Lin

Cheryl, I was very sorry to read Kamilla’s response. I thought your rules of engagment were very protective for her. And I agree that a public correction is the only option here. We must all test everthing taught and be Bereans.

I have several friends who have been kicked off the Bayly blog because they were women who disagreed..quite nicely, too. This was probably over a year ago. They were accused of being in sin and rebellion for disagreeing with Patriarchy.

As long as I have been reading you, I have found you to be extremely respectful, loving and gracious toward those who disagree. But, I am also glad you will not be bullied.

BTW: Has anyone else here read this paper by Russell Moore titled After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate:

http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf

It is scary. (And on topic with this thread as he is arguing a more Patriarchal complimentarianism based on authority within the Trinity)

Here is an excerpt:

“Authentic biblical patriarchy is necessary because the problem is not that evangelicals do not hold to “traditionalist” notions of gender and family, but rather where they find these notions. Wilcox correctly argues that patriarchy is “pervasive, at least symbolically, in the world of conservative Protestantism” since “God the Father stands at its Trinitarian core, transcending heaven and earth.”13 It seems, however, that the symbolism is not well fleshed out in evangelical churches, since “patriarchy” in conservative evangelicalism is so loosely, if at all, tied to the Fatherhood of God.
There is some progress here in evangelical complementarianism, largely in response to egalitarian claims for “mutual submission” within the Godhead. Complementarian theologians such as Bruce Ware and Peter Schemm have demonstrated convincingly that the Trinitarian “bungee-jumping” of egalitarians such as Gilbert Bilezikian and Kevin Giles have erosive implications not only for male headship, but also for an orthodox doctrine of God.14 Randy Stinson of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has demonstrated a dangerous trajectory within religious feminism when it comes to the God/world relationship.15

But there is more here to be said about the Fatherhood of God—a Fatherhood that is not just eternal and abstract but realized in a divine relationship with Jesus as the representative Man, an historical Father/Son covenantal relationship that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers. Patriarchy then is essential—from the begetting of Seth in the image and likeness of Adam to the deliverance of Yahweh’s son Israel from the clutches of Pharaoh to the promise of a Davidic son to whom God would be a Father (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26) to the “Abba” cry of the new covenant assembly (Rom 8:15). For too long, egalitarians have dismissed complementarian proof-texts with the call to see the big picture “trajectory” of the canon. I agree that such a big-picture trajectory is needed, but that trajectory leads toward patriarchy—a loving, sacrificial, protective patriarchy in which the archetypal Fatherhood of God is reflected in the leadership of human fathers, in the home and in the church (Eph 3:14-15; Matt 7:9-11; Heb 12:5-11). With this being the case, even the so-called “egalitarian proof-texts” not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, they actually prove the opposite. Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy—a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.

This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded then in the overarching theme of all of Scripture—the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).16 It does not divide God’s purposes, his role as Father from his role as Creator from his role as Savior from his role as King. To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to his headship—a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ (Heb 12:5-11). This protects evangelical theology proper from both the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and from the “most moved mover” of open theism. Indeed, the evangelical response to open theism would have been far more effective had evangelicals not severed the issues of open theism and egalitarianism. Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different. It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy.
Many egalitarians are quite willing to concede what some complementarians are afraid to say: a rejection of male headship means a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty.”