least discuss the issues with those who disagree.
She's not used to people reacting the way they did after her talk at Midwestern. I have two questions for those who have accused Cindy of Southern Baptists and their influence on the patriarchal movement across evangelicalism, specifically through leaders of Southern and Southwestern Seminaries. (1). Does the demand for a retraction from Cindy mean that some folks at these agencies within the Southern Baptist Convention are now seeing the potential dangers of a resurging patriarchal movement within evangelical circles? and, (2). Since when is an 'Academic Conference,' as was the EMNR Conference in March 2008 hosted by Midwestern Theological Seminary, subject to censorship? Would it not be more appropriate for a response to be given to Mrs. Kunsman's lecture than to act like it never happened?

Finally, if there are those who question how a solid, evangelical Southern Baptist theologian like Dr. Bruce Ware, or other Southern Baptists could ever be spoken of in the same breath as Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, let this be a lesson that just because someone articulates truths that may be taken and misused in 'specificities' does not necessarily mean the articulation of those theological views is necessarily wrong. In other words, just as complementarianism and Christian patriarchy do not automatically mean 'cultic,' neither does egalitarianism and equality necessarily always mean 'liberal.' On the other hand, we should always be on guard that we don't allow drifting toward extremism in any one particilar doctrine. Christians sometimes really do go off on tangents - both right and left.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
to be professional mistreatment of women within the Southern Baptist Convention, all in the name of biblical patriarchy. Though I have no personal disagreement with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement that declares the office of pastor to be reserved for men, I have been puzzled by the removal of female chaplains and other women supervisors on the mission field, the lack of promotion of women to administrative positions in our SBC agencies, and the termination of SBC trained female Hebrew and history professors at our Southern Baptist seminaries. I have truly wondered about the root cause for such actions. What is the philosophical or theological premise that would lead some to exclude women from Southern Baptist positions for which they are either gifted, trained, or eminently qualified to hold?Cindy Kunsman offered a possible rationale when she spoke at the 2008 Kansas City Evangelical Ministries to New Religions Conference, hosted by Midwestern Theological Seminary. The leaders called this year's conference Biblical Discernment and Apologetics in Missions: The Language of Hope and gave to Cindy Kunsman the opportunity to examine the rise of extreme patriarchal behaviors within groups claiming to be both evangelical and Christian. Her lecture, entitled The Development and Practice for Patriarchy: Cure for Cultural Decline or New Gnostic Disease?, included a pre-approved handout, a power point presentation, and a question answer time which followed.
Cindy is a complementarian herself. She states her personal beliefs on her blog where she writes:
Personally, I hold to a traditional, complementarian view wherein women . . . do not meet Biblical qualifications to be senior pastors or elders . . . but they certainly can minister as a members of pastoral staff(s).
The above statement is consistent with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. However, it is what Cindy said about the views of Southern Seminary's Dean of Theology Russel Moore, highly esteemed theologian and Southern Seminary professor Bruce Ware, The Council on Manhood and Womanhood and Paige Patterson that caused any reference to her presentation to be removed from the EMNR's website, a change in Executive Director leadership at EMNR, and a demand for disclaimers and retractions from Cindy.
The press release distributed by EMNR reveals the specific complaint against Cindy Kunsman:
Several people have contacted us regarding a presentation on "Christian Patriarchy" by Cynthia Kunsman at EMNRʼs national conference, held at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in March 2008. After reviewing her presentation, the board of EMNR and the administration of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary concur that Mrs. Kunsman made unwarranted and misinformed accusations against Christian teachers and ministries, including the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and agencies within the Southern Baptist Convention. While several aspects of the "Christian Patriarchy" movement (exemplified by Vision Forum) merit study and correction, in this instance the speakerʼs criticism of alleged "influences" on this movement was faulty.
Cindy said in her presentation that the Southern Baptist Convention, specifically Russ Moore, Bruce Ware, Paige Patterson, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have influenced the statement of faith, church practices, and strategies of Vision Forum Ministries and her controversial patriarchal pastor and leader Doug Phillips and the emphasis on Family Integrated Churches.
The Lecture That Caused The Controversy
Presenter Cindy Kunsman quoted from Dr. Russell Moore's 2007 lecture at the CBMW sponsored Different By Design Conference where Dr. Moore states complementarians who live like egalitarians are functionally open theists. A similar charge was made by Russell Moore two years earlier at the 2005 Evangelical Theological Society where he added an exhortation for why his listeners should defend patriarchialism: An embrace of biblical patriarchy also protects the doctrine of God from aberrations such as the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism. Though many Southern Baptists may not fully understand the basis for Professor Moore's statements, the essence of his argument is that the roles of women in society, not just the church, are essential to the gospel itself, and protects against any slide into theological liberalism. As Russ Moore stated in his ETS lecture, for Christians to show the world the gospel it "means specificity in terms of what complementarianism looks like in the present era."
Baptist Press reported in September 2007 on a conference hosted by Southwestern Theological Seminary, where SBC leaders sought to raise awareness of Baptist Identity by emphasizing the gospel through the normative family. The BP reported:When the church's view of the family is awry, the Gospel is being falsely presented, theologian Russell Moore said during Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's third annual Baptist Distinctives Conference.
Also speaking on this year's theme -- "The Family: Reclaiming a Biblical View of the Family, Womanhood and Manhood" -- were Southwestern President Paige Patterson and Dorothy Patterson, professor of theology in women's studies; Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; Mark Liederbach, associate professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; and Tom Elliff, senior vice president of spiritual nurture and growth for the International Mission Board.
The family is a "Gospel issue," Moore said in his presentation, titled "Have Baptists Changed or Has Culture?: The Baptist View of the Family
The idea that the gospel is in danger when the 'normative' family is in danger is the same sentiment expressed by the controversial patriarchal pastor, and according to Cindy Kunsman, new Christian cult leader Doug Phillips, who on his Vision Forum Website gives The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. Pastor Phillips and Vision Forum were specifically discussed in Cindy's March lecture on 'New Cults' within Christianity, and as such, she quoted Pastor Doug Phillips:
The church should proclaim the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions.
Cindy Kunsman expressed concern in her lecture that anyone would associate 'the gospel' with specific roles that women should play in society and the church. Further, she revealed several of the 'roles,' as envisioned by Doug Phillips, that women must take in order for the gospel to revealed. Some of those mandates for Christian womens' behavior in society and in the church include:
(1). Women are called by God to serve their patriarchs (fathers) until married when they will then serve their husbands.
(2). Women are not to speak in a church setting, but are to ask their husbands any questions they may have and remain silent in the presence of men.
(3). Women are not to work outside the home for any income, but are to be housewives and homemakers within the home.
(4). Women are never to teach a man anything, but are to learn from men in a quiet and submissive spirit.
(5). Women cannot have communion unless given to them by their husband or, in the case of an absent husband, an elder from a 'normative' family or, in rare cases, a mother can be served be her son if he (the son) is old enough to walk and carry the host and is present in worship with her.
(6). Women are to cover their heads as a sign of their 'submission' to their husbands and to God.
(7). Women are not to attend a university or any institution of higher learning for the purpose of pursuing a career.
(8). Women are not to vote, but are to let their husbands speak for them.
(9). Women are never, for any reason, to use birth control.
(10) Women are to respond to abuse in a quiet, gentle and submissive spirit.
Though a couple of the examples given above may be unfamiliar with most Southern Baptists, the majority could be taken from the headlines of Baptist Press these past ten years.
The Theological Foundation for This New Christian Cult
Again, it must be remembered that Cindy was lecturing this past March on the aberrant views of Doug Phillips, President of Vision Forum, and not the Southern Baptist Convention, whom she at no time in her presentation called aberrant or heretical.
Yet, in attempting to find the theological source for the specificities of womens' roles held by Pastor Phillips, Cindy discovered roots in the beliefs and teachings of Civil War Presbyterian theologian R.L. Dabney, Southern Seminary Professor Bruce Ware (the chief theological defender of modern SBC patriarchy), Doug Phillip's friend Paige Patterson, Southern Seminary's Russ Moore, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It was Southern Baptist theologian Bruce Ware whom Cindy credits with articulating the theological basis for modern patriarchy, and whom she quoted at the conference. She stated objections in her lecture notes to at least three theological views held and taught by Dr. Ware, which she claims has influenced the 'specificities of women's roles' as held by Doug Phillip's Vision Forum Ministries.. (If you are uninterested in the theological basis for Phillip's aberrant views of womens' roles in society, skip to the next section where Doug Phillip's Southern Baptist ties are outlined).(1). Man is created in the image of God directly, woman indirectly
"Man is the image of God directly, woman is the image of God only through the man… Because man was created by God in His image first, man alone was created in a direct and unmediated fashion as the image of God, manifesting then the glory of God in man, that is male man… If male headship is rooted in the image of God itself, then it isn’t just a functional distinction of how we work out. It really does mean we are made in a different way.It may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made in the image of God in a direct, unmediated and unilateral fashion, while the female was made image of God through the man and hence in a indirect, mediated and derivative fashion. So while they are both fully image of God, there is also a God intended priority given to the man as the original image of God through whom the woman, as image of God, derived from the male comes to be… Identity is rooted in priority given to the male… Her identity as female is inextricably tied to and rooted in the identity of the male… Her created glory is a reflection of the man’s… has her glory through the man. Seth is the image of God because he was born through the fatherhood of Adam. Specifically Adam is mentioned and not Eve. As Seth is born in the likeness and image of Adam, so is he born in the likeness and image of God. Male headship is a part of the very constitution of woman." Bruce Ware in his lecture Building Strong Families in Your Church
This theological belief, according to Cindy, causes some patriarchists to believe in 'the priesthood of believers,' but not the priesthood of every believer. Due to man bearing directly the image of God, the husband must be the priest of his wife, and the father of his daughter, for it is the prayers and leadership of the man that 'sanctify' the female. In short, only men, according the logical extension of some who hold to Ware's theology, can be priests unto God. This is why a woman who attempts to pray, teach, lead, or display spiritual authority 'in the presence of men' is forbidden to do so by some patriarchists.
(2). Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father, and thus, Christians should only pray to, petition, and glorify the Father, for Jesus serves His Father's will, not His own.
The Son stands in a relationship of eternal submission under the authority of His Father… We’ll see and marvel at the fact that while the Father and Son are in a relationship marked by eternal authority and submission. We’ll see, in short, that the Son in fact is the eternal Son of the eternal Father, and hence, the Son stands in a relationship of eternal submission under the authority of His Father . . . What do we learn from this first account,? First, the very same Jesus who claims implicitly to be God (John 8:23) then proceeds to describe himself as doing nothing by his own authority speaking only what the Father teaches him, and in doing only and always what pleases the Father (vv 28-29)… As eternally divine and not of this world, he is God the Son, but as under the authority of his Father, and as the eternal Son of the Father, he is God the Son." (Pages 71, 74) Bruce Ware in his book From Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance
Cindy Kunsman stated in her lecture that Ware's belief in the eternal and ontological submission of the Son gives the basis for a woman submitting to the man in all things. Ware affirms only eternal 'funcational subordiation' and not ontological subordination. However, many take the concerpt of 'eternal submission' of Christ as the basis for the woman's submission to, and service for, the male - in speech, conduct, and lifestyle. To the hard-line idealogues who logically extend Ware's theology of the Son's eternal submission, female submission reflects the God of creation and restores creation to its pristine, orginal order, and reverses the curse. This view, according to Cindy, is similar to the views Christians in the south once held regarding 'slavery.' For some Christian leaders in the south, as recently as the 1950's, to give equal status to black people was thought to be contrary to the nature of God. As abolitionists were once called 'liberal,' so too, those Christians who promote the equality of women today are called 'liberal' because they threaten to undo the very nature of God. Thus, in Doug Phillips mind, anyone who does not follow his very specific rules for women (no birth control, modest dress, stay at home mom, no higher education, homeschooling kids, etc . . .) is undermining the very character of God.
(3). Jesus is not equal to the Father in authority. He never was nor ever will be. He comes from the Father, as the woman from the man, and is subordinate to the Father, as the woman is to the man.
"The Western church adapted the Nicene Creed to say, in its third article, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the son” (filioque) and not merely that he proceeds from the Father (alone). While I agree fully with this additional language, I believe that this biblical way of speaking, as found in John 15:26, (But when that Comforter shall come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth of the Father, he shall testify of me.), refers to the historical sending of the Spirit at Pentecost and does not refer to any supposed “eternal procession” of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. The conceptions of both the “eternal begetting of the Son” and “eternal procession of the Spirit” seem to me highly speculative and not grounded in biblical teaching. Both the Son as only-begotten and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father (and the Son) refer, in my judgment, to the historical realities of the incarnation and Pentecost respectfully.” Footnote 3 on Page 162, from Ware's book From Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance
Cindy believes this view may contradict historic Christianity and Scripture itself. Jesus said, "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14:13), and "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it" (John 14:14) which indicates there is no ontological, or eternal functional subordination to the Father.
Doug Phillips Ties to the Southern Baptist Convention
Doug's father, Howard Phillips, served in the Nixon Administration and was a director for The Council on National Policy. Serving with Howard in 1996 on the Council for National Policy were his son Doug, Southern Baptists Paige Patterson, Judge Paul Pressler, Judge Roy Moore, and others.
Remember that Cindy was speaking on a conference about new cults arising within Christianity, and specifically she expressed her concern with the direction of Vision Forum. Her premise was that Doug Phillips and Vision Forum have been heavily influenced theologically by a few Southern Baptists, but "the specificity in terms of what complementarianism looks like in the present era" (as Russell Moore calls it) were Vision Forums specificities and not necessarily the Southern Baptist Convention's.
Or are they?
Dorothy Patterson commends Doug Phillips book Passionate Housewives Desparate for God where women are called to stay home and not work. Doug Phillips himself speaks admiringly of Paige Patterson and the conference platform he shared with Dr. Patterson in May 2003, where the two men discussed the godliness of boys hunting, going to war, and women staying home to serve the men and children.As Doug Philliips honors two women in his Wednesday, June 23, 2004 blog who abstained from birth control and gave birth to a total of 40 children, so too Dorothy Patterson writes on her own blog that abstinence from any artificial birth control is 'God's Plan' for women.
We could go on about Doug Phillips belief that women should not pursue graduate degrees for career purposes (but can pursue homemaking degrees such as those offered at SWBTS), and the belief that a woman must be absolutely silent regarding spiritual matters in the presence of men, and the unique 19th century dresses, hats and other modest clothing that women and girls are encouraged to wear (see here, here, and here) . . . but you get the drift.
Conclusion
Cindy Kunsman lives just outside Detroit. Her husband, Gary Kunsmen, Phd. is the chief forensic toxologist at the Oakland County Medical Examiner's Office. Cindy and Gary have been members of two churches that mistreated women because of extreme patriarchal views of the leaders within those churches. As stated, Cindy is a traditional complementarian but is concerned with a new brand of patriarchalism that is subjugating women in ways not seen since the 1700's. A friend of Cindy's has coined the word "Patriocentricity" to define this new movement. Cindy is concerned enough to research the subject, present her views on it, and at least discuss the issues with those who disagree.
She's not used to people reacting the way they did after her talk at Midwestern. I have two questions for those who have accused Cindy of Southern Baptists and their influence on the patriarchal movement across evangelicalism, specifically through leaders of Southern and Southwestern Seminaries. (1). Does the demand for a retraction from Cindy mean that some folks at these agencies within the Southern Baptist Convention are now seeing the potential dangers of a resurging patriarchal movement within evangelical circles? and, (2). Since when is an 'Academic Conference,' as was the EMNR Conference in March 2008 hosted by Midwestern Theological Seminary, subject to censorship? Would it not be more appropriate for a response to be given to Mrs. Kunsman's lecture than to act like it never happened?

Finally, if there are those who question how a solid, evangelical Southern Baptist theologian like Dr. Bruce Ware, or other Southern Baptists could ever be spoken of in the same breath as Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, let this be a lesson that just because someone articulates truths that may be taken and misused in 'specificities' does not necessarily mean the articulation of those theological views is necessarily wrong. In other words, just as complementarianism and Christian patriarchy do not automatically mean 'cultic,' neither does egalitarianism and equality necessarily always mean 'liberal.' On the other hand, we should always be on guard that we don't allow drifting toward extremism in any one particilar doctrine. Christians sometimes really do go off on tangents - both right and left.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson


163 Comments:
Wade - Thank you for this synopsis of recent events and attempts at silencing dissenting opinion. I have been amazed at the ad-hominem, the vitriol, and the extreme lengths that these people are going to in order to silence any opposing opinions.
The fact that they do not attempt to defend their argument in the face of opposition but instead try to shut the mouths of those dissenters loudly proclaims to me that they have no defense, just a lot of bluster and anger.
I will link to this post on my blog.
Pastor Burleson,
Thank you for being willing to address the issue of patriocentricity on your blog.
When men like Doug Phillips state that their own views of the roles of men and women are "presuppositional" and "part of the grand sweep of revelation" as they have, (those are quotes, see Doug Phillips' blog) they are setting the stage for behaviors just like Cindy Kunsman experienced. Who wants to question "presuppositional truth", especially when you can find your support for that "truth" among well-respected SBC leaders?
I had considered myself a complementarian but now find that label hijacked by name-callers. Because I believe that women can have their own callings from the Lord and daughters can attend college I am "an androgynous white-washed feminist." Because I believe that women can speak in the church under the authority of pastors or elders, much as Elisabeth Elliott has done for years, I have "joined the side of the enemy and am no longer a sweet, Christian homeschooling mother." The patriocentric voodoo is powerful and dispensed liberally.
And don't forget that SBC's own Voddie Baucham has lent his credibility to Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. His appearance on VF's Return of the Daughters DVD places him squarely in the middle of this mess.
Oh Wade,
Just a couple of clarifications. I attended the same church (Grace OPC) with Doug Phillips, prior to his formally establishing of Boerne Christian Assembly in the San Antonio area. The Rev. Jack Peterson was my pastor there, and Doug suppposedly attended there but was rarely ever there for Sunday service. I never was under the care or the authority of Doug Phillips.
Also, about the birth control issue. This is complicated, I admit. Often in spiritually abusive or controlling settings, there are two kinds of rules: the official, written ones and the unwritten ones that are conveyed through unstated assumption, vague inference and those that are enforced by social pressure and social mentoring. So although Vision Forum formally states that they believe that birth control is not God's will for believers, they only "strongly discourage" it as stated in their literature, readily available in articles on www.visionforumministries.com. But in reality and as is consistent with the unwritten rules conveyed in spiritually abusive settings, anyone who does not follow the group ideal of birthing about eight children per family (listen to Phillips on sermon audio on patriarchy) through their "spiritual eugenics" that they call "militant fecundity" -- they suffer a high degree of negative reinforcement and social penalties for their non-compliance. These believers are not generally made to feel welcome in their "Family Integrated Churches."
I praise God for your stand for Biblical Truth that, through responsible hermeneutic, DOES NOT teach us that women are the appendage of their patriarch. Women are not saved and sanctified through mere men but only through the Atoning Blood of the Lamb, and the divine miracle of the transforming power of the Spirit and the Word of God.
God bless you, abundantly above and beyond I can ask or think! I believe and ask that God bless you for taking this stand for the Deity of Christ and the priesthood of ALL believers. (And for all the men and women who suffer under this type of spiritual abuse.)
Sola Deo Gloria!
And don't forget that SBC's own Voddie Baucham has lent his credibility to Doug Phillips and Vision Forum.
And don't forget Wake Forest, NC's own Scott Brown, SBC minister, friend of the local SBC seminary and Director for Vision Forum Ministries' "National Center for Family Integrated Churches."
His local church is another veritable bastion of headcoverings, I'm told. I'm not sure if they wear headcoverings at his former church where he pastored, one that split over FIC madness.
www.ephesians511.wordpress.com
Disclaimer: My best friend wore hats to church for many years, and I supported her completely and deeply respected her desire be obedient to her convictions at the time, resulting from the teachings of the infamous Bill Gothard.
I wish I could be shocked by this account. Unfortunately, it just points to more of the endemic same turf protection and self-protection by men hungry for greater power and prominence.
How long?
Pastor Burleson,
Thank you so much for your willing to address this topic and for, your willing to stand up for the rights of women...
*gags self*
Although, the "I’m a little tea pot" photo of Patterson made me chuckle a bit.
God has truly blessed our convention to have serious scholars of such matters in the persons of Drs. Moore and Ware, et al.
Although this whole patriarchal system of society is in complete contrast to the biblical model of matriarchalism and whereas Eve was ultimately responsible for the sins of personkind and whereas the promise of God to Sarah was that through her seed the nations would be blessed, and where as Jesus’ (the incarnate child of the ‘heavenly parent’) exhortation in Matthew 5 to be the salt of the earth is really just paying homage to Lot's wife, and where as most women pastors have short hair and look like lesbians, be it resolved that I had better stop and get to my last Greek class of the semester. Woohoo!
To look at the two of them, it would seem no one could tell much difference by appearance between Doug Phillips' wife and one of the Fundamentalist Mormon Church women now making the national news. Maybe Phillips' group is interested in Central Texas acreage available next door to that Mormon cult group; their men can proclaim their aberrant theology from there while their women give birth in silence and submission to 20 children each?
I believe that the Fundamentalist leanings of the current Missouri Baptist Convention arise in part from the undue influence of a few who appear to hold many of the same beliefs have had on that state convention. Most Missouri Baptists didn't "get it" until the MBC was/is in the shape it is now. Caution is due, it appears.
Two quotes that caught my attention:
“The essence of his argument is that the roles of women in society, not just the church, are essential to the gospel itself.” Uh, yea, live for Christ…just like the fellers. The roles of BELIEVERS in society are essential to the Gospel itself.
“The idea that the gospel is in danger when the 'normative' family is in danger.” Yup, when the world sees our divorce rate, they rightly conclude that we don’t mean what we say. When the world sees our lifestyle, they rightly conclude that we don’t mean what we say. But for those who don’t live like they say, they probably aren’t doing much saying either…funny how that works.
John in St. Louis
Thanks for this information.
If the list of supposed truths in this blog about men and women hit our church, it would not get very far. Head coverings? Come on. You have got to be kidding me.
It is good to be aware of and watch movements like this, even though I believe this movement will not attract large numbers.
I cannot dissect or refute the various hard or dotted lines between Phillips and his list of doctrines and the people mentioned in the SBC, but we need to be really careful in understanding who is saying what. If Cindy was not careful in her speech and made connections that should not have been made, then a clarification or apology would be in order.
A good example in this article is the reference to the Council for National Policy, Howard Phillips and Paul Pressler, with the argument being, "Howard Phillips is the father of Doug Phillips, Howard Phillips is a member of the CNP, so is Paul Pressler, ergo - Paul Pressler = Doug Phillips!"
I know the post does not say that, but it is implied.
The Council for National Policy (I am not a member) is supposed to have lots of members with lots of differing views on different topics. One of my clients is a water utility, and I recently watched the speech of someone on the national council who believes that the flouridation of water is an international plot to cause disease, lower birth rates and control the population. But just because that guy believes that doesn't mean others in the group do.
In other words, let's don't do what so many people do with connecting things that should not be connected.
For sure, if Pastor Phillips wants to promote head coverings, let him go for it, and we can debate the issue.
But let's be really careful about being too quick to draw lines and make connections that may not be justified.
Louis
Wade, thank you for an extremely informative and interesting article. As one who was intimately involved in the patriarchy movement and who sat under Doug Phillips’ teaching and authority for five years before being (unbiblically) excommunicated by him, I think I can offer a few additional insights here. While I am certainly extremely concerned about the current patriarchy movement, I have also been concerned about the recent trend to use the logical fallacy of guilt by association, especially when used to connect dots that truly may not exist in the same picture.
For example, let’s look at these three statements by Bruce Ware:
1. Man is created in the image of God directly, woman indirectly.
2. Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father, and thus, Christians should only pray to, petition, and glorify the Father, for Jesus serves His Father's will, not His own.
3. Jesus is not equal to the Father in authority. He never was nor ever will be. He comes from the Father, as the woman from the man, and is subordinate to the Father, as the woman is to the man.
While I am adamantly opposed to these statements, and think it is right for Cindy Kunsman to speak out against these direct quotes, I can tell you with absolute certainty that Bruce Ware, and these statements, have not influenced Doug Phillips in his teachings on patriarchy. This is not an accurate association.
I also do not believe that Doug Phillips has been influenced by Russell Moore or CBMW. CBMW is far too liberal in Doug’s thinking and he has sought to distance himself from them until my story about his ecclesiastical abuse came out and many people took a strong stance against Vision Forum’s brand of patriarchy. At that point, he made a weak attempt to state that his parents were complementarians, but that he promotes patriarchy.
While the SBC and Vision Forum may both embrace a form of patriarchy, I can tell you that they are so far apart that they surely cannot be considered to be in the same camp. However, there are at least two significant ties that Doug Phillips does have within the SBC camp and that is with Paige Patterson and Scott Brown. Doug Phillips was (still is?) on a board of directors with Paige Patterson and one other person for quite a while. That board represented a Vision Forum-related patriarchy group. Also, Scott Brown, the director of Vision Forum’s National Center for Family Integrated Churches, is an adjunct professor at the SBC university in Wake Forest, NC. Scott Brown is one of Doug Phillips’ closest friends.
In looking at Cindy Kunsman’s list of those who influenced Doug Phillips’ thinking, Dabney is certainly one of his greatest influences, as Doug would speak of him and quote him often. Also, Doug’s father, Howard Phillips, has had more influence on him than perhaps anyone else. Paige Patterson is directly associated with Doug, although I don’t believe he has had much influence on Doug’s brand of patriarchy. However, as far as I am aware, and I knew Doug Phillips and his teachings very well, neither Russell Moore nor Bruce Ware, and certainly not CBMW, have influenced Doug Phillips and Vision Forum in their version of patriarchy.
While I am sure that Cindy had many important things to present in her lecture, I am equally concerned about her propensity for connecting dots in this movement that simply do not exist. I appreciate the direct quotes by both Ware and Phillips, but to juxtapose them upon patriarchy in general only muddies the waters in our attempts to expose this extra-biblical movement. I would rather have seen her address either Ware or Phillips, but not to try to put them together in the same lecture, as I do not see them as being united in purpose.
Louis, Doug Phillips does not believe in head coverings.
Since I first started reading things published by CBMW, my impression is that they have moved further down the Richter scale toward patriocentricity. Take, for example, the essay by Wayne Grudem where he had a long list of things that he believed women could do within church ministry and still be considered to be orthodox. That list included things like a woman speaking in a church setting to both men and women. James Boice and J.I Packer were listed as those who held to that position and were still considered orthodox.
But now it would not be allowed by many who are either influenced by Ware, Mohler, Phillips, the Bayly brothers, etc. or by those whom these patriocentrists have influenced.
I think it is very difficult to determine who is influencing whom and on what levels. However, if Phillips quotes various ones of these men on his blog,including leaders in the SBC, obviously they are influencing him.
One other note...this is not some johnny-come-lately movement that has reared its ugly head during the last few years, as Jen implied. I have watched it grow since the mid-1980's, know many people who have sought to expose it for what it is for more than a decade, and watched it pick up steam after the Y2K debacle left them needing a new rallying point.
Mr. Burleson,
Where does one even begin with this?
The incredible number of factual inaccuracies in Mrs. Kunsman's presentation? The fact that, for example, she is apparently not even able to articulate the difference between Federal Vision and Vision Forum? Do you find youself in agreement with Mrs. Kunsman's attack on the belief that, at least from a Christian's pespective, marriage is normative? She is presenting a seminar on "new religious movements" as though male headship and the normativity of marriage are cultic.
And Mr. Burleson, why didn't you mention Wayne Grudem in your post, since Grudem is mentioned in the presentation? (Perhaps Sam Storms can answer that question.)
Does it bother you, Mr. Burleson, a five-point Calvinist who affirms unconditional election and limited atonement, that Mrs. Kunsman believes that these aspects of Calvinism are "a sick Christian version of karma" (http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post.html)? Perhaps she cast a spell on you, since she is a trained hypnotherapist and all (http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-twisted-calvinism-election-as.html).
This post could provide the forum for discussion about the actual merits of, for example, Russell Moore's tying of complementarianism to the gospel itself (Christ pursued the church and not the other way around, Eph 5) or Bruce Ware's work on the eternal functional (not ontological) subordination of the Son to the Father (a belief held by nearly every other Christian throughout the history of the church, for John tells us, for example, that Christ was sent to do the will of the Father). Or the fact that merely asserting that Paige Patterson and Doug Phillips are friends does not, in and of itself, prove one thing.
Or the fact that Mrs. Kunsman believes that complementarians are arguing for an "uber-Adam." She's right. We even know his Name, and it's Jesus of Nazareth (Rom 5).
But, for discussions such as these, perhaps I need to go elsewhere. And besides, around here, the parameters seem just a bit too narrow for me.
Phillip
Sorry. The last comment was posted by me, Phillip Bethancourt. (It didn't include my last name.)
JensGems,
Thank you for your comment. I agree. All Christians should be very careful in writing off other Christians because of 'guilt' by associaton.
When I listened to Cindy's lecture via video, I did not one time hear a critical statement of the Southern Baptist Convention because of Doug Phillip's specificities regarding women, but rather, a concern that the theology articulated by Bruce Ware (which you acknowledge) was forming the basis for views held by men 'like' Doug Phillips.
Whether or not Doug Phillips has been influenced by Southern Baptists is open for debate, but there is no doubt that he is well acquainted with, and practices some of the same 'specificities' regarding women, that a handful of our SBC leaders practice.
Our Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Seminary, Southwestern Seminary and other SBC agencies are doing some great work. The point of this post is we must be careful on how far we go to the right on women's issues, and not be afraid to be challenged by people who may suggest we are going to far to the right.
Thankfully, we are NOT as extreme as Doug Phillips. I'm not waiting around till we are before I say anything.
Wade,
I still recall the time we first watched our dog birth pups. That was entertaining and a little scary.
Many people watch the science TV shows that focus on the birth of a new island out in the ocean.
We seem to have ringside seats at the birth of a new religion that we can tell our grandchildren about years from now.
The involvement of Paige Patterson, Judge Paul Pressler, Judge Roy Moore, Voddie Baucham and others with this "patriocentric voodoo" (great phrase!) should embarrass and alarm non-cultic Southern Baptists.
The clue that this is becoming a cult is, as always, how this man-made line of thinking misrepresents Jesus Christ. Will we be seeing a New Book that has to go along with the Bible from this bunch to explain all the places where the Bible got it wrong, like with Huldah, Deborah, the Woman at the Well, etcetera?
Phillip,
I am aware at Cindy's statements regarding Reformed theology, and though I believe in the doctrines of grace myself, I have no objection to Cindy articulating her views. She is more than entitled to her opinion and I respect it and am not threatened by them. I would be more than happy to fellowship with her as a sister in Christ, and were she in our area, we would love for she and her husband to be a part of our church, even though she vehemently disagrees with my soteriology.
Further, I agree with you that Dr. Ware prefers the nomenclature 'functional subordination' rather than 'ontological subordintation.' The debate, however, revolves around the 'eternal submission' of Christ, whatever the nomenclature, and whether Ware's 'eternal submission' makes Christ lesser in glory, lesser in honor, and lesser in functional equality than the Father.
And, it is a debate - with nobody having all the answers.
Finally, I also agree that Cindy is in error in several things she presents and believes. So are you. So am I. So is Dr. Ware. We are human. The issue for me is the inability to address issues of concern within the Southern Baptist Convention BEFORE they turn into problems like those at Vision Forum.
The Southern Baptist Convention needs to cherish dissent, debate and dialogue before the death of dissent means the death of a denomination built by dissenters.
Patriocentic voodoo in a developing Baptist Identity Cult.
Never a more descriptive phrase have I heard about what I see going on around me. I would sign my name, but I am emplyed by the emerging cult.
Thank God for the courage and grace of men like Wade Burleson.
Be careful, Wade. Doug Phillip's beliefs and business are one in the same. He does not ignore any bad publicity and usually threatens to sue people who dare question his practices.
His income and his 'religion' are one and the same. He makes his living selling Patriarchy as a lifestyle. And he is very well connected politically. People are afraid of him and should be.
Anon for good reason
Wade, I don't think that anything about Patriarchy itself should be scary. The thought of a Christ-led loving protective servant-leader husband-father is something that no Christian should find scary.
I think the problem isn't Patriarchy but the corrupt-hearted egomaniacs the movement has attracted. A crop of carnival barkers with "short-little-man syndrome" like Doug Phillips and RC Sproul Jr saw an opportunity to make a fast buck, and they gett to lord it over others to boot. It's gone rapidly down the tubes from there.
Rather than offering Patriarchy as a personal family choice it became "central to the gospel." Inevitably though we discover that such legalists are themselves very corrupt and abusive men. RC Sproul Jr was defrocked for ecclesiastical tyranny and tax fraud. Doug Phillips can't be defrocked because he's a non-ordained self-appointed non-accountable "pastor" in charge of what looks far more like a cult than an actual church. Doug Phillips is allegedly quite a charlatan, bilking his Vision Forum customers with various scams.
Given good leadership the Patriarchy movement might have actually become something that honored Christ. Under present leadership it's just an abomination.
Anonymous,
I can assure you my sole concern is that the Southern Baptist Convention stop becoming more and more like Vision Forum. I am both accustomed to, and uaffected by, threats.
Robert Garvin,
You may be surprised, but I agree more than you realize.
However, I have enough experience to know that most Southern Baptists sit by and do nothing untiil it is too late.
The issue to me is not patriarchy. The issue is the abuses of some who hold to patriarchy and the charge by patriarchists that it is impossible to be a sincere, Bible-believing, Christ honoring church or individual without believing exactly like they do in the specificiites of their theology.
ThatMom,
Interesting observation. I almost said 'keen' but I am going to go back and look for myself before I bestow that adjective.
Thanks.
Once again, I see with clarity the issues before us. I read certain bloggers who only talk about Baptist Identity and I wonder 'whose/ identity wins out. Now I am beginning to realize that the narrower you define 'Baptists' the more specific "Identity" you can carry. Frankly, reading some of the Identity people, I'm not sure I want to be a part. I was watching the news the other day and I saw the women in the patriarchal cult in Texas. They looked odd. They all talked the same, looked the same, and acted the same. They had a peculiar identity caused by inbreeding.
My dad was a farmer. He always used to tell me you had to introduce new bulls in the farm herd every so often to keep the genetics from mutating because of too much inbreeding. Without the new bulls, disease, deformity and eventually destruction of the herd will occur. I now realize the same principle applies to Southern Baptists. We must be very, very careful that we don't continue to exclude people who don't believe like the 'Baptist Identity' leaders, talk like the "Baptist Identity' leaders, and act like the 'Baptist Identity' leaders in the SBC. If we do continue to separate, isolate and excommunicate, we are going to wake up one day and realize we are a Baptist Identity Cult.
Like Anonymous above, I thank the good Lord for the introduction of a few new bulls in the SBC herd.
Fred Jenkins
Life-long Southern Baptist
Florida
I'm off for ministry and afternoon golf. I will be unable to respond until later tonight.
I just wanted to remind those reading here that the lecture that I presented was not specifically focused on Doug Phillips but gave an overarching perspective of a very diverse group of different beliefs and practices. I did use Phillips and Vision Forum as a prototypical example for the general practices within patriarchy. The growing popularity of head coverings is so well documented within the FIC, something that I actually didn't mention specifically in the lecure BTW, I believe that it eventually found its way into the discussion.
The subordinationist concept (a modifier that Dr. Ware denies is applicable to his views) was listed within the lecture as one of many influences on the development of the non-monolithic patriarchy. Kevin Giles traces the many of the same trends that I do in the lecture, and I believe that citing Giles thesis is the source of much of this controversy. Giles' writings connect many more dots than I did, including the connections to the pro-slavery arguments and the sanctification of women as a consequence and logical conclusion of ontological subordination.
It's also instructive to note that Federal Vision's subordination is nearly identical to Dr. Ware's concepts. As many individuals associated with Federal Vision have been cited for plagiarism, this might be something to notice as well. And the connections between and among groups like the Constiution Party, ETS, CBMW and others is well documented, and many patriocentrists cite these works, but Doug Phillips had done so as well, since that is of interest to some. Many of the discussion threads on Jen's Gems diercted me directly to some of these groups that are suggested to be unrelated to patriarchy. I wholeheartedly disagree as does Giles that the subordinationists have not had a primary theological impact on patriocentricity.
The lectures are available online and the bibliography and some weblinks are available at www.undermuchgrace.com for those who wish to view them and investigate some of these things further. The connections are very well documented, otherwise I would not have offered them and placed the sources online. In fact, I primarily intended to offer an overview so that people could more easily find resources that they could investigate on their own.
The primary issue of concern regarding the disclaimer surrounded Bruce Ware's material which I directly quote in the lecture and offer one comment from Giles regarding subordinationism in general.
The dots do connect that there are those in the SBC who WANT and promote a slide toward Patriarchy in the SBC.
I have been reading it myself from both Moore and Ware. I am seeing it in action from Patterson.
Here is a seemingly sublte quote from this Henry Institute article "After Patriarchy, What?" by Moore:
"We must instead relate male headship to the whole of the gospel. And, in so doing, we must remember that complementarian Christianity is collapsing around us because we have not addressed the root causes behind egalitarianism in the first place"
1. Male headship must be related to the whole Gospel? As in men are god and women are to be like Christ? How does this work? How in the world do we go from a few proof texts to this whole new religion of male headship (Patriarchy) for all women? Does this mean that only women have an earthly priest?
2. An egalitarian to Moore could be a woman who witnesses to men. It could be Lottie Moon or Eliz Elliott. Or even Beth Moore because she stands in 'pulpits'.
The Holy Priesthood is dead to these men. Everything in the Gospel has 'gender' connotations and gender roles for them.
Jesus taught and practiced something very different from what these men are teaching.
she is apparently not even able to articulate the difference between Federal Vision and Vision Forum?
I certainly can articulate the difference. Did the person making the comments here actually watch the lectures? Douglas Wilson of Federal Vision fame espouses many of the same ideas of the patriocentrists, though their conduct standards are not as rigid as other groups like those who follow Vision Forum. Wilson has a flavor of emergent church, but all the patriocentrists share the sacerdotalism and the basic view of subordinationism. In practice, I'd rather follow Federal Vision, but I would much rather follow the more traditional, basic theology of Vision Forum. Both groups love the neo-Confederate idealism. They both observe theonomy. Federal Vision supports paedocommunion and some of the FIC practices, etc. All of these groups believe that it is men who govern or participate in the sanctification of their wives.
lin,
Wow. That's all I can say.
Wow. Thanks for your comment.
My eyes are open.
What scares me the most about Patriarchy is that it is 'man' centered and not 'Christ centered'.
Think about it. Patriarchy is simply about what human is in charge of others.
Lucy
Lovely pejoratives!
I would love for people to read the "Calvin as karma" post on my blog. Since the passing of men like Rousas Rushdoony, and with the advent of Y2K, there has been a new, virulent strain of Calvinist out there that would say to the lost that they should get what they deserve and offer no evangelism to them. Limited atonement is seen largely as some kind of an excuse to hate the lost and as Doug Wilson states, we should pray that the heads of the heathen should be crushed upon the rocks, that the unborn of the heathen die and that we should basically rejoice that the children of the heathen lay naked and starving in the streets. That's Calvinism turned into some karma-like sick type of cause and effect, very typical of the patriocentrics.
And considering my 12 year study of thought reform and my nursing experience, focused on acute and chronic pain management, pharmacology and analgesia, hypnotherapy was a very helpful continuing education pursuit. It actually helped liberate me from much of the Word of Faith dogma and I found the principles of hypnotherapy basically identical to those of Word of Faith. A European trained mesmerist named
Quimby worked with Mary Baker who took those principles and formed Christian Science. Kenyon took Mary Baker Eddy's work and injected the Word of God into it and learing all of this helped me understand the problematic doctrines of the Word of Faith movement. Hypnotherapy is essentially the Pentecostal movement that I grew up within in the Assemblies of God with Jesus extracted.
I was also blessed to have been permitted to refuse regression therapy. The theory that I learned has helped me understand the thought reform process and cultic dynamic on a more objective level. Given my Pentecostal upbringing, it was a great blessing to understand the scientific aspects of much of what I experienced growing up.
I'm also grateful, for I learned many techniques that allow me to help manage my own chronic pain without medication through simple, progressive relaxation.
For those who read Lin's comment above, here is a link to the paper she referenced, a paper delivered at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in 2005, and which was published in a subsequent edition of JETS.
http://henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf
http://www.henryinstitute.org/commentary_read.php?cid=149
The readers can see for themselves whether or not Lin's quote was taken out of context (as she didn't provide a link), and whether or not the two conclusions she draws from the quote are even alluded to in the paper.
Lucy, Yes, Christian patriarchy is man-centered, as is all of Christian theology, depending on which Man of which you speak (Eph 1:9-10).
Warning to patriarchs, this comment written by a woman.
Who are the "us" that "patriarchy scares"? Obviously not many of the commenters! It certainly scares a lot of women.
TV has been full of pictures of the women taken from the Fundamentalist LDS compound in Texas in their pioneer-woman-style clothes. An interviewee spoke of how they are required to dress and wear their hair and other restrictions. Obviously this is an extreme, but the idea is there. Patriarchy, in their beliefs ans in older times included multiple wives for men. Do the Baptist believers in this want to return to this idea as well? (Of course, then they couldn't be pastors or deacons, but I guess they could still teach in seminaries, or could they?) There are several things that would commend this practice, especially to men (there are a few benefits to women as well, though they are strongly outweighed by the disadvantages), but I will not list them for fear of offending delicate minds with some of them. Those less easily offended can probably think of them on your own.
Genesis 1:27 says both male and female were created in God's image. Did Jesus only come to save males? He sent women to be the first to proclaim his resurrection. I guess the male disciples were only being good patriarchs when they didn't believe the women's message.
Either women are human or not. All else follows from that idea. If women are fully human then egalitarian is the norm. If women are lesser creatures (like people not of the white race were considered to be in earlier times) then a lot of things that are presently practiced even by complementarians are wrong.
If you are a male reader who has read this comment, thank you.
Susie
…there has been a new, virulent strain of Calvinist out there that would say to the lost that they should get what they deserve and offer no evangelism to them. Limited atonement is seen largely as some kind of an excuse to hate the lost…
Cindy could you maybe use a bigger brush to paint us with? I’m afraid whatever your experiences have been with those who claim to follow the Doctrines of His Marvelous Grace have left you rather embittered (no offense to Mr. Obama). And such verbiage hardly lends to taking your other points more seriously.
Robert, thanks for providing the link. I simply forgot to put it in.
Taken out of context? That is his context. To him, the Gospel revolves around male headship. This is simply ONE example of Moore's teaching on this subject.
I agree with Lucy. Patriarchy is "man" (little m) centered. And not Christ centered.
I can think of some things about patriarchy that really scare me. Or at least some things about Doug Phillips' version of patriarchy are big time scary. There's a very dark and creepy side to it, including daddy shaving contests. Major "icky" factor about all that.
"If women are fully human then egalitarian is the norm. If women are lesser creatures (like people not of the white race were considered to be in earlier times) then a lot of things that are presently practiced even by complementarians are wrong."
Susie, the teaching goes like this and it sounds eerily close to 'separate but equal':
Women are totally 'equal' to men but 'different' in roles (which means UNequal). Somewhere in the NT is a list of specific condoned roles for women but no one can point them out to me. As a matter of fact, quite a bit of scriptural examples of women prophesying in front of men has to be ignored to have these beliefs.
Mr. Ware tells us this belief is correct because women are not made in the direct image of God but in the INdirect image. We are a 'derivative' of man. Eve is responsible for sin that enter the world and seduced Adam into sinning. So, ALL women for ALL time are more easily deceieved for all time.
This kind of begs the question that most false teaching has come through men throughout history.
Patriarchy is simply an excuse to elevate themselves and lord it over others. It has NOTHING to do with the NC. It is pride based with a captial P and has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ who told us not to lord it over others...repeatedly.
Nevermind the fact that the word 'Head' can be debated as meaning 'authority over' in that passage from now until Jesus comes back. It is not conclusive that was the intended meaning at all. If it were why use a word like Kephale? Why not use a word that is quite clear such as Arch or exousia? As a matter of fact, 'Source' or 'Origin' fits very nicely into those passages.
Every cult has to have someone to lord it over. In this case, it is simply twisting scripture to have a group to lord it over.
It amazes me that with the whole of scripture and the Gospel message this is what these men focus on as the most important thing in Christedom.
Lucy
Cindy,
I am a man, and I read your comment. I think you are a person of value to God, to your family, and your church. Thanks for posting your thoughts and I hope my follow-up is helpful in your walk with Jesus and life among other Christians.
As a complementarian, I don't accept your dichotomy that men and women are either 1)both human and therefore equal in role or else 2)not equal in role and therefore not equally human. Any completementarian or patriachist who suggests the later is in sin.
We see that humans can be BOTH 1) equal in humanity and 2) unequal in authority in the parent-child relationship. God commands sons to obey their mothers, yet this doesn't make children less-than-human!! Would egalitarians suggest then that children are equal in authority to their parents?? Why then is there so much flak over restating what the Scriptures say that "wives should submit to their husbands" without also rejecting "children obey your parents?"
Well, there is a reason for this: the sins of fathers and husbands. Men who subjugate, violate, manipulate and dehumanize women are evident in our society and even in our churches. But this is NEVER what the mainstream complementarians advocate (Grudem, Piper, Mahaney, Ware). Instead the goal is Eph 5: "husbands love your wives AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH." To equate complementarianism with the Fundy LDS church is terribly offensive because the vision is (personally and for the church) to see self-sacrificial, servant-loving, COMPLETELY FAITHFUL husbands of one wife - NOT polygimistic, raping, beating men shown leading the F-LDS church.
My two conclusions: 1) hatred towards the violence against women is just as natural, if not MORE, to complementarianism as it is to egalitarianism, and 2) complementarianism finds that women are just as human as men.
PS - I know nothing about Doug Phillips or the VF so he's not included in my consideration of complementarianism.
Cindy could you maybe use a bigger brush to paint us with? I’m afraid whatever your experiences have been with those who claim to follow the Doctrines of His Marvelous Grace have left you rather embittered (no offense to Mr. Obama). And such verbiage hardly lends to taking your other points more seriously.
Native Vermonter,
I did not state that these comments applied to all Calvinists or all Reformed but those who violate Scripture by showing distain and discrimination, etc. We are called to bless those who curse us and show kindness and compassion to all. The "virluent strain" of those who take election and turn it into Karma are like those who believe we should stone wayward teens and those like Wilson who believe that we should not show love and ministry to the children of the heathen. And what of angels unawares?
Does that make sense to you? I was commenting about those people who delight in death and destruction and discipline and revenge, not the believer that walks in the Spirit, bearing the fruit of the Spirit.
Cindy could you maybe use a bigger brush to paint us with? I’m afraid whatever your experiences have been with those who claim to follow the Doctrines of His Marvelous Grace have left you rather embittered (no offense to Mr. Obama). And such verbiage hardly lends to taking your other points more seriously.
Fri Apr 18, 12:39:00 PM 2008
native,
How is it painting with a broad brush to point out a 'strain' of Calvinism that believes in imprecatory prayers and teaches this doctrine? It exists. Check it out. Check out the teachings of Doug Wilson and RC Sproul, Jr. There is some creepy stuff out there and we should point it out.
A lot of people screamed when "Ligonier Tales" was quoted where RC Sproul, Jr. referred to the rich woman who put up the funding for Ligoneir as a 'white witch'. Not once but several times in his 'memoirs', Ligoneir Tales.
Why were they so upset that RC Sproul, Jr. was quoted verbatim? He put this memoir online. (He took it down when Ligoneir filed a lawsuit against a blogger).
That is what you are doing here. You are accusing Cindy instead of checking out the teaching which is an insult to the Doctrines of His wonderful Grace. It is there. She is simply quoting it.
Check it out before you impugn her character.
Lucy
Understood Cindy, and from one Calvinist to one who is not . . .
I agree.
Lucy, just so people don't think you're making this stuff up, here's a link to RC Sproul Jr's Ligonier Tales. Just another dark example of the dark side of the patriarchy thing.