Complementarian: I’m a complementarian! 

Feminist: A complementarian? What is that? 

Complementarian: A complementarian spelled with an ‘e.’ It means I believe the genders complete each other. That God made Adam and Eve to be mutually beneficial as husband and wife. Each of them were given gifts the other needs and together they are more than the sum of their parts. 

Feminist: Well of course different genders are different! Who says they’re not? But your new word gives me no indication what the difference is! 

Complementarian: Well, we can talk about that. But I want to make clear that I’m thankful for feminists’ work calling the church to repent of the oppression of women that has been characteristic of Christians and the Christian church for too, too long. I’m deeply sorry and I apologize. 

Feminist: That sounds good, but beyond that, what do you stand for? I can’t figure it out. 

Complementarian: Well, I believe that both man and woman equally bear the Image of God, and therefore both man and woman are equal. I love my wife and mother and daughters and I treat them with respect. 

Feminist: Again, that’s good. But I thought we disagreed with each other? 

Complementarian: Maybe, maybe not. Sounds like we both agree that women and men are equal, right? 

Feminist: Right. 

Complementarian: So we agree there! Isn’t that neat? 

Feminist: Maybe, but would you please get to the point! 

Complementarian: Well, I think maybe what you’re getting at is the fact that I believe that one part of the complementarian world God has created is that the husband and wife are each made to submit to each other in loving unity. That the wife is made by God to complete her husband and the husband is made by God to be a servant leader of his wife. Doesn’t that sound good? There’s no privileging there, is there? Do you like me now? 

Feminist: Ah, come on! Stop talking around the issue. Do you take me for a fool? You hold to patriarchy and I know it. You believe the husband is the head of the wife, don’t you? Come on, admit it! 

Complementarian: Well, you might put it that way but I take strong exception to that word ‘patriarchy.’ Across the centuries I believe the church has been wrong to hold to a patriarchal view of marriage and the home. It’s time for us to be the loving servants of our wives God made us to be. It’s about time for us to love our wives and treat them with respect as the equals God made them to be. Yes, I think the husband has a kind of headship in the home, but it’s not the way you think of it. It doesn’t mean the husband sits in his Lazy-Boy watching the football game and yells at his wife to go get him a beer smacking her on the bottom as she walks by. I’m quite sensitive and gentle and you can ask my children—I cry a lot. Do you see how different I am from my father and father’s father and father’s father’s father—those mean Christian men of past generations and centuries who hated and took advantage of their wives? I’m evolved! Progressive! Deeply integrated as a human being! Sensitive—very, very sensitive and engaging. 

Feminist: (pulling hair out) Look! Do you or do you not believe that the man is the head of the home—that he is the final authority in the home? Do you believe in father-rule? 

Complementarian: Wellll… Let me be very careful here because it’s so easy to be misunderstood in matters which are so very controversial. In one sense I suppose I could agree that the husband has some sort of tie-breaking authority… 

* * *
So now, do you see it? This is the complementarian. I know him well because I used to be one. He floats like a butterfly and stings like a butterfly, which is to say he dances around the issue and never says anything negative. 

Turning our backs on equivocation and misdirection and mollycoddling, let’s try another tack and see how it goes. 

* * *
Patriarch: I hold to patriarchy. 

Feminist: Patriarchy? You’ve gotta be kidding me! What cave did you just crawl out of? 

Patriarch: No, seriously; I believe in patriarchy, just like thousands of generations before me, and I’m alive today, right now standing here in front of you. Do you know what patriarchy means? 

Feminist: Of course I know what it means! It means the husband sits on his behind in the Lazy-Boy watching football, yelling at the kids to stop blocking the television, yelling at his wife to go get him a beer. And while she’s at it, to make him some guacamole. And smacking her on the bottom every time she walks by. 

Patriarch: Well, if we’re simply going to trade insults, you know how many feminists it takes to change a light bulb? 

Feminist: (silence) 

Patriarch: Hey! Did you hear me—how many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? 

Feminist: Alright, how many? 

Patriarch: THAT’S NOT FUNNY! (he chuckles) 

Feminist: (confused) What’s not funny? 

Patriarch: (cheerful) That’s the punch line—“that’s not funny!” 

Feminist: (silence) 

Patriarch: See, I told you and you didn’t laugh. 

Feminist: What’s there to laugh about? 

Patriarch: Nothing. Nothing at all. It’s not funny. 

Feminist: So why are you a patriarch? 

Patriarch: Because when God made Adam first, then Eve, He was decreeing that across all time man would reflect His Own Fatherhood, his loving rule and authority. You see, that’s what ‘patriarchy’ means. Literally, it’s the combining of the two Greek words ‘father’ and ‘rule.’ In the relations between the sexes, there are only three options: patriarchy, matriarchy, or anarchy. You hold to matriarchy and I hold to patriarchy. 

Feminist: How can you say those are the only three options? What’s wrong with mutuality? 

Patriarch: Are you going to tell me that you know couples where neither partner makes the decisions—everything is mutually agreed upon? 

Feminist: Sure, I know all kinds of couples where neither partner dominates the other. 

Patriarch: Ah, now we’re off and running. First, patriarchy never means the father dominates his wife or family. Patriarchy means the father serves his family by taking responsibility for them and leading them to understand and worship God the Father Almighty from Whom all fatherhood comes. 

Feminist: You mean to tell me you actually believe that every husband is the head of his wife? What about government—are you saying it’s wrong to have a woman president? If Hillary Clinton ran, are you saying you wouldn’t vote for her because she’s a woman and it’s wrong for a woman to hold authority over men? 

Patriarch: Good questions. The particular application of God’s Order of Creation, or patriarchy, to different spheres of authority needs to be talked about carefully. Sex isn’t the only thing to take into consideration when voting for a president, as in “She’s a woman so that’s that—I won’t vote for her.” That’s not my position. If Hillary Clinton were pro-life and her opponent were male and pro-abortion, I might very well vote for Hillary Clinton. But back to the underlying principle: yes, since God made Adam (the man) first, and Eve (the woman) second, all sexual intimacy is to be heterosexual and all relations between the sexes are to start with that truth of patriarchy God wrote into mankind’s DNA flowing from the Father Almighty. As in “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.”
He placed his father-authority in the male of the species—not the female of the species, nor equally in the male and female of the species…

“Ask yourself this: if my church put on a conference about how to have a great Christian marriage and fulfilled sex life, would more or fewer people attend than if we did one on the importance of the incarnation or the Trinity?” (Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative, 37).

In 2 Samuel 21:15-22 several Philistine giants are killed by warriors of the Lord (Abishai killed Ishbibenob, 21:17; Sibbechai killed Saph, 21:18; Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, 21:19; Jonathan killed a man with six fingers per hand and six toes per foot, 21:21). All of this occurs under the leadership of King David.

When Israel was under the leadership of Saul, there was no man found within the armies of Israel, except for David the shepherd boy, who would go out to face a Philistine giant (Goliath). However, under the righteous leadership of King David, Israel has become a nation of Davids; Israel becomes a nation of giant-slayers. Under the leadership of King David, Israel kills the enemies of Yahweh.

“Yet rather had I wished that thou might see him here. Grendel himself, thy foe in his array sick unto death! I purposed in hard bonds swiftly to bind him upon his deathbed, that by the grasp of my hands he should be forced to lie struggling for life, had not his body escaped me. I might not, since it was not the will of God, restrain his flight; I did not cleave fast enough for that unto my mortal foe; too overwhelming was the might of that fiend in body’s movement. Nonetheless he hath left behind upon his trail his hand and arm and shoulder. Yet in no wise thus hath that unhappy one purchased himself relief; none the longer will he live, that doer of evil wrong, burdened by his sins; nay, pain hath him closely gripped in a grasp he cannot flee, in bonds of anguish — there must he, stained with sin, await the great Day of Doom and the sentence that the bright Judge will pronounce on him” (J.R.R. Tolkien, Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary, 40).

“We see the impact of suspicion of words even within the Christian church. At the Reformation, preaching came to supplant the Mass as the central act of corporate Christian worship; underlying this shift was a move toward an understanding of the gospel and of salvation as being by faith in that promise. Thus, proclamation of that promise in words moved to center stage. In recent decades, however, many churches have shifted preaching from this central place. In some contexts, preaching has not been abandoned; rather, it has been relativized and now stands alongside dramatic performances, candles, incense, and small group discussion. In other contexts, preaching has been pushed completely aside for conversational discourse, where the authoritative voice of the preacher has been replaced by a more democratic dialogue. Underlying all these shifts, in practice if not always in terms of self-conscious planning, is a suspicion that proclaimed words are no longer a reliable authority, or, perhaps better, a plausible authority, given the wider antiverbal cultural dispositions” (Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative, 34).

“If ‘human nature’ does not exist, other than as a specific, basic biological structure that means one human can only reproduce in conjunction with another, then what authority can anybody or any human document that belongs to another time or place have? If human nature is really a construct of the particulars of a specific historical, geographical, and cultural context, it is not immediately obvious that, say, a document produced in Constantinople near the end of the fourth century can have any relevance to people living in London or New York at the start of the twenty-first. For historical documents to speak beyond their own time there has to be some kind of fundamental continuity between their form and content and the present age” (Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative, 30-31).

“In Amos’s day the most severe punishment to fall on the people of God was a “famine . . . of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11). There is no calamity like the silence of God. We cannot know God himself unless God speaks to us. Every true Christian should feel deep in his bones an utter dependence on God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures. Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4)” (Kevin DeYoung, Taking God At His Word, 21).

“The chief of those Geatish men had accomplished all his proud vaunt before East Danes, and had healed, moreover, all the woe and the tormenting sorrow that they had erewhile suffered and must of necessity endure, no little bitterness. Of this a clear token it was when that warrior bold had set the hand, the arm and shoulder, beneath the widespread roof — there was all Grendel’s clutching limb entire” (J.R.R. Tolkien, Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary, 36).

From the Intercollegiate Review’s – an article titled Fifty Worst Books of the 20th Century.

John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (1956) Should have been called, Profiles in Ghost-Writing.

That is funny.

“There are many texts we could use to show that the Bible is without error, but here’s the simplest argument: Scripture did not come from the will of man; it came from God. And if it is God’s word then it must all be true, for in him there can be no error or deceit” (Kevin DeYoung, Taking God At His Word, 39).