Egalitarianism leads to the feminization of men, and worse, of God. They are trying to eliminate gender-specific words from Scripture, and some go so far as to not want God to be referred to as Father, or He. The spirit behind all of this is from Hell, and the fruit and the doctrine within those espousing these ideas makes it clear.

Feminism is of the devil.

Man was made in God’s image and glory, the woman made from man and FOR man-1Cor.11, and man is the head in government, home and the church. Period.

I get in trouble for teaching and preaching this is my camp, but I will preach and and PROVE it to all.

Neo-reformers, neo-calvinism, neo-orthodoxy, neo-liberalism, etc,etc

You’ll say: “It is true that there is a revival of Calvinism among many younger evangelicals”. I think that you`ve got to stop to call us, christian people, as a calvinism or this or that.
Stop putting names, we worship to One True God, and follow the teaches of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Nothing else…

Sorry for my english, I live in CHILE.
Blessings.

[I]t is not accurate to criticize people in this fledgling Reformed revival as if they regard complementarianism as the “center of orthodoxy.” They don’t.
…
Reformed people are concerned to confront egalitarianism because they see it as a threat to the authority of the Bible.

Right. Your words here really sound like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If complementarianism is not part of the center of orthodoxy, but at the same time, egalitarianism is a threat against Biblical authority, then are you saying that Biblical authority is not part of the center of orthodoxy either?

Which is it?

Wouldn’t you say that many Calvinists also think that Arminianism is a litmus test to see whether someone is going to conform their thinking to scripture or accommodate it to preconceived notions of free will and fairness (which they get from their culture, which makes it tantamount to cultural accommodation, which makes it no different from the egalitarian issue?).

It seems arbitrary to me, that a Calvinist would make egalitarianism a litmus test to biblical authority, but then see the Arminian position as not equally compromising biblical authority.

NOTICE: That’s not to say that these Calvinists are right, but only that given their stance, it’s inconsistent. If egalitarianism is a “biblical authority issue,” for Calvinists, why not Arminianism?

Bradley

I should have been more clear regarding this thread, I was not referring to the comments here, but Denny’s original post, which I do think proves Scot’s point. I agree with the comments here.

Not one is affirming of Denny’s post and even hints of a Reformed arrogance. If I am wrong let me know which comment does.

I am saddened by the response here. While I am not fully on board with all Denny said Scot really missed the boat on this one. he played coy in regards to who these “neoreformed” specifically were and then levied unfair attacks about them saying those who do not ascribe to Calvinism not being Christians. I am still waiting for any evidence to support the claim that any of the major evangelical Calvinist leaders out there have even come close to saying such a thing.

Also I would suggest that the same level of passion and importance that Scot assumes neoreformed folk have on the gender issue, he does as well, just on the opposite side.

And of course what follows here will be all those who think Scot is a 100% right telling personal stories of Calvinists being mean to them or uncharitable. And while I do not want to dismiss those experiences, as a reformed fellow I have felt that same exclusion and grief from emergent crowds and those that have been quite intolerant of my theological convictions.

Why don’t we drop the stones and have more thoughtful conversations, and speak in specifics instead of ambiguous accusations that only fuel the fire of plank/speck.

Another thing that characterizes the neo-refs is a staggering inability to be circumspect or teachable.

I’m sorry to say, but that just smacks of double-speak. Fundamentalism works by elevating peripheral doctrines to central doctrines, by connecting them as necessary implications to the central doctrines.

1) Egalitarianism = rejection of Scripture’s authority.

2) Complementarianism = fighting on the right side of the battle.

3) It is a battle and you need to choose sides. Which side are you on?

If this is your view, you may put a civil face on talking to non-complementarians in public, but you would not allow them near the inner circles of your church. So perhaps the issue is not “the center” but it is at the center of orthodoxy. Functionally, it is a litmus test of orthodoxy. But how is that different from what Scot said?

Not trying to be ungracious, just trying to state the shape of the issue as I perceive it. I don’t completely agree with Scot on the issue itself, but I don’t see where he got it wrong when describing its importance to the Reformed group in question. I am open to being corrected.