Mere Complementarianism with Dr. Denny Burk의 전체 녹취록

complementarianism is a is a baby boomer theology. 00:04:33.199 --> 00:04:35.680 It's going to die out when the baby boomers are gone. 00:04:35.680 --> 00:04:39.920 And I just want to say I don't think you understand what's complementarianism. 00:04:39.920 --> 00:04:45.519 It's not just the sociological movement of baby boomers and what they thought about things, baby boomer evangelicals. 00:04:45.519 --> 00:04:46.560 That's not what it is. 00:04:46.560 --> 00:05:02.720 It's a doctrinal proposition that was articulated in what we now know of as the Danvers Statement, which was a doctrinal confession that was hammered out by a group of evangelicals led by Wayne Grudham and John Piper back in 1987. 00:05:02.720 --> 00:05:10.959 And the the Danvers Statement, when they wrote that in 1987, there was no term complementarianism. 00:05:10.959 --> 00:05:18.800 Um, complementarianism was the term they came up with a year later as a one-word descriptor of their view. 00:05:18.800 --> 00:05:22.319 Now, some people say, well, that means complementarianism is a new doctrine. 00:05:22.319 --> 00:05:24.160 No, it's not a new doctrine. 00:05:24.160 --> 00:05:26.879 It's old doctrine applied to new challenges. 00:05:26.879 --> 00:05:30.319 And at the time, the challenge was second wave feminism. 00:05:30.319 --> 00:05:43.360 And so that they were trying to articulate what in the world does the Bible say against these feminist um influences that are taking over the culture and really coming into the evangelical church. 00:05:43.360 --> 00:05:52.879 And so they summarized what they think that basically the Bible teaches about these things in the Danver Statement, and then they called that doctrine complementarianism. 00:05:52.879 --> 00:06:01.600 So it's not a new doctrine, it's actually old doctrine, but it's uh we put a name on it to uh face the challenges that were current at that time. 00:06:01.600 --> 00:06:13.279 So that's where um the term mere complementarianism comes from, is just saying, look, if you're gonna say you're a complementarian, the baseline doctrinal proposition is the Danver Statement. 00:06:13.279 --> 00:06:14.959 You say, why is that important? 00:06:14.959 --> 00:06:26.000 Well, because there's some people that are saying more than the Danver Statement, and there's some people that are saying less than the Danver statement, and still calling themselves complementarian. 00:06:26.000 --> 00:06:39.759 So, for example, one example that I use uh you know in the book and that I talk about all the time is of people saying more than the Danver Statement would be like the doctrine of EFS, eternal functional subordination of the Son. 00:06:39.759 --> 00:06:51.199 It's a certain view of the Trinity that became really popular amongst a certain set of evangelicals in the 20th century, and that it holds that in some sense the son submits to the father from all eternity. 00:06:51.199 --> 00:06:53.279 That's what that that view holds. 00:06:53.279 --> 00:06:59.680 And it was commonly associated with complementarianism because there were prominent complementarians who held to that view. 00:06:59.680 --> 00:07:10.000 And so there were a lot of people who came under the conviction that if you're going to be a complementarian, then you have to hold to that that certain view of the Trinity, EFS. 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:12.000 Well, guess what? 00:07:12.000 --> 00:07:15.439 If you read the Danvers Statement, EFS is nowhere in there. 00:07:15.439 --> 00:07:18.160 It's not a part of the original doctrinal proposition. 00:07:18.160 --> 00:07:24.079 Now, some complementarians have held to that, but there have been a lot of complementarians that never held to any form of that. 00:07:24.079 --> 00:07:31.360 And it's because complementarianism is not reliant upon that particular doctrinal controversy, which by the way, I think is an important controversy. 00:07:31.360 --> 00:07:32.720 I have views on it. 00:07:32.720 --> 00:07:39.439 But whether or not whatever your view is on that, it doesn't make you more or less of a complementarian if if you hold to it. 00:07:39.439 --> 00:07:42.560 There's been a guy, I don't know if you guys remember the name Kevin Giles. 00:07:42.560 --> 00:07:50.319 He was a theologian, and uh he's a theologian, he's written lots of books, very engaged as an egalitarian scholar. 00:07:50.319 --> 00:07:59.839 He wrote an entire book demolishing EFS under the premise that if he he demolishes EFS, he's got he's basically defeated complementarianism. 00:07:59.839 --> 00:08:01.680 That's not true. 00:08:01.680 --> 00:08:05.040 Um that's not a part of the original doctrinal proposition. 00:08:05.040 --> 00:08:10.079 So you can huff and puff and blow that house in, and you haven't touched complementarianism yet. 00:08:10.079 --> 00:08:14.720 So some people say more than what's in Danvers and they add things to it. 00:08:14.720 --> 00:08:17.040 Some people say less than than what's in Danvers. 00:08:17.040 --> 00:08:28.160 And so, you know, some of the controversies in our own denomination are where you'll you'll you do have people, I think, saying less that are what what what are in the you know the original complementarian doctrinal proposition. 00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:32.639 They will say things like women can be pastors and still be a complementarian. 00:08:32.639 --> 00:08:38.240 Or they'll say that you know, women can preach the attired gathered assembly and you could still be a complementarian. 00:08:38.240 --> 00:08:43.679 And um there are a lot of people that are trying to float those views in under the label complementarianism. 00:08:43.679 --> 00:08:47.039 And at that point, I just want to say, what are we talking about anymore? 00:08:47.039 --> 00:08:54.240 I mean, the egalitarians think that that's what they believe, that women can be pastors and and preach to the entire gathered assembly. 00:08:54.240 --> 00:09:12.480 So some people are saying more than what's in Danvers, some

people are saying less, and I'm saying you need to hold to what the original, if you're gonna call yourself a complementarian, you need to have some sort of a credible claim to what's contained in the original doctrinal proposition, which is more thoroughgoing than some people give it credit for. 00:09:12.480 --> 00:09:20.399 Um there are a lot of people who say that Danvers is this minimalistic document, and what I'm doing in this book is disagreeing with that. 00:09:20.399 --> 00:09:29.440 I'm saying that Danvers is actually more robust because it's rooting complementarianism and not only in scripture, but also in natural law. 00:09:29.440 --> 00:09:32.000 In other words, in God's design and creation. 00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:35.279 So that's that's where the name uh came from. 00:09:35.279 --> 00:09:40.399 That's why I think the name's important, and it gives you a little bit about the the thrust of what I'm doing in the book. 00:09:40.960 --> 00:09:51.919 Yeah, so let me jump in, Denny, and ask uh something you mentioned as you were talking about the summary of the book is that some people are doing more than what Danver says, some are doing less. 00:09:51.919 --> 00:10:08.639 Um part of the debate we've heard inside the SBC deals with this idea of strong versus weak complementarian, or others describe it maybe narrow versus broad complementarian and complementarianism. 00:10:08.639 --> 00:10:11.360 Uh do you think those distinctions are helpful? 00:10:11.360 --> 00:10:12.879 Are they bad? 00:10:12.879 --> 00:10:15.360 Um what what are your thoughts on that? 00:10:15.919 --> 00:10:17.600 I mean, I understand why people use them. 00:10:17.600 --> 00:10:23.039 They're trying to say that within the within complementarianism, there's a spectrum of beliefs. 00:10:23.039 --> 00:10:29.840 I think it would be closing your eyes to see that there's you know, to deny that there's a spectrum of beliefs. 00:10:29.840 --> 00:10:30.559 There is. 00:10:30.559 --> 00:10:35.200 The question is, is what can credibly be called complementarianism? 00:10:35.200 --> 00:10:37.120 That that's the real question. 00:10:37.120 --> 00:10:42.080 And does it does the spectrum include people who would call women as pastors? 00:10:42.080 --> 00:10:47.919 Does it include people who would call women who um preach to the gathered assembly? 00:10:47.919 --> 00:10:52.159 Um I'm arguing I think that's off the spectrum at that point. 00:10:52.159 --> 00:10:57.919 Okay, you're you're somewhere else if you're calling for women to be pastors and for women to preach to the gathered assembly. 00:10:57.919 --> 00:11:08.080 Um so that that's what so I understand what people are saying that there's a spectrum of belief within complementarianism, and I'm not denying that there is some sort of a spectrum, but I do think some things are off the spectrum. 00:11:08.080 --> 00:11:15.200 It'd be a little bit like um, you know, we've heard people talking about I'm a three-point Calvinist, I'm a four-point Calvinist, right? 00:11:15.200 --> 00:11:25.679 But what if somebody told you um I'm a one-point Calvinist, I hold to total depravity, but I deny election, I deny, you know, all the other points. 00:11:25.679 --> 00:11:27.519 What kind of a Calvinist are you now? 00:11:27.519 --> 00:11:32.080 I mean, I think you're not you're no longer on the Calvinist spectrum anymore, you're on some other spectrum. 00:11:32.080 --> 00:11:39.360 And uh and so and and that's fine, but I just think we have to hold our cards out there and not mislabel a position, right? 00:11:39.360 --> 00:11:48.159 And if you're arguing for female pastors and and women preaching in the main teaching slot in a church, what kind of complimentarian are you you really? 00:11:48.159 --> 00:11:58.080 And really for us, the more important thing, you know, the Southern Baptist Convention, I would argue, has a more specific doctrinal standard than what CBMW does. 00:11:58.080 --> 00:12:05.279 And I think that's tot totally appropriate because CBMW was an intra-den an interdenominational effort. 00:12:05.279 --> 00:12:15.759 You had you know bab like-minded Baptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Bible church people, independents, who all came together and were saying, we think here's some key principle. 00:12:15.759 --> 00:12:22.399 We for all our differences ecclesiologically, here's some key things we hold in common about men and women and the way they relate to each other. 00:12:22.399 --> 00:12:27.279 But within a denomination, you can be more specific about what you hold. 00:12:27.279 --> 00:12:32.720 And, you know, so for example, you know, Anglicans have rectors and priests and and all of that. 00:12:32.720 --> 00:12:34.320 Baptists have pastors. 00:12:34.320 --> 00:12:41.440 And so in our doctrinal confession, we have specific statements about who can hold the office of pastor. 00:12:41.440 --> 00:12:46.720 Whereas Danvers is a little more generic, it just talks about who can lead and who can teach. 00:12:46.720 --> 00:12:54.720 Um, we talk about the office of pastor, and we declare that pastor is an office, which makes us even more specific. 00:12:54.720 --> 00:12:59.840 And so that really sharpens the issue for us within our own denominational context. 00:12:59.840 --> 00:13:05.440 But, you know, I don't deny that there's a spectrum of practices and beliefs within complementarianism. 00:13:05.440 --> 00:13:10.000 I'm just arguing that that spectrum needs to fit under what our doctrinal standard is. 00:13:10.000 --> 00:13:12.799 You know, if you're a complementarian, that needs to be within Danvers. 00:13:12.799 --> 00:13:16.559 If you're a Southern Baptist, that needs to be within the Baptist faith and message. 00:13:16.960 --> 00:13:19.919 Yeah, let me ask a quick follow-up, then Jeff, I'll hand it off to you. 00:13:19.919 --> 00:13:22.240 Um so Danny, let me ask you the hard question. 00:13:22.240 --> 00:13:33.600 So for those who might argue that they are on the weak or

the broad side of complementarianism, um but they might allow for a narrow, yeah. 00:13:33.600 --> 00:13:41.759 Um they might say, oh yeah, you can still be complimentarian, but allow a woman maybe once a year to preach to the gathered congregation. 00:13:41.759 --> 00:13:50.000 Do you think they want to be considered um a weak complimentarian because they don't want to be called egalitarian? 00:13:50.000 --> 00:13:57.519 Are they just wanting to use the word and be labeled as such to stay away from what's considered kind of a four-letter word in SBC life? 00:13:57.919 --> 00:14:11.039 Yeah, I mean, I th I think you know, within Southern Baptist life, egalitarianism was very much associated with liberalism in a way that's different if you went to like the First Assembly of God movement. 00:14:11.039 --> 00:14:19.360 When you look at the charismatic movement and the way they do egalitarianism, there was uh it was not always about liberalism there. 00:14:19.360 --> 00:14:23.679 It was about a certain view of Acts too, and your sons and daughters will prophesy and all of that. 00:14:23.679 --> 00:14:26.960 Within our Southern Baptist context, that's not what it was. 00:14:26.960 --> 00:14:40.879 It was uh it was a liberalizing influence within our institutions and within our churches that people were beginning to question the authority of of Scripture and call into question what the Scripture teaches about these things. 00:14:40.879 --> 00:14:46.000 So um so I don't know tell me your say your question again because I'm not sure. 00:14:46.159 --> 00:14:53.679 Yeah, do you think that they're wanting to call themselves either weak or broad in order to be called complementarian and not be egalitarian? 00:14:54.399 --> 00:14:57.440 Within our context, I almost talked myself out of your question. 00:14:57.440 --> 00:15:20.879 Uh within our context, it is it's not really acceptable to be called an egalitarian because it's it's it's associated with liberalism, and it's something that if if you hold to it a thoroughgoing way, like if you you couldn't call yourself a stoffed egalitarian because you it's it's there's no way to make that line up with um what our doctrinal statement says. 00:15:20.879 --> 00:15:25.200 And so nobody wants to be called an egalitarian for that reason. 00:15:25.200 --> 00:15:28.240 Now they might askew the term complementarian. 00:15:28.240 --> 00:15:35.120 Uh you don't have to be called a complementarian or you know, own that label to be a to be a Southern Baptist. 00:15:35.120 --> 00:15:39.759 However, you do need to hold to the substance of the view, whatever you want to label it. 00:15:39.759 --> 00:15:42.799 And which which for us is the most important thing, right? 00:15:42.799 --> 00:15:45.360 I mean, I just wrote a book, I I still like the term complementarian. 00:15:45.360 --> 00:15:47.200 I wish people would use it more often. 00:15:47.200 --> 00:15:56.240 Um But having said that, you know, we don't when it comes to the Southern Baptist Convention, you know, whether or not a person uses that label is not the issue. 00:15:56.240 --> 00:16:03.759 It's the biblical substance and their practice a line up with what you know Southern Baptists have agreed together the Bible teaches. 00:16:03.759 --> 00:16:10.240 And uh some people I I I I think that they realize that egalitarian falls outside of that, and so they don't want to use that. 00:16:10.240 --> 00:16:17.039 But if they if you use complementarian and then you have some of these practices that are pushing the envelope, it makes it seem more acceptable. 00:16:17.039 --> 00:16:22.960 And so you'll see some churches um having like a woman come to preach on Mother's Day. 00:16:22.960 --> 00:16:36.480 And you know, maybe I don't know how that makes sense to them, but I I don't know why a person would think that you can set aside biblical standards for ministry on certain, you know, Hallmark holidays. 00:16:36.480 --> 00:16:41.279 Like, you know, Paul says I don't allow women to teach her excess authority over man. 00:16:41.279 --> 00:16:44.240 Well, you can't say, well, it's m except on Mother's Day. 00:16:44.240 --> 00:16:47.200 You know, that that doesn't make any sense at all. 00:16:47.200 --> 00:16:50.639 And yet that's what some people are pushing and saying, well, we're still complementarian. 00:16:50.639 --> 00:16:53.200 She's not the pastor, she's just preaching. 00:16:53.200 --> 00:17:02.240 And and we we would argue, well, you you really can't set aside biblical teaching on any day, uh, much less Mother's Day. 00:17:02.720 --> 00:17:11.039 Well, this uh obviously this issue, the last three or four years in our denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, has kind of been writ large over everything else at the annual meeting. 00:17:11.039 --> 00:17:24.799 You had first uh, I guess maybe three or four years ago now, the law or Sanchez Amendment uh uh that that was proposed to kind of more clearly define what we mean by pastor uh in the Baptist Faith and Message. 00:17:24.799 --> 00:17:33.680 And of course, this year, uh the truth uh Albert Moeller, our president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, uh proposed what do you call the Truth and Unity Amendment. 00:17:33.680 --> 00:17:40.720 We call it the Moeller Amendment, uh, and it's basically new language uh to make clear what a cooperating Southern Baptist Church is. 00:17:40.720 --> 00:17:50.240 It does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor, elder, overseer, such as preaching to the assembled congregation. 00:17:50.240 --> 00:18:06.480 So what what kind of baffles me, I mean, we have our confession of faith, the Baptist Faith and Faith and Message 2000 already says this, of course, and we're seeking to codify this uh to give our committee more our committees more direction in the Constitution. 00:18:06.480 --> 00:18:23.359 Why do you think there are there are pastors and and people uh within

the Southern Baptist Convention who affirm the BF and M two thousand and yet are so um they're they're so strongly, stringently opposed to the Moeller Amendment. 00:18:23.359 --> 00:18:30.400 And it passed 75% this year, of course, and has to pass again next year, uh next year's uh convention in Indianapolis. 00:18:30.400 --> 00:18:36.480 But uh I've been a little baffled as to why you have some who say yes, I'm a complimentary and I'm for it. 00:18:36.480 --> 00:18:41.119 Uh BF and M says it, but I'm against clarifying this. 00:18:41.119 --> 00:18:44.400 What uh what what what gives here in your mind? 00:18:44.960 --> 00:18:52.799 So I I actually don't believe that there's a huge wave of egalitarianism washing over the SBC. 00:18:52.799 --> 00:19:09.519 Um I think that would be the wrong view of of the SBC and a wrong view of the failure of those previous uh amendment efforts, because the amendment efforts required a 66% uh 67% supermajority. 00:19:09.519 --> 00:19:16.799 And in those previous efforts, you know, one time we got like of 80 plus percent, and then two times we got sixty something percent. 00:19:16.799 --> 00:19:22.640 So we're we're in clear majorities, really strong majorities in people in favor of those amendments. 00:19:22.640 --> 00:19:28.319 We just fell just short of the supermajority to get it to get it passed previously. 00:19:28.319 --> 00:19:30.640 That's still sixty something percent. 00:19:30.640 --> 00:19:39.119 And when you think about the other 30 some odd percent that didn't vote for it, those are not all people who are egalitarian. 00:19:39.119 --> 00:19:52.240 Um, if you want to have a better indicator of what Southern Baptists think about these things, think about when actual churches have come to the floor of the convention who have female pastors and how the messengers have voted. 00:19:52.240 --> 00:19:56.559 It's always been like 90 percent, somewhere around 90 percent. 00:19:56.559 --> 00:20:07.920 Even when it saddleback, which was you know maybe the biggest church in the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the most famous pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention, messengers were like 88% voting them out. 00:20:07.920 --> 00:20:18.400 Um so that it's just an overwhelming number of people within the Southern Baptist Convention are are complementarian and want to hold the line on the doctrinal statement. 00:20:18.400 --> 00:20:20.880 Um, what what does that indicate though? 00:20:20.880 --> 00:20:33.440 It does indicate, though, that there are some people on the fringes, even who show up somewhere in the vicinity of what, 9 to 10 percent who are willing to cooperate with full-on egalitarians. 00:20:33.440 --> 00:20:38.480 Um it's not that those people aren't out there, they're there, but they're more on the fringes. 00:20:38.480 --> 00:20:40.960 They're not the mainstream of Southern Baptist life. 00:20:40.960 --> 00:20:51.359 Well then how do you account for all those other people then who voted against the amendment, those other 20 some odd percent that kept it short of the supermajority that we needed. 00:20:51.359 --> 00:20:57.920 My view is that is not that those folks are just, you know, closet egalitarians. 00:20:57.920 --> 00:21:00.960 I think there's been a good couple of things here. 00:21:00.960 --> 00:21:09.599 There's been a good bit of concept creep on what the office of pastor is, like what it is and what its requirements are. 00:21:09.599 --> 00:21:20.799 And over the years, I mean, I don't know what your experience is with you guys, but this is what I have noticed over my decades of being a Southern Baptist, and I was born and raised Southern Baptist. 00:21:20.799 --> 00:21:36.720 Um when I was growing up, you had a pastor, usually in your typical Southern Baptist church, who was the lead minister in a church, and then most of your associate positions were called minister of something. 00:21:36.720 --> 00:21:40.720 Your youth minister, your music minister, your your whatever. 00:21:40.720 --> 00:21:42.400 And I'm not commending that. 00:21:42.400 --> 00:21:43.839 I think we should have a plural eldership. 00:21:43.839 --> 00:21:45.920 I'll that's that's that's what I prefer. 00:21:45.920 --> 00:21:50.559 Um so you had a plural pastors, but that that was a lot what a lot of Southern Baptist churches were doing. 00:21:50.559 --> 00:21:55.119 And so your associates, by and large, weren't called pastors. 00:21:55.119 --> 00:22:09.680 Something happened, I don't know, I'm spitballing here, but somewhere around the So over the last 20 years, you started to see people assigning the term pastor where they used to assign the term minister. 00:22:09.680 --> 00:22:13.759 And so your youth ministers were becoming youth pastors. 00:22:13.759 --> 00:22:20.000 And then they started assigning that label to other associate positions where women were serving. 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:26.319 And so your children's minister, who may have been, you know, we had children's minister at the church I grew up in. 00:22:26.319 --> 00:22:30.400 Um now they started calling them children's pastors, right? 00:22:30.400 --> 00:22:44.720 And so I so a lot of those churches just got up in this concept creep where they were assigning people the title pastor, some of them, not just women, but men too, who shouldn't have been called as a as a pastor. 00:22:44.720 --> 00:22:50.559 You know, your part-time youth minister may not should be considered a pastor in in your church. 00:22:50.559 --> 00:22:54.160 But but again, I think that was you know some concept creep that was going on. 00:22:54.160 --> 00:23:00.240 And so everybody began to think that pastoring was just about doing the Great Commission. 00:23:00.240 --> 00:23:07.279 You know, if you were discipling people, like Matthew 28 says, that we're supposed to go make disciples of every nation. 00:23:07.279 --> 00:23:14.640 If you were teaching and if you were helping people to become better followers of Christ,

then you were pastoring. 00:23:14.640 --> 00:23:19.759 And I'm saying that's a that's a total misunderstanding of what pastoring is. 00:23:19.759 --> 00:23:29.599 Pastoring is a task specified in Scripture as leader, leading, protecting, and providing for God's people, not portions of God's people. 00:23:29.599 --> 00:23:33.359 The pastor has an accountability for all of God's people. 00:23:33.359 --> 00:23:46.000 And so it was never appropriate to call some of those youth ministers pastors, and it was certainly never appropriate to call some of those children's ministers pastors, especially if they were women. 00:23:46.000 --> 00:23:51.759 Um they don't have a responsibility of leadership and protection and provision over the entire flock. 00:23:51.759 --> 00:23:53.759 Um, that's not what they're they're doing. 00:23:53.759 --> 00:24:01.599 And so there's this concept creep on pastor, and people have been applying that label in places where they never should have been applying it. 00:24:01.599 --> 00:24:09.599 And now, when you come to try, when you point out to people, hey, did you know that this is actually not in line with what our doctrinal statement says? 00:24:09.599 --> 00:24:11.519 They're sort of surprised by it. 00:24:11.519 --> 00:24:20.160 Now, some people will self-correct when they hear that because they were never really committed to egalitarian to begin with, egalitarianism to begin with. 00:24:20.160 --> 00:24:26.559 And that's happened with churches in the Southern Baptist Convention who've gotten reported to the credentials committee, and then they self-corrected. 00:24:26.559 --> 00:24:30.799 It happened in one prominent case here just this year before the convention. 00:24:30.799 --> 00:24:36.160 This church got called out for misuse of the term pastor and shepherd, and they changed all their titles. 00:24:36.160 --> 00:24:42.400 They said, We wish to be complementarian, we don't want to, you know, so praise the Lord for that, you know. 00:24:42.400 --> 00:24:58.960 I think there's probably a number of churches that are like that, but there are some churches on the fringes that are committed to some form of egalitarianism, and there are some that are really dug in on this issue of women serving in the office of pastor, and that's where our real dispute is. 00:24:58.960 --> 00:25:09.279 I just I don't think that's overtaking the convention theologically, uh, but I do think it's it's they're there, you know, if you're if you're just looking at the votes that have happened on the floor of the convention. 00:25:11.599 --> 00:25:22.160 One of the things that I I heard uh John Piper uh when I worked for CBMW, one of the things he would talk about a lot is joyful complementarianism. 00:25:22.160 --> 00:25:26.720 And for a lot of people that's uh that's a conflict in terms. 00:25:26.720 --> 00:25:31.680 That's uh you know th those are uh disparate uh terms. 00:25:31.680 --> 00:25:39.839 How can we I mean this is we we believe this as complimentarians that this is part of God's beauty and his beautiful design in the home and in the church. 00:25:39.839 --> 00:25:42.480 So how do we how do we teach that? 00:25:42.480 --> 00:25:50.160 How do we help how do we help our churches overcome the notion that this is just you know doctrinaire, arrogant, exclusivistic, abuse, whatever it is? 00:25:50.160 --> 00:25:55.920 I mean, uh and and and to see that this is just this is God's word and it's clear. 00:25:55.920 --> 00:25:59.519 And and anytime we're obeying God's word, it's a beautiful thing. 00:25:59.519 --> 00:26:07.359 And and when God says it, it's uh it's something to be obeyed uh in joy, not out of you know, duty, but delight. 00:26:07.359 --> 00:26:14.400 How do we how do we kind of uh I don't know, inculcate in our congregations that kind of complimentarianism, Danny? 00:26:15.119 --> 00:26:24.559 Yeah, well, one thing is is just the way that we disciple our people and how we you know invite them to understand what their role is as a disciple of Christ. 00:26:24.559 --> 00:26:28.960 Jesus says in Matthew, in John 10, My sheep hear my voice. 00:26:28.960 --> 00:26:31.599 They will not listen to the voice of another. 00:26:31.599 --> 00:26:38.880 In other words, we have to let we we need to be consistent as we're you know, I'm a pastor, you guys have served in different pastoral positions. 00:26:38.880 --> 00:26:49.839 We want to tell our people we obey the voice of Jesus, and whatever he says, his wish is our command because we love him and we want to follow him. 00:26:49.839 --> 00:27:08.160 And we have to have our hearts open to the possibility that some of our predispositions, assumptions we've picked up from the culture may not be in line with what his revelation says, and we just want to be joyful obeyers of his revelation whenever we learn what it is and wherever it confronts us. 00:27:08.160 --> 00:27:10.960 So that kind of a spirit has to be cultivated first. 00:27:10.960 --> 00:27:20.640 Second thing I'll say is this it's it's a real it's a distortion to think of complementarianism as just a synonym for hierarchy. 00:27:20.640 --> 00:27:33.200 Um the reason that Piper and those other early founders chose the term complementarianism was they they rejected terms like hierarchical on purpose because they thought it was reductive. 00:27:33.200 --> 00:27:40.400 It doesn't complementarianism is reflecting the fullness of the biblical expression in Genesis 2. 00:27:40.400 --> 00:27:47.279 In fact, the word is deeply rooted in that little phrase, that little prepositional construction, conegdo, right? 00:27:47.279 --> 00:27:52.559 God wanted to make a helper, conegdo, suitable for him. 00:27:52.559 --> 00:28:00.400 That little prepositional construction means a helper that corresponds to him or completes him. 00:28:00.400 --> 00:28:06.480 And the completion is not just a sexual completion, it includes that, but it's also a social completion. 00:28:06.480 --> 00:28:10.160

God says it was not good for the man to be alone. 00:28:10.160 --> 00:28:21.599 And right, and so he's bringing along this um person, this other creature who is like the man but different from the man, and she actually completes the man. 00:28:21.599 --> 00:28:27.680 And so complementarianism, it's not compliment, like I'm giving you a compliment, it's complement, which means complete. 00:28:27.680 --> 00:28:39.599 Um, so male and female actually complete each other in obvious in in marriage with in physical ways, but then also in the way that they're designed to relate to to one another. 00:28:39.599 --> 00:28:49.759 And truly, if you understand God's design, what's going to promote your happiness and flourishing most is to live in keeping with God's design. 00:28:49.759 --> 00:28:57.759 When a husband loves his wife, just like Christ loves the church and gives himself up for her, as it says in Ephesians 5. 00:28:57.759 --> 00:28:59.839 What wife doesn't want that? 00:28:59.839 --> 00:29:10.720 What wife doesn't want a husband who loves her so much and puts her needs before his own so much that he and loves her so much that he could be compared to Christ? 00:29:10.720 --> 00:29:13.119 That's exactly what every woman wants. 00:29:13.119 --> 00:29:17.119 And the happiest marriages are going to be where there are husbands that are doing that. 00:29:17.119 --> 00:29:22.160 And so a husband is supposed to love like Christ, which means he's leading, he's protecting, he's providing. 00:29:22.160 --> 00:29:24.319 It's exactly what a wife wants and needs. 00:29:24.319 --> 00:29:35.839 What kind of a husband doesn't want a wife who respects the authority that God has given him and follows him and honors him and is a nurturer in the home and the rearer of children? 00:29:35.839 --> 00:29:38.319 Who what husband doesn't want that? 00:29:38.319 --> 00:29:41.279 The best homes are the places where that is happening. 00:29:41.279 --> 00:29:45.200 So the complementarian vision, you can't reduce it to hierarchy. 00:29:45.200 --> 00:29:50.000 Hierarchy is unambiguously and unapologetically a part of it, right? 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:52.480 Because there's real authority and submission in the home. 00:29:52.480 --> 00:29:53.920 That is a real obligation. 00:29:53.920 --> 00:29:55.759 It's just not the only thing. 00:29:55.759 --> 00:29:58.000 So, well, why do we always talk about it? 00:29:58.000 --> 00:30:00.400 We wouldn't if people weren't arguing with it. 00:30:00.400 --> 00:30:04.559 They're not arguing with us about husbands living self-sacrificially with their wives. 00:30:04.559 --> 00:30:06.319 That's not what they're arguing with us about. 00:30:06.319 --> 00:30:09.279 They're arguing with us about the authority and submission apart. 00:30:09.279 --> 00:30:14.799 And so the reason it has to be talked about a lot is because that's where the contention is. 00:30:14.799 --> 00:30:17.200 And we have to answer the people who are challenging. 00:30:17.200 -->

00:30:18.799 But that's not all there is to it. 00:30:18.799 --> 00:30:27.359 It's actually a comprehensive view of the way God designed men and women to relate to one another within marriage, first of all, and then the church, and then beyond. 00:30:28.640 --> 00:30:30.720 So let me ask a question, Denny. 00:30:30.720 --> 00:30:37.680 Yesterday I was reading Lewis Burkoff's Systematic, which for decades was a standard. 00:30:37.680 --> 00:30:45.920 And in his introductory volume to a systematic, he says this He says the present age is an undogmatic age. 00:30:45.920 --> 00:30:52.880 There's a manifest aversion not only to dogmas, but even to doctrines and to a systematic presentation of doctrinal truth. 00:30:52.880 --> 00:31:04.400 And then he says this the assertion is often heard that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life, and that it makes very little difference what we believe if we but share the life of Christ. 00:31:04.400 --> 00:31:09.839 There is an insistent cry, especially in our own country, for a Christianity without dogmas. 00:31:09.839 --> 00:31:12.960 Is that the reason for egalitarianism? 00:31:12.960 --> 00:31:16.000 Because there is no, I know you'll agree with this, Jeff will agree with this. 00:31:16.000 --> 00:31:17.839 I would hope most of our listeners would. 00:31:17.839 --> 00:31:20.960 There is no biblical case for egalitarianism. 00:31:20.960 --> 00:31:23.039 Is it just an emotional argument? 00:31:23.039 --> 00:31:24.640 Is that what's going on here? 00:31:25.200 --> 00:31:27.279 Well, you and I would say there's no biblical case. 00:31:27.279 --> 00:31:29.039 They always try to make a biblical case. 00:31:29.279 --> 00:31:32.559 Yeah, they can try, but there's yeah, that's for the sake of the argument, there's no biblical case. 00:31:32.880 --> 00:31:34.799 I think it's a very implausible case. 00:31:34.799 --> 00:31:41.839 And if you're a Southern Baptist, it's one that we've already all agreed together is not a valid case that they that they make. 00:31:41.839 --> 00:31:48.160 So, I mean, we're hopefully starting from a baseline at Southern Baptist of the Baptist faith and message, right? 00:31:48.160 --> 00:31:50.880 And so this is what we believe. 00:31:50.880 --> 00:32:06.079 Um I do think that one of the major modes of argument, especially today, um, by egalitarians, is to kind of appeal to emotion, especially to say it's not just biblically wrong if you're a complementarian. 00:32:06.079 --> 00:32:09.119 It's immoral to be a complementarian. 00:32:09.119 --> 00:32:24.000 Because you're actually whenever you have any kind of power differential or authority differ differential, you've got something immoral going on, which is, I think, a page taken from the spirit of the age, certainly not a page taken from Scripture. 00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:31.359 The Bible says that there is uh there are proper authorities and that proper authorities functioning like God called them to is a good thing. 00:32:31.359 --> 00:32:41.279 Governmental authority, you've got church authorities, you've got home authorities, you've got husbands in the home, and you've got parental authority, husbands and wives over the children. 00:32:41.279 --> 00:32:47.599 These are all authorities that God set in place to bless us, not to hurt us. 00:32:47.599 --> 00:33:01.039 And what you'll see from egalitarians a lot of times is that they treat any kind of uh they treat authority differentials as abusive or as somehow um holding someone down. 00:33:01.039 --> 00:33:02.880 They don't see it as a blessing. 00:33:02.880 --> 00:33:10.799 And they only see equality, you know, some kind of an egalitarian uh notion of equality as as the as the good life. 00:33:10.799 --> 00:33:13.119 That's just not the vision that you see in Scripture. 00:33:13.119 --> 00:33:17.920 But the way that they make their arguments, though, will sometimes m manipulate people on those grounds. 00:33:17.920 --> 00:33:23.680 And they'll say, Why aren't you giving the same opportunities to these women that you're given to these men? 00:33:23.680 --> 00:33:33.279 And so they appeal to people's American egalitarian notions of the way things ought to be, but they're not really appealing to um biblical frameworks. 00:33:33.279 --> 00:33:35.200 And so that's where people get off. 00:33:35.200 --> 00:33:37.200 But you know, get off track. 00:33:37.200 --> 00:33:45.519 And so, you know, I I I think I don't I'm not compelled, obviously, by by the way that they argue, but they do make emotional appeals a good bit. 00:33:45.519 --> 00:33:57.680 And um, you know, it's if you looked at I I can I can name names here, I don't mind doing it, but I mean if you look, there's a certain species of literature out there um by folks like Kristen Cobes, uh how do you say your name? 00:33:57.680 --> 00:34:01.599 Cobez Dumay, and uh Jesus and John Wayne. 00:34:01.599 --> 00:34:10.719 Yeah, the Jesus and John Wayne book, and then uh Beth Allison Barr, uh who wrote the book, um, you know, sort of against complementarianism. 00:34:10.719 --> 00:34:16.239 Those weren't strong those those books were not making biblical arguments per se. 00:34:16.239 --> 00:34:23.199 They were largely trying to show people that it's unjust to to hold to any kind of complementarian doctrine. 00:34:23.199 --> 00:34:29.599 In other words, it's immoral to do it, which is an appeal to emotion more than an appeal to reason, an appeal to scripture. 00:34:32.159 --> 00:34:45.679 Do you think there's any is there any connection between sort of the DEI oppressed oppressor matrix and the uh offense that complementarianism is to in the uh among some Christians uh now, do you think? 00:34:46.639 --> 00:34:47.440 Absolutely. 00:34:47.440 --> 00:34:53.440 In fact, I think you know, I would say to your listeners, check your presuppositions here. 00:34:53.440 --> 00:35:05.280 Have your frameworks, has your worldview been shaped unduly by worldly um teachings and ideologies in ways

that would squeeze out the way the Bible talks about things. 00:35:05.280 --> 00:35:15.440 The Bible is not bashful when it tells women, wives, in Ephesians 5, wives, submit to your husbands as uh he's your because he's your head. 00:35:15.440 --> 00:35:17.599 So husbands, love your wives. 00:35:17.599 --> 00:35:20.559 The Bible's not uh bashful about authority. 00:35:20.559 --> 00:35:28.079 Um in Romans 7, where it talks about that all of us are supposed to submit to governing authorities because they've been established by God. 00:35:28.079 --> 00:35:31.760 These ideas of authority and submission are not bad words in the Bible. 00:35:31.760 --> 00:35:34.800 They're words of blessing and of God's design in the Bible. 00:35:34.800 --> 00:35:38.960 But what you have today is that those were bad words for certain people. 00:35:38.960 --> 00:35:51.119 And so that if you talk about authority and submission in any context, but in particular with uh husbands and wives, all of a sudden it becomes this you know massively offensive thing. 00:35:51.119 --> 00:36:11.280 I mean, you guys remember in the late 2019, the Me Too movement, um, the Me Too movement was was not a good movement because it was it was trading on these DEI and basically woke concepts of power differentials, and and wherever you see a power differential, you see inequity and you see injustice. 00:36:11.280 --> 00:36:14.400 The Bible, that is not the Bible's framework. 00:36:14.400 --> 00:36:17.199 Um the Bible doesn't think like that at all. 00:36:17.199 --> 00:36:24.239 And then when you see, well, you have to have certain representations in order for things to be just, the Bible doesn't think like that either. 00:36:24.239 --> 00:36:30.239 It doesn't think that you have to have female representation on an elder board or on your pastoral staff. 00:36:30.239 --> 00:36:33.599 That's not the way that the Bible talks about things. 00:36:33.599 --> 00:36:37.360 Um so we shouldn't be thinking about those things uh like that. 00:36:37.360 --> 00:36:41.840 We need to be thinking like the Bible thinks and like the way that the way the Bible presents things. 00:36:41.840 --> 00:36:46.159 It is not a bad thing in your church that you only have men as pastors. 00:36:46.159 --> 00:36:48.559 Now, if they're not qualified, that'd be bad. 00:36:48.559 --> 00:36:55.280 But if they're qualified, if they meet the qualifications and they're godly men and they're serving as pastors, that is not oppressing anyone. 00:36:55.280 --> 00:37:01.360 That is a blessing for your church, it's obedience to Jesus, and you shouldn't apologize for that or blush about it. 00:37:01.360 --> 00:37:06.480 It's what the Bible teaches, it's what faithful discipleship for churches means. 00:37:06.480 --> 00:37:27.599 And if you're trying to push for some kind of DEI um representation so that you have you're not looking at biblical qualifications anymore, but you're looking at other characteristics that are not that don't qualify

you for anything, like race, gender, you know, those things are not the the the qualifying things. 00:37:27.599 --> 00:37:30.079 The qualifying things are are godliness, right? 00:37:30.079 --> 00:37:32.079 These godly characteristics. 00:37:32.079 --> 00:37:43.360 And um, so uh we just need to be thinking about this like the scripture thinks about it and not be moved by these worldly concepts that are just you know overtaking a lot of people's thinking. 00:37:43.679 --> 00:37:45.920 Well, Danny, uh this is the great conversation. 00:37:45.920 --> 00:37:50.239 We could uh boy, this this is just kind of scratching the surface, isn't it? 00:37:50.239 --> 00:37:56.239 But I would encourage our listeners, get this book, get mirror complementarianism. 00:37:56.239 --> 00:38:03.599 And uh the the uh I love the title, I do love it because it's a little bit um provocative in a good kind of way. 00:38:03.599 --> 00:38:07.920 And so read this because I think I'm hoping this will be kind of kind of a standard textbook. 00:38:07.920 --> 00:38:29.280 I know we had the big thick book, yeah, uh, the blue book back in the day, back in the 90s and early 2000s that had the various authors in it that sort of standard, but it was a much more academic, and of course the academic acumen is underneath this is Denny's an academic, he's also a pastor uh at Kenwood Baptist Church, one of the elders there, has been for many, many years, and uh you're a local churchman first and foremost. 00:38:29.280 --> 00:38:31.920 And so that that comes through in this book. 00:38:31.920 --> 00:38:34.239 There's a lot of pastoral meat here. 00:38:34.239 --> 00:38:36.880 So I recommend this highly to get this book. 00:38:36.880 --> 00:38:43.519 If you're wavering on the issue, you want to know how it is, you wonder why we're making such a big uh deal about this, get the book and read it. 00:38:43.519 --> 00:38:45.039 It's very winsomely written. 00:38:45.039 --> 00:39:02.000 Uh Danny uh Danny uh writes in a way that uh you know it's it's compelling uh without being quarrelsome, uh, which I think is Christ-like uh a Christ-like quality in writing uh that we we try to try to emulate here at Baptist Courier and Courier Publishing. 00:39:02.000 --> 00:39:12.639 So uh we we appreciate your work at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and uh we're thankful uh for Southern Seminary and Kenwood Baptist Church and all the things you do. 00:39:12.639 --> 00:39:17.199 We're grateful for you, and of course, your friendship for Travis and I've been a long time, and that will continue to the future. 00:39:17.199 --> 00:39:20.000 Travis, you have anything else before we wrap it up here? 00:39:20.559 --> 00:39:22.400 No, I think I would just echo what Jeff said. 00:39:22.400 --> 00:39:26.800 Denny, thanks for your work at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. 00:39:28.400 --> 00:39:33.599 I'm grateful for you guys, grateful for your friendship, thankful for South Carolina Baptists. 00:39:33.599 --> 00:39:36.000 Man, it was a real privilege to be on the show. 00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:36.559 Yeah. 00:39:36.719 --> 00:39:37.440 Well, thanks a lot. 00:39:37.440 --> 00:39:41.440 And yeah, don't forget that particular, that definite article at the Southern Baptist. 00:39:41.440 --> 00:39:54.559 Thank you for listening to this podcast of the Baptist Career and Career Publishing. 00:39:54.559 --> 00:40:03.840 Be sure to follow us on all social media platforms, give us a five-star review, and send any questions you want us to consider to Courier Conversations at gmail.com. 00:40:03.840 --> 00:40:09.360 If you prefer to watch our conversations, check us out on YouTube by clicking the link in the description.