A Quiet Simple Life | Sallie Borrink

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

A Quiet Simple Life

You are here: Home / Archives for Biblical Truth & Discernment / Examining Biblical Theology

Examining Biblical Theology

PCA Does Not Want People With Doubts About Complementarianism


The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) held their 2015 General Assembly during which time they sent a clear message. If you are not 100% intellectually and theologically committed to rejecting women as elders and complementarianism, you do not belong in a PCA church.

PCA and Complementarianism

Kevin DeYoung wrote in his PCA General Assembly Report:

Complementarianism: The PCA continues to be a solidly complementarian denomination. The Committee on the Review of Presbytery Records (RPR) cited the Philadelphia Presbytery for sustaining the ordination exams of a candidate who was not “100% sure the New Testament itself teaches a universal prohibition on women eldership” (* I wrongly stated in the original post that this pastor is now moving to the RCA. He has not filed to do so and continues to be a member of the Philadelphia Presbytery. My apologies.). A minority report emerged from RPR recommending that the Assembly not cite Philadelphia with an exception of substance on this matter. The Assembly was overwhelming in its vote on this issue, rejecting the minority report by a vote of 258 in favor and 554 against.

DeYoung then wrote about this in his list of encouragements from the results:

Faithfulness: The Assembly was firm in its vote citing the Philadelphia Presbytery and their ordination of a man who was not “100% convinced” the New Testament taught a universal prohibition of women eldership. I am not aware of anyone in the PCA advocating for women pastors or elders, but this ordination was a wrong step in a direction we cannot afford to head. Once again, the PCA has stood firm on a doctrine and practice that is often maligned in our current cultural context. This speaks well of its resolve, faithfulness, and submission to the authority of Scripture.

Translated: Anyone who has any doubt in this area is unfit for the PCA.

No Consideration of Egalitarian View in PCA

What’s truly unfortunate is that the candidate in question was at least honest about his misgivings. In my humble opinion, there are numerous passages in the Scriptures that very much call into doubt the 100% certainty of women being denied the ability to be elders.

I understand they are taking this stance to maintain the perceived theological purity of their denomination. That is their choice.

They have also clearly sent a message that anyone who is intellectually honest and can see how the egalitarian view can be embraced by those who call Christ Savior and Lord and believe in the authority of the Scriptures is absolutely not welcome in their denomination.

It’s good to know ahead of time the PCA would not want someone like me to darken the door of their church even though we’ll spend eternity together thanks to the loving sacrifice Christ made on the cross on my behalf as well as theirs.

Category: 2 Comments

Elisabeth Elliot Can’t Use a Pulpit to Preach, But She Can Share from the Music Stand


This is the perfect example of what made me begin to seriously move away from complementarianism and toward egalitarianism/mutuality. Right down to the exceptions made for women like Elisabeth Elliot and Beth Moore. The incredible inconsistencies and finagling that is done that makes no sense.

Exceptions Made For Elisabeth Elliot Teaching

Tamara Rice absolutely nails it in The Hole in Our Complementarianism (now Wayback Machine) (bold mine).

In my second or third year of college, Elisabeth Elliot graced our campus with her presence. Of course, at the time I was starstruck. I mean … Elisabeth Elliot. So it was no surprise that our chapel, held in the gym back then, was packed from wall to wall. I distinctly remember settling in the stands with a few of my friends and watching intently once worship ended and Ms. Elliot ascended the stage.

I can’t say I noticed it immediately, but at some point I realized that the large wooden pulpit usually adorning the stage had been replaced with a small music stand off to Ms. Elliot’s side. At approximately the same moment I took note of this, it occurred to me that this woman, Ms. Elliot, was in fact preaching to us. Preaching in chapel. And a sharp little nagging began in the back of my mind.

          She’s preaching.

          She’s a woman and she is preaching.

          And this is somehow okay.

          Even though we’d never dream of letting any other woman do this in chapel.

          This is okay, because we removed the pulpit. And only because we moved the pulpit …

Yes, it was acceptable, I realized, it was okay with my sage male Bible professors (one female, who was single and only taught women—naturally) and the rest of the faculty, because the pulpit had been removed and Ms. Elliot was—perhaps—telling more stories than the average preacher who came our way in a school known for expository Bible teaching.

But, you see, this was not okay with me. Where others might have seen a gracious exception to the rules for a stately woman of faith whose story has almost become legendary in Christendom, I saw a glaring hypocrisy. Because she was clearly being given an opportunity I’d never be given. And what made it so? The fact that her husband was martyred? Her age? The fact that she had authored many popular books? What made her spiritual authority worthy of the exception? Why not my mother or your mother? Who decided this, that it was okay to make exceptions, and how did they decide it?

After that, after the hole was exposed, I noticed a lot of picking and choosing. A lot of “removing the pulpit” line-drawing/hole-patching to make things that were simply arbitrary exceptions feel more legitimate.

Amen and amen.

Elisabeth Elliot Preaching

To reiterate the point:

Where others might have seen a gracious exception to the rules for a stately woman of faith whose story has almost become legendary in Christendom, I saw a glaring hypocrisy. Because she was clearly being given an opportunity I’d never be given. And what made it so? The fact that her husband was martyred? Her age? The fact that she had authored many popular books? What made her spiritual authority worthy of the exception? Why not my mother or your mother? Who decided this, that it was okay to make exceptions, and how did they decide it?

If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.

No changing of the pulpit to a music stand is going to make it right.

Being Elisabeth Elliot doesn’t make it right.

If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.

Adherence to a view that flies in the face of reality when we see women who are gifted by the Holy Spirit is simply crazy.

Photo credit

Category: 9 Comments

Pastor, Inc. and the Evangelical Industrial Complex


Last week David and I did something we rarely do – we went into a bookstore marketing to Christians. Caroline was at a backyard Bible club with a cousin and we had a (rare) few free hours. I wanted to see if they had anything I could use this fall in our homeschooling so we went in.

David was telling me last night that one of the books he picked up touted that the author was the pastor of the fifth largest church in America. His reply was “So what?” I explained to him that publishing is now driven almost exclusively by what you can bring to the table as an author. Book publishers no longer see marketing your book as their job. It is your job. And unless you can bring a following of thousands and thousands to the table, your book will rarely be published by a major publisher.

(Obviously details such as being the pastor of the fifth largest church in America don’t matter diddly squat to us because I can’t even tell you the name of the book or the pastor.)

The Evangelical Industrial Complex and Pastor, Inc.

It was interesting to read Jim Fletcher’s article Pastor, Inc. takes over the American church this morning in light of that conversation. Fletcher basically says the same thing as he describes the Evangelical Industrial Complex. Evangelicalism in America is driven by marketing and big name pastors. You can have your pastor flashed on a screen at some satellite campus or (if you are really blessed!) you can have a holographic image of him walking around on your stage.

Fletcher writes (bold mine):

What we have now in Christian publishing (as Carl Trueman so eloquently put it) is an Evangelical Industrial Complex, of which the general public knows very little. The leaders perpetuate their own marketing machines and control the message.

That’s why you will see the Evangelical community in America continue to drift in a leftward direction for some time to come.

A strictly biblical worldview doesn’t play in those circles anymore. Now, it’s about relationship-building, self-help, social action.

This is precisely why The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel stood by C.J. Mahaney for months and months after the lawsuits against Sovereign Grace Ministries were filed by numerous plaintiffs until the fallout became so great they had to figure out a way to remove him from the T4G Conference 2014 and still save face for everyone involved. This is why Mahaney was able to flee his own church and go directly to Mark Devers’ church without either of them following any of the Biblical instructions mandates they have both taught and required of their own church members for years.

  • It is about relationship building and covering for your friends when things go south.
  • It is about marketing and taking care of your brand.
  • It’s about controlling the message.

It is about hiring a Chief Sales and Marketing Officer (Executive Director level) to control the message on every level:

As the overall leader, this individual is focused on incorporating the desires of the team into a vision that is implemented across all areas. The Chief Sales and Marketing Officer will not only have primary oversight of all client services roles such as account management, sales, and the customer experience; but will also give strategic oversight to all of 
the marketing, media relations, creative, event management, promotion, interactive web and electronic services, music, publishing products, and all campaigns and programs at Mars Hill.

From the list of duties, this is the one that probably sums it up best:

Ensures that church products and services are aligned with client needs and demands

And if this new guy doesn’t meet Mark Driscoll’s expectations, he’ll end up on the pile of dead bodies behind the church bus:

“Here’s what I’ve learned. You cast vision for your mission, and if people don’t sign up, you move on. You move on. There are people that are gonna die in the wilderness, and there are people that are gonna take the hill. That’s just how it is. Too many guys waste too much time trying to move stiff necked, stubborn, obstinate people. I am all about blessed subtraction. There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus (chuckle), and by God’s grace, it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done…. ‎You either get on the bus, or you get run over by the bus. Those are the options.”

Moving Toward the Model

Even my own church’s denomination has been regularly publishing questionable articles in our denominational magazine over the past few years, much to the consternation of the members. It is a well-known and oft repeated fact that many denominational members don’t even open the magazine but throw it in the trash because of the content. An increasing number of members and former members are becoming vocal that it is the effort of a few in power to shift the denomination to make it more acceptable to more mainstream denominations. Articles such as Tomorrow’s Theology and Where Do We Draw the Line? (scroll down) are alarming to the majority within the denomination. Assurances that the editors are just trying to promote conversation are anything but reassuring. After reading Fletcher’s article, it really seems much more like people are trying to control the message and the agenda in the denomination. It’s really not that hard to believe when one looks around at the landscape of Evangelicalism today.

Heavy Authoritarianism

Another way we can see the rise of the Evangelical Industrial Complex is the rise of heavy authoritarianism in churches. Prominent pastors are promoting such ideas and it is trickling down into the local churches.

For example, consider the excessively detailed membership covenant at Mars Hill. People who sign this covenant really put themselves at the mercy of the leadership. So much of this is open to interpretation and the interpreting will ALL be done by the leadership, not the member. Signing the covenant basically takes away your ability to interpret Scripture for yourself. I would not sign such a covenant and I would discourage others from signing it as well. Would you really trust yourself to men who consider it proper leadership to throw the dead bodies behind the bus? Do you want to be one of the dead bodies?  You’ll be fine as long as you question nothing.  Would you really want to put yourself in a situation where your conscience would be overridden by the beliefs of the elders?

The rise of heavy authoritarianism should alarm every Christian reading this. As Wade Burleson pointed out in his excellent sermon, Only Servants and No Masters, the church of Jesus Christ is not supposed to be about exercising authority over others. Yet churches have started making the authority of elders over the membership one of the central tenets of their church doctrines (scroll down). According to churches who are a part of the 9Marks movement, you cannot leave a church unless they tell you it is okay to leave. The link will take you to the Wayback Machine since 9Marks scrubbed the article from their website, but the comments are still there and the pushback is fantastic.

What Does the Future Hold for Us?

Fletcher points out in his article that the Evangelical church will continue to drift left. I understand what he is saying, but I don’t agree. I think segments of the church will continue to move both left and right. Churches drifting to the left will leave sound doctrine behind for what they will call the sake of cultural relevancy. Churches making a hard turn to the right will become more authoritarian and controlling of the membership. (There’s no drifting in this segment – it is purposeful and methodical.)

Frankly, I’m not willing to raise my daughter in either place which leaves me and my husband in a bit of a conundrum. Abandon sound doctrine or put ourselves under the control of those who believe they have the God-given authority to control my life to the point they think they can stop me from resigning my membership at a specific church? I’m not surrendering my freedom in Christ for either one. The truth has set me free. Truth and freedom. Both are essential for those who have been saved by Christ. And I’ve been through too many bloody spiritual battles and walked too far with God at this point in my life to give up the truths that set me free for the sake of “being a member” of a church. I AM a member of a church. I’m a member of the body of Christ which is the Church. I will not forsake the assembling with others, but I think more and more people like myself are going to be asking how the assembling can look different and allow those set free by Christ to continue in their freedom.

Category: Tag:  |  |  | 3 Comments

New Wave Complementarianism, Wendy Alsup, and Kevin DeYoung


Karen alerted me on Facebook to an interesting discussion taking place on a few different blogs and asked what I thought. As I was reading through all the relevant articles, I decided to just start jotting down some thoughts here as I was going.

Here are the articles I read although I am only going to interact primarily with the first two and their comments:

My first thought is that I’m glad this is being discussed. I’ve been raising these same questions for a few years now as has Karen and others. This little blog I do in my spare time is full of links to articles, posts and such that point out the serious problems within the complementarian establishment. The evidence is there for all to see.

The complementarian establishment has done a poor job of understanding what is going on around them. I don’t know if they are denial, busy or what. But there are so many people who have been asking legitimate questions and raising the warning flags for years now. The response has been to minimize, ignore or (in the most extreme cases) demonize those who ask questions.

I think perhaps finally over the past six to twelve months I’m starting to see the realization dawn amongst some of them that perhaps they really do have to listen to people who are asking questions.

Here are some random thoughts I jotted down as I was reading. I’d love to do a detailed and carefully structured response, but my life doesn’t allow it at this time.  So in random order…

People consistently point out the problems stemming from the complementarian teachings but the complementarian leaders pooh pooh the comments and concerns. Their consistent reply is “But that’s not what complementarianism is.” Somehow they seem to totally miss again and again that that is what complementarian is on the ground. The complementarian name has been taken over by people who are loudly advocating for all manner of things. What the complementarian establishment believes complementarianism is is NOT what many people think complementarianism is. They have a serious marketing problem on their hands.

If TGC, CBMW and so on won’t police their own, others will do it for them. I don’t know if these men are afraid of each other or if they are afraid of being removed from the inner circle or what. But there have been some really outlandish and downright scary things preached, written, and promoted by men in these circles.  And no one calls them out on it. At least not publicly. And publicly is where it needs to happen if they are writing things that are confusing people or leading them astray.

I’m really surprised I haven’t read something about it being shameful for women to bring all this to light.  Because I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of these men will deeply resent having to respond to these women. Some of these men clearly want to drive the agenda and discussion. To have women forcing a point to which they must respond does not fit well with their ministry paradigm or their view of the proper way things should be done in a complementarian world.

The cry of “That’s not what I meant” by popular complementarian authors doesn’t cut it. If you make your living leading other Christians through your preaching, teaching, and writing, then it is your responsibility to make sure you are clearly articulating your view. When people continually call out these same leaders for the things they have written or said that leave the door open to all kinds of problems, they need to man up and own their words. They need to clearly articulate what they do and DO NOT mean instead of saying that people are misunderstanding them. If you make a living as a communicator, then communicate. If you feel called to lead people, then lead them. If people don’t understand your leadership, it is your problem not theirs.

There is a reason I have Complementarianism and Neo-Reformed Complementarianism in the sidebar. They are not the same thing.

The issue of women being deacons may be downplayed in RBMW and by the CBMW, but I think that is a mistake. The issue of women being deacons is a key issue for many women, including increasing numbers of complementarian woman. The argument for women deacons is very strong. But many (most?) complementarians will not embrace it because they view it as the slippery slope to women being elders. Not embracing women as deacons seriously undermines the complementarian stance in the mind of many.

There are complementarian leaders who are arguing that complementarianism = patriarchy. This sends up red flags for many Christians. Again, I don’t know if the complementarian establishment is just naive or not in tune with what is going on around them, but the patriarchy thing is a big deal and it isn’t going to go away.

The cognitive dissonance is a huge deal. I think this may especially be true of younger women who are in healthy marriages with men who are their best friends. Marriage is very different for recent generations than it was previous ones. Women are constantly told from the pulpit that they are subversive usurpers and that everything wrong in a marriage can be traced back to the woman not submitting.  Then they look at their own marriages and they see NOTHING of this. The incessant and unrelenting focus on women submitting or else they will destroy their marriage (and the church and civilization as we know it) makes no sense to them (or me).

Lastly, the internet has opened dialog in ways never possible before. It’s really hard to demonize the egalitarians when you interact with them online and have pleasant discussions with them. When you realize that many of them are deeply committed to the Scriptures and long to follow Christ faithfully so they can hear “Well done, good and faithful servant,” all of the sudden you realize that maybe the questions they are asking are honest and come from a heart deeply committed to Christ. Making all egalitarians out as the enemy to be appeased (as DeYoung put it) is truly an insult to the brothers and sisters in Christ who take this view.

Category: 5 Comments