The wisdom and prophecies should convince all who doubt, and learning through study guided by the Spirit that scripture defines scripture should lead us all to the truth that sets us free. Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this article and in your ministry.
As someone who has served in almost every single main-line denonination, catholic and reform Jewish synagogue, I can tell you what governs it for me at this stage in my life (with the exception of the apostate catholics) is when they adhere more to their man made rules than the Bible (Methodists, Presbyterians, etc) Maybe it is the SBC in me (thank goodness I grew up in that freedom), but all the man made rules make me want to scream sometimes. That being said, I do like the way Presbyterians govern themselves. They are not appointed a pastor. The elders handle the business of the church and all major decisions while the deacons serve the people.
Aaron has also distinguished between thick complementarianism and thin complementarianism. Then occasionally he uses "complementarianism" to mean thin complementarianism. That is not clear communication, as I have commented previously on his articles. Thick complementarianism is not any kind of compromise.
The fact that the word itself was coined recently seems to be a powerful point to Aaron, but I disagree. Many formulations of doctrine, and even the development of the Biblical canon, were reactions to heresies. Complementarianism as a term was coined in reaction to egalitarianism. So what?
The salient point to me is that there are people who label themselves as complementarian who have significant differences among them, so the terms thin and thick complementarian were devised to more clearly communicate.
I could tell someone who calls himself a complementarian that he is not really a complementarian, he is a patriarchalist, and tell someone else who labels himself a complementarian that he really is a complementarian, but that seems silly. Clearer communication occurs with the thin and thick complementarian designations. If someone doesn't know what they mean, they ask and I explain, but there is no confusing the two categories.
We are trying to communicate when we write, aren't we? Witness this whole discussion, which started with your unclear usage of a term and my genuine lack of understanding what you were trying to say.
The wisdom and prophecies should convince all who doubt, and learning through study guided by the Spirit that scripture defines scripture should lead us all to the truth that sets us free. Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this article and in your ministry.
As someone who has served in almost every single main-line denonination, catholic and reform Jewish synagogue, I can tell you what governs it for me at this stage in my life (with the exception of the apostate catholics) is when they adhere more to their man made rules than the Bible (Methodists, Presbyterians, etc) Maybe it is the SBC in me (thank goodness I grew up in that freedom), but all the man made rules make me want to scream sometimes. That being said, I do like the way Presbyterians govern themselves. They are not appointed a pastor. The elders handle the business of the church and all major decisions while the deacons serve the people.
It appears that "Feminism and complementarianism" was intended to be "Feminism and egalitarianism" in the fruits section.
No, I meant complementarianism.
In that case, you need to explain what you are saying, as it makes no sense to me.
Patriarchy is the Biblical, historical model. Complementarianism is a compromise position invented in response to feminism. Aaron Renn explained the history here - https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/newsletter-30-complementarianism
Aaron has also distinguished between thick complementarianism and thin complementarianism. Then occasionally he uses "complementarianism" to mean thin complementarianism. That is not clear communication, as I have commented previously on his articles. Thick complementarianism is not any kind of compromise.
The fact that the word itself was coined recently seems to be a powerful point to Aaron, but I disagree. Many formulations of doctrine, and even the development of the Biblical canon, were reactions to heresies. Complementarianism as a term was coined in reaction to egalitarianism. So what?
Because we don’t need to be allergic to a perfectly good term like patriarchy
The salient point to me is that there are people who label themselves as complementarian who have significant differences among them, so the terms thin and thick complementarian were devised to more clearly communicate.
I could tell someone who calls himself a complementarian that he is not really a complementarian, he is a patriarchalist, and tell someone else who labels himself a complementarian that he really is a complementarian, but that seems silly. Clearer communication occurs with the thin and thick complementarian designations. If someone doesn't know what they mean, they ask and I explain, but there is no confusing the two categories.
We are trying to communicate when we write, aren't we? Witness this whole discussion, which started with your unclear usage of a term and my genuine lack of understanding what you were trying to say.