July 5, 2020

Internet Monk Radio Podcast #33

podcast_logo.gifI’m adrift. More thoughts on Chinese Students and evangelism. Some of my reactions to the egalitarian/complementarian issue.

Comments

  1. Great point about Beth Moore. We’re now in our second PCA church where Beth Moore seminars are advertised and many women flock to see her teaching/preaching.

    I think many in our denomination would be surprised to know that two of the PCA’s most esteemed theologians (James Boice and Edwin Clowney) both supported women deacons.

  2. Enjoying the podcasts, Micheal. Just so you know, I didn’t know you had a speech impediment, until you pointed it out….I thought that was a Kentucky accent…Big JKing.

    I appreciated your humility when addressing Grudem’s book and your review of it. You admitted your own reluctance to say you were on the same ‘level’ as Grudem, yet you still tried to tackle the very difficult task of critiquing the book. Hats off to you…that’s probably much braver than most bloggers out there.

    And BTW, transcripting ‘uhs’ and ‘umms’ only make you look petty and mean, not ‘teh smart’ (not addressed to you Micheal).

  3. On the issue of egalitarian vs. complementarian. Donald Bloesch said, and I agree with him, that truth descends into experience but it does not arrive from it. Now, to your credit you noted that just because your students have not made the same inferences that complementarians have made, it does not mean that they are wrong, but to me it also seems that having a daughter was pivotal in your decision making process. I say this with caution knowing that ever person will and must do this by their very nature, but it seems that you may be letting your personal experience, your life and your rightful love for your daughter and the rightful desire to see her not be abused or diminished in any way, truncate the importance of the Genesis account of the primacy of the male and the process of the creation of the female. Again, I tread lightly here because one of my ultimate fears is that I become a thoughtless chauvinist indoctrinator. My first argument is the much used “male was created first” point. This is nothing new and does not, I believe, necessarily prove anything. However my second argument, which I believe could be more powerful if it is true, is more of a question to you and it involves the creation of the woman. Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Now C.S. Lewis explained clearly the difference between making and begetting, saying that Christ was not made, but begotten. To be made means to be “of a different kind” whereas to be begotten is to be of the same kind. In the trinitarian equation Jesus is begotten by the Father. He is of the same kind, or equal you could say, as the Father, yet is under total submission to the Father, but in this way He is glorified by the Father–this is “why He is” and “who He is.” Relating this theology to the woman Eve, how do you feel about me supposing that her relationship to Adam as a type for all creation is much the same? Eve was made by God, therefore she is “of a different kind” than God (finite) just as Adam is, yet she was begotten of Adam, or she is of the same kind as Adam. And as she was begotten of Adam she had complete equality with him fulfilling the meaning of Galatians 2:8, in the way Christ has complete equality with the father and is himself God, yet she is made for a vastly different purpose–this is “why she is” and “who she is” best being explained by the complementarian view. This is merely a thought that I have been working out for only a short time and I care to see your thoughts on only this idea’s possible truthfulness. If this idea does hold truth then I believe it would support submission even before the Fall, yet if it does not hold truth let it blow away as dust. What do you think?

    P.S. I have not been able to read Grudem’s book yet, nor do I know if this argument has already been made by others.