Mere Complementarianism with Dr. Denny Burk

🚨 Join us on https://www.youtube.com/@CourierConversationsPod

🔔 Subscribe for weekly updates

📬 Send in your questions to courierconversations@gmail.com

What is complementarianism, and why has it become one of the most debated issues among Southern Baptists today?

In this episode of Courier Conversations, Jeff Robinson and Travis Kearns welcome Dr. Denny Burk, professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), to discuss his new book, Mere Complementarianism: Male and Female in the Image of God.

------------------

WEBSITES:

baptistcourier.com

courierpublishing.com

INSTAGRAM:

instagram.com/thebaptistcourier

instagram.com/courierpublishing1821

FACEBOOK:

facebook.com/thebaptistcourier

facebook.com/p/Courier-Publishing

X:

x.com/BaptistCourier

x.com/Courier1821

x.com/CourierConvos

Transcript

Copy

Welcome And Guest Introduction

Jeff 0:07

Welcome to this episode of Courier Conversations. My name is Jeff Robinson, your host, and with me is uh co-host, as usual, Travis Kerns. And today we have a special guest with us. We are thrilled to have an old friend of ours, and we're not calling him old. We've just been friends for a long time, uh, Dr. Denny Burk. And Denny is uh professor of biblical studies at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. My name Travis is alma mater. Uh, he is also president of uh the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, CBMW. I used to work for them. Someone once asked me on my way back from a conference if I was in the BMW Club and if I drove a BMW. That has nothing to do with BMWs, does it? Denny, it's so good to have you here. Travis and I worked for many years at Southern Seminary with him. Uh, and so it's great to have you here. Welcome uh to the podcast.

Dr. Burk 1:01

Thank you so much for having me. If I could open up a council on BBM BMWs, I would.

Travis 1:06

Hey, we've got BMW right here in Greenville, so if you need one, just let us know. We can probably get you a good deal.

Dr. Burk 1:11

Yeah, I I really can't do it right now.

Jeff 1:13

I don't even have a BMW, so but well, when I explained who CBMW was, sort of, I think the man was offended. And so uh I should have gone back to the cars. No, it was quite funny. Well, Denny, uh, how are you doing? How are things uh how are things at uh at our our our mother's seminary there in Louisville?

Dr. Burk 1:33

Your mother seminary? You sound like a communist. You heard it here first, folks. Jeff Robinson is a communist. No, no, no. Man, it's going great here. Um, you know, we're right before the semester starts, just a few weeks out, I guess. What are we, three or four weeks out? So uh it's still sort of deserted around here. I'm at I'm at my my uh school office right now as I'm talking to you, and uh it's a little bit like uh uh a ghost town at this time of year, but it's not gonna be long before we are percolating with uh students, and especially a bunch of 18 and 19 year olds who are coming to Boyce College where I teach and be their first year there, so we're excited about that.

Travis 2:19

Yeah, good. Big incoming class this year?

Dr. Burk 2:23

That's a good question. I don't know what the final numbers are. Oh yeah. And I'm gonna miss our uh orientation because I'm taking one of my own kids to her first um year of college, and so I'll be going to her orientation. So I'll miss some of the opening festivities here because they're graciously let letting me go there. Yeah, yeah. Wow.

Why Mere Complementarianism Exists

Jeff 2:43

Well, the occasion uh we we we like to have our old friends on here, but there is an occasion for having you on here. Of course, gender is always in the news nowadays, and especially among evangelicals, and even more particularly among Southern Baptists, which all of us are. And Denny has just published a new book, uh Mere Complementarianism: Male and Female in the Image of God through Christian Focus. And here's the book, and this I hope will become the definitive work on what I would call uh genuine complementarianism. And Diddy, remember, is the president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, uh privileged to work for them for 12 years, uh, a few years ago. Uh so Diddy, just quickly tell us about uh tell us about the book exactly how how would you summarize the book?

Dr. Burk 3:30

Yeah, the title of the book is Mere Complementarianism, and I always feel the need to disambiguate uh what I mean by that, because there are a lot of people online who saw the announcement of the book and they said, Oh, look, here's a guy, he's coming up with minimal complementarianism, and he's trying to, you know, water complementarianism down. That's actually the opposite of what I'm doing. And um, you know, I'm sorry the title led you to that that place, but that's that's not what's going on in this book. Um, what I'm trying to argue is for a mere complementarianism, which is not minimal complementarianism, and I'm arguing that mere complementarianism is a doctrinal proposition that, you know, has words associated with it. Um the reason that I'm saying that is because there's a ton of people who treat complementarianism like it's a vibe or like it's some kind of a sociological movement. You know, Aaron Wren famously wrote some years ago about uh complementarianism is a is a baby boomer theology. It's going to die out when the baby boomers are gone. And I just want to say I don't think you understand what's complementarianism. It's not just the sociological movement of baby boomers and what they thought about things, baby boomer evangelicals. That's not what it is. It's a doctrinal proposition that was articulated in what we now know of as the Danvers Statement, which was a doctrinal confession that was hammered out by a group of evangelicals led by Wayne Grudham and John Piper back in 1987. And the the Danvers Statement, when they wrote that in 1987, there was no term complementarianism. Um, complementarianism was the term they came up with a year later as a one-word descriptor of their view. Now, some people say, well, that means complementarianism is a new doctrine. No, it's not a new doctrine. It's old doctrine applied to new challenges. And at the time, the challenge was second wave feminism. And so that they were trying to articulate what in the world does the Bible say against these feminist um influences that are taking over the culture and really coming into the evangelical church. And so they summarized what they think that basically the Bible teaches about these things in the Danver Statement, and then they called that doctrine complementarianism. So it's not a new doctrine, it's actually old doctrine, but it's uh we put a name on it to uh face the challenges that were current at that time. So that's where um the term mere complementarianism comes from, is just saying, look, if you're gonna say you're a complementarian, the baseline doctrinal proposition is the Danver Statement. You say, why is that important? Well, because there's some people that are saying more than the Danver Statement, and there's some people that are saying less than the Danver statement, and still calling themselves complementarian. So, for example, one example that I use uh you know in the book and that I talk about all the time is of people saying more than the Danver Statement would be like the doctrine of EFS, eternal functional subordination of the Son. It's a certain view of the Trinity that became really popular amongst a certain set of evangelicals in the 20th century, and that it holds that in some sense the son submits to the father from all eternity. That's what that that view holds. And it was commonly associated with complementarianism because there were prominent complementarians who held to that view. And so there were a lot of people who came under the conviction that if you're going to be a complementarian, then you have to hold to that that certain view of the Trinity, EFS. Well, guess what? If you read the Danvers Statement, EFS is nowhere in there. It's not a part of the original doctrinal proposition. Now, some complementarians have held to that, but there have been a lot of complementarians that never held to any form of that. And it's because complementarianism is not reliant upon that particular doctrinal controversy, which by the way, I think is an important controversy. I have views on it. But whether or not whatever your view is on that, it doesn't make you more or less of a complementarian if if you hold to it. There's been a guy, I don't know if you guys remember the name Kevin Giles. He was a theologian, and uh he's a theologian, he's written lots of books, very engaged as an egalitarian scholar. He wrote an entire book demolishing EFS under the premise that if he he demolishes EFS, he's got he's basically defeated complementarianism. That's not true. Um that's not a part of the original doctrinal proposition. So you can huff and puff and blow that house in, and you haven't touched complementarianism yet. So some people say more than what's in Danvers and they add things to it. Some people say less than than what's in Danvers. And so, you know, some of the controversies in our own denomination are where you'll you'll you do have people, I think, saying less that are what what what are in the you know the original complementarian doctrinal proposition. They will say things like women can be pastors and still be a complementarian. Or they'll say that you know, women can preach the attired gathered assembly and you could still be a complementarian. And um there are a lot of people that are trying to float those views in under the label complementarianism. And at that point, I just want to say, what are we talking about anymore? I mean, the egalitarians think that that's what they believe, that women can be pastors and and preach to the entire gathered assembly. So some people are saying more than what's in Danvers, some people are saying less, and I'm saying you need to hold to what the original, if you're gonna call yourself a complementarian, you need to have some sort of a credible claim to what's contained in the original doctrinal proposition, which is more thoroughgoing than some people give it credit for. Um there are a lot of people who say that Danvers is this minimalistic document, and what I'm doing in this book is disagreeing with that. I'm saying that Danvers is actually more robust because it's rooting complementarianism and not only in scripture, but also in natural law. In other words, in God's design and creation. So that's that's where the name uh came from. That's why I think the name's important, and it gives you a little bit about the the thrust of what I'm doing in the book.

Travis 9:40

Yeah, so let me jump in, Denny, and ask uh something you mentioned as you were talking about the summary of the book is that some people are doing more than what Danver says, some are doing less. Um part of the debate we've heard inside the SBC deals with this idea of strong versus weak complementarian, or others describe it maybe narrow versus broad complementarian and complementarianism.

Danvers Statement As Doctrinal Baseline

Travis 10:08

Uh do you think those distinctions are helpful? Are they bad? Um what what are your thoughts on that?

Dr. Burk 10:15

I mean, I understand why people use them. They're trying to say that within the within complementarianism, there's a spectrum of beliefs. I think it would be closing your eyes to see that there's you know, to deny that there's a spectrum of beliefs. There is. The question is, is what can credibly be called complementarianism? That that's the real question. And does it does the spectrum include people who would call women as pastors? Does it include people who would call women who um preach to the gathered assembly? Um I'm arguing I think that's off the spectrum at that point. Okay, you're you're somewhere else if you're calling for women to be pastors and for women to preach to the gathered assembly. Um so that that's what so I understand what people are saying that there's a spectrum of belief within complementarianism, and I'm not denying that there is some sort of a spectrum, but I do think some things are off the spectrum. It'd be a little bit like um, you know, we've heard people talking about I'm a three-point Calvinist, I'm a four-point Calvinist, right? But what if somebody told you um I'm a one-point Calvinist, I hold to total depravity, but I deny election, I deny, you know, all the other points. What kind of a Calvinist are you now? I mean, I think you're not you're no longer on the Calvinist spectrum anymore, you're on some other spectrum. And uh and so and and that's fine, but I just think we have to hold our cards out there and not mislabel a position, right? And if you're arguing for female pastors and and women preaching in the main teaching slot in a church, what kind of complimentarian are you you really? And really for us, the more important thing, you know, the Southern Baptist Convention, I would argue, has a more specific doctrinal standard than what CBMW does. And I think that's tot totally appropriate because CBMW was an intra-den an interdenominational effort. You had you know bab like-minded Baptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Bible church people, independents, who all came together and were saying, we think here's some key principle. We for all our differences ecclesiologically, here's some key things we hold in common about men and women and the way they relate to each other. But within a denomination, you can be more specific about what you hold. And, you know, so for example, you know, Anglicans have rectors and priests and and all of that. Baptists have pastors. And so in our doctrinal confession, we have specific statements about who can hold the office of pastor. Whereas Danvers is a little more generic, it just talks about who can lead and who can teach. Um, we talk about the office of pastor, and we declare that pastor is an office, which makes us even more specific. And so that really sharpens the issue for us within our own denominational context. But, you know, I don't deny that there's a spectrum of practices and beliefs within complementarianism. I'm just arguing that that spectrum needs to fit under what our doctrinal standard is. You know, if you're a complementarian, that needs to be within Danvers. If you're a Southern Baptist, that needs to be within the Baptist faith and message.

Travis 13:16

Yeah, let me ask a quick follow-up, then Jeff, I'll hand it off to you. Um so Danny, let me ask you the hard question. So for those who might argue that they are on the weak or the broad side of complementarianism, um but they might allow for a narrow, yeah. Um they might say, oh yeah, you can still be complimentarian, but allow a woman maybe once a year to preach to the gathered congregation. Do you think they want to be considered um a weak complimentarian because they don't want to be called egalitarian? Are they just wanting to use the word and be labeled as such to stay away from what's considered kind of a four-letter word in SBC life?

Dr. Burk 13:57

Yeah, I mean, I th I think you know, within Southern Baptist life, egalitarianism was very much associated with liberalism in a way that's different if you went to like the First Assembly of God movement. When you look at the charismatic movement and the way they do egalitarianism, there was uh it was not always about liberalism there. It was about a certain view of Acts too, and your sons and daughters will prophesy and all of that. Within our Southern Baptist context, that's not what it was. It was uh it was a liberalizing influence within our institutions and within our churches that people were beginning to question the authority of of Scripture and call into question what the Scripture teaches about these things. So um so I don't know tell me your say your question again because I'm not sure.

Travis 14:46

Yeah, do you think that they're wanting to call themselves either weak or broad in order to be called complementarian and not be egalitarian?

Dr. Burk 14:54

Within our context, I almost talked myself out of your question. Uh within our context, it is it's not really acceptable to be called an egalitarian because it's it's it's associated with liberalism, and it's something that if if you hold to it a thoroughgoing way, like if you you couldn't call yourself a stoffed egalitarian because you it's it's there's no way to make that line up with um what our doctrinal statement says. And so nobody wants to be called an egalitarian for that reason. Now they might askew the term complementarian. Uh you don't have to be called a complementarian or you know, own that label to be a to be a Southern Baptist. However, you do need to hold to the substance of the view, whatever you want to label it. And which which for us is the most important thing, right? I mean, I just wrote a book, I I still like the term complementarian. I wish people would use it more often. Um But having said that, you know, we don't when it comes to the Southern Baptist Convention, you know, whether or not a person uses that label is not the issue. It's the biblical substance and their practice a line up with what you know Southern Baptists have agreed together the Bible teaches. And uh some people I I I I think that they realize that egalitarian

Strong Vs Weak Complementarian Labels

Dr. Burk 16:08

falls outside of that, and so they don't want to use that. But if they if you use complementarian and then you have some of these practices that are pushing the envelope, it makes it seem more acceptable. And so you'll see some churches um having like a woman come to preach on Mother's Day. And you know, maybe I don't know how that makes sense to them, but I I don't know why a person would think that you can set aside biblical standards for ministry on certain, you know, Hallmark holidays. Like, you know, Paul says I don't allow women to teach her excess authority over man. Well, you can't say, well, it's m except on Mother's Day. You know, that that doesn't make any sense at all. And yet that's what some people are pushing and saying, well, we're still complementarian. She's not the pastor, she's just preaching. And and we we would argue, well, you you really can't set aside biblical teaching on any day, uh, much less Mother's Day.

Jeff 17:02

Well, this uh obviously this issue, the last three or four years in our denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, has kind of been writ large over everything else at the annual meeting. You had first uh, I guess maybe three or four years ago now, the law or Sanchez Amendment uh uh that that was proposed to kind of more clearly define what we mean by pastor uh in the Baptist Faith and Message. And of course, this year, uh the truth uh Albert Moeller, our president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, uh proposed what do you call the Truth and Unity Amendment. We call it the Moeller Amendment, uh, and it's basically new language uh to make clear what a cooperating Southern Baptist Church is. It does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor, elder, overseer, such as preaching to the assembled congregation. So what what kind of baffles me, I mean, we have our confession of faith, the Baptist Faith and Faith and Message 2000 already says this, of course, and we're seeking to codify this uh to give our committee more our committees more direction in the Constitution. Why do you think there are there are pastors and and people uh within the Southern Baptist Convention who affirm the BF and M two thousand and yet are so um they're they're so strongly, stringently opposed to the Moeller Amendment. And it passed 75% this year, of course, and has to pass again next year, uh next year's uh convention in Indianapolis. But uh I've been a little baffled as to why you have some who say yes, I'm a complimentary and I'm for it. Uh BF and M says it, but I'm against clarifying this. What uh what what what gives here in your mind?

Dr. Burk 18:44

So I I actually don't believe that there's a huge wave of egalitarianism washing over the SBC. Um I think that would be the wrong view of of the SBC and a wrong view of the failure of those previous uh amendment efforts, because the amendment efforts required a 66% uh 67% supermajority. And in those previous efforts, you know, one time we got like of 80 plus percent, and then two times we got sixty something percent. So we're we're in clear majorities, really strong majorities in people in favor of those amendments. We just fell just short of the supermajority to get it to get it passed previously. That's still sixty something percent. And when you think about the other 30 some odd percent that didn't vote for it, those are not all people who are egalitarian. Um, if you want to have a better indicator of what Southern Baptists think about these things, think about when actual churches have come to the floor of the convention who have female pastors and how the messengers have voted. It's always been like 90 percent, somewhere around 90 percent. Even when it saddleback, which was you know maybe the biggest church in the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the most famous pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention, messengers were like 88% voting them out. Um so that it's just an overwhelming number of people within the Southern Baptist Convention are are complementarian and want to hold the line on the doctrinal statement. Um, what what does that indicate though? It does indicate, though, that there are some people on the fringes, even who show up somewhere in the vicinity of what, 9 to 10 percent who are willing to cooperate with full-on egalitarians. Um it's not that those people aren't out there, they're there, but they're more on the fringes. They're not the mainstream of Southern Baptist life. Well then how do you account for all those other people then who voted against the amendment, those other 20 some odd percent that kept it short of the supermajority that we needed. My view is that is not that those folks are just, you know, closet egalitarians.

SBC Amendments And The Voting Puzzle

Dr. Burk 20:57

I think there's been a good couple of things here. There's been a good bit of concept creep on what the office of pastor is, like what it is and what its requirements are. And over the years, I mean, I don't know what your experience is with you guys, but this is what I have noticed over my decades of being a Southern Baptist, and I was born and raised Southern Baptist. Um when I was growing up, you had a pastor, usually in your typical Southern Baptist church, who was the lead minister in a church, and then most of your associate positions were called minister of something. Your youth minister, your music minister, your your whatever. And I'm not commending that. I think we should have a plural eldership. I'll that's that's that's what I prefer. Um so you had a plural pastors, but that that was a lot what a lot of Southern Baptist churches were doing. And so your associates, by and large, weren't called pastors. Something happened, I don't know, I'm spitballing here, but somewhere around the So over the last 20 years, you started to see people assigning the term pastor where they used to assign the term minister. And so your youth ministers were becoming youth pastors. And then they started assigning that label to other associate positions where women were serving. And so your children's minister, who may have been, you know, we had children's minister at the church I grew up in. Um now they started calling them children's pastors, right? And so I so a lot of those churches just got up in this concept creep where they were assigning people the title pastor, some of them, not just women, but men too, who shouldn't have been called as a as a pastor. You know, your part-time youth minister may not should be considered a pastor in in your church. But but again, I think that was you know some concept creep that was going on. And so everybody began to think that pastoring was just about doing the Great Commission. You know, if you were discipling people, like Matthew 28 says, that we're supposed to go make disciples of every nation. If you were teaching and if you were helping people to become better followers of Christ, then you were pastoring. And I'm saying that's a that's a total misunderstanding of what pastoring is. Pastoring is a task specified in Scripture as leader, leading, protecting, and providing for God's people, not portions of God's people. The pastor has an accountability for all of God's people. And so it was never appropriate to call some of those youth ministers pastors, and it was certainly never appropriate to call some of those children's ministers pastors, especially if they were women. Um they don't have a responsibility of leadership and protection and provision over the entire flock. Um, that's not what they're they're doing. And so there's this concept creep on pastor, and people have been applying that label in places where they never should have been applying it. And now, when you come to try, when you point out to people, hey, did you know that this is actually not in line with what our doctrinal statement says? They're sort of surprised by it. Now, some people will self-correct when they hear that because they were never really committed to egalitarian to begin with, egalitarianism to begin with. And that's happened with churches in the Southern Baptist Convention who've gotten reported to the credentials committee, and then they self-corrected. It happened in one prominent case here just this year before the convention. This church got called out for misuse of the term pastor and shepherd, and they changed all their titles. They said, We wish to be complementarian, we don't want to, you know, so praise the Lord for that, you know. I think there's probably a number of churches that are like that, but there are some churches on the fringes that are committed to some form of egalitarianism, and there are some that are really dug in on this issue of women serving in the office of pastor, and that's where our real dispute is. I just I don't think that's overtaking the convention theologically, uh, but I do think it's it's they're there, you know, if you're if you're just looking at the votes that have happened on the floor of the convention.

Jeff 25:11

One of the things that I I heard uh John Piper uh when I worked for CBMW, one of the things he would talk about a lot is joyful complementarianism. And for a lot of people that's uh that's a conflict in terms. That's uh you know th those are uh disparate uh terms. How can we I mean this is we we believe this as complimentarians that this is part of God's beauty and his beautiful design in the home and in the church. So how do we how do we teach that? How do we help how do we help our churches overcome the notion that this is just you know doctrinaire, arrogant, exclusivistic, abuse, whatever it is? I mean, uh and and and to see that this is just this is God's word and it's clear. And and anytime we're obeying God's word, it's a beautiful thing. And and when God says it, it's uh it's something to be obeyed uh in joy, not out of you know, duty, but delight. How do we how do we kind of uh I don't know, inculcate in our congregations that kind of complimentarianism, Danny?

Dr. Burk 26:15

Yeah, well, one thing is is just the way that we disciple our people and how we you know invite them to understand what their role is as a disciple of Christ. Jesus says in Matthew, in John 10, My sheep hear my voice. They will not listen to the voice of another. In other words, we have to let we we need to be consistent as we're you know, I'm a pastor, you guys have served in different pastoral positions. We want to tell our people we obey the voice of Jesus, and whatever he says, his wish is our command because we love him and we want to follow him. And we have to have our hearts open to the possibility that some of our predispositions, assumptions we've picked up from the culture may not be in line with what his revelation says, and we just want to be joyful obeyers of his revelation whenever we learn what it is and wherever it confronts us. So that kind

How Pastor Title Creep Happened

Dr. Burk 27:09

of a spirit has to be cultivated first. Second thing I'll say is this it's it's a real it's a distortion to think of complementarianism as just a synonym for hierarchy. Um the reason that Piper and those other early founders chose the term complementarianism was they they rejected terms like hierarchical on purpose because they thought it was reductive. It doesn't complementarianism is reflecting the fullness of the biblical expression in Genesis 2. In fact, the word is deeply rooted in that little phrase, that little prepositional construction, conegdo, right? God wanted to make a helper, conegdo, suitable for him. That little prepositional construction means a helper that corresponds to him or completes him. And the completion is not just a sexual completion, it includes that, but it's also a social completion. God says it was not good for the man to be alone. And right, and so he's bringing along this um person, this other creature who is like the man but different from the man, and she actually completes the man. And so complementarianism, it's not compliment, like I'm giving you a compliment, it's complement, which means complete. Um, so male and female actually complete each other in obvious in in marriage with in physical ways, but then also in the way that they're designed to relate to to one another. And truly, if you understand God's design, what's going to promote your happiness and flourishing most is to live in keeping with God's design. When a husband loves his wife, just like Christ loves the church and gives himself up for her, as it says in Ephesians 5. What wife doesn't want that? What wife doesn't want a husband who loves her so much and puts her needs before his own so much that he and loves her so much that he could be compared to Christ? That's exactly what every woman wants. And the happiest marriages are going to be where there are husbands that are doing that. And so a husband is supposed to love like Christ, which means he's leading, he's protecting, he's providing. It's exactly what a wife wants and needs. What kind of a husband doesn't want a wife who respects the authority that God has given him and follows him and honors him and is a nurturer in the home and the rearer of children? Who what husband doesn't want that? The best homes are the places where that is happening. So the complementarian vision, you can't reduce it to hierarchy. Hierarchy is unambiguously and unapologetically a part of it, right? Because there's real authority and submission in the home. That is a real obligation. It's just not the only thing. So, well, why do we always talk about it? We wouldn't if people weren't arguing with it. They're not arguing with us about husbands living self-sacrificially with their wives. That's not what they're arguing with us about. They're arguing with us about the authority and submission apart. And so the reason it has to be talked about a lot is because that's where the contention is. And we have to answer the people who are challenging. But that's not all there is to it. It's actually a comprehensive view of the way God designed men and women to relate to one another within marriage, first of all, and then the church, and then beyond.

Travis 30:28

So let me ask a question, Denny. Yesterday I was reading Lewis Burkoff's Systematic, which for decades was a standard. And in his introductory volume to a systematic, he says this He says the present age is an undogmatic age. There's a manifest aversion not only to dogmas, but even to doctrines and to a systematic presentation of doctrinal truth. And then he says this the assertion is often heard that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life, and that it makes very little difference what we believe if we but share the life of Christ. There is an insistent cry, especially in our own country, for a Christianity without dogmas. Is that the reason for egalitarianism? Because there is no, I know you'll agree with this, Jeff will agree with this. I would hope most of our listeners would. There is no biblical case for egalitarianism. Is it just an emotional argument? Is that what's going on here?

Dr. Burk 31:25

Well, you and I would say there's no biblical case. They always try to make a biblical case.

Travis 31:29

Yeah, they can try, but there's yeah, that's for the sake of the argument, there's no biblical case.

Dr. Burk 31:32

I think it's a very implausible case. And if you're a Southern Baptist, it's one that we've already all agreed together is not a valid case that they that they make. So, I mean, we're hopefully starting from a baseline at Southern Baptist of the Baptist faith and message, right? And so this is what we believe. Um I do think that one of the major modes of argument, especially today, um, by egalitarians, is to kind of appeal to emotion, especially to say it's not just biblically wrong if you're a complementarian. It's immoral to be a complementarian. Because you're actually whenever you have any kind of power differential or authority differ differential, you've got something immoral going on, which is, I think, a page taken from the spirit of the age, certainly not a page taken from Scripture. The Bible says that there is uh there are proper authorities and that proper authorities functioning like God called them to is a good thing. Governmental authority, you've got church authorities, you've got home authorities, you've got husbands in the home, and you've got parental authority, husbands and wives over the children. These are all authorities that God set in place to bless us, not to hurt us. And what you'll see from egalitarians a lot of times is that they treat any kind of uh they treat authority differentials as abusive or as somehow um holding someone down. They don't see it as a blessing. And they only see equality, you know, some kind of an egalitarian uh notion of equality as as the as the good life. That's just not the vision that you see in Scripture. But the way that they make their arguments, though, will sometimes m manipulate people on those grounds. And they'll say, Why aren't you giving the same opportunities to these women that you're given to these men? And so they appeal to people's American egalitarian notions of the way things ought to be, but they're not really appealing to um biblical frameworks. And so that's where people get off. But you know, get off track. And so, you know, I I I think I don't I'm not compelled, obviously, by by the way that they argue, but they do make emotional appeals a good bit. And um, you know, it's if you looked at I I can I can name names here, I don't mind doing it, but I mean if you look, there's a certain species of literature out there um by folks like Kristen Cobes, uh how do you say your name? Cobez Dumay, and uh Jesus and John Wayne. Yeah, the Jesus and John Wayne book, and then uh Beth Allison

Joyful Complementarianism Beyond Hierarchy

Dr. Burk 34:05

Barr, uh who wrote the book, um, you know, sort of against complementarianism. Those weren't strong those those books were not making biblical arguments per se. They were largely trying to show people that it's unjust to to hold to any kind of complementarian doctrine. In other words, it's immoral to do it, which is an appeal to emotion more than an appeal to reason, an appeal to scripture.

Jeff 34:32

Do you think there's any is there any connection between sort of the DEI oppressed oppressor matrix and the uh offense that complementarianism is to in the uh among some Christians uh now, do you think?

Dr. Burk 34:46

Absolutely. In fact, I think you know, I would say to your listeners, check your presuppositions here. Have your frameworks, has your worldview been shaped unduly by worldly um teachings and ideologies in ways that would squeeze out the way the Bible talks about things. The Bible is not bashful when it tells women, wives, in Ephesians 5, wives, submit to your husbands as uh he's your because he's your head. So husbands, love your wives. The Bible's not uh bashful about authority. Um in Romans 7, where it talks about that all of us are supposed to submit to governing authorities because they've been established by God. These ideas of authority and submission are not bad words in the Bible. They're words of blessing and of God's design in the Bible. But what you have today is that those were bad words for certain people. And so that if you talk about authority and submission in any context, but in particular with uh husbands and wives, all of a sudden it becomes this you know massively offensive thing. I mean, you guys remember in the late 2019, the Me Too movement, um, the Me Too movement was was not a good movement because it was it was trading on these DEI and basically woke concepts of power differentials, and and wherever you see a power differential, you see inequity and you see injustice. The Bible, that is not the Bible's framework. Um the Bible doesn't think like that at all. And then when you see, well, you have to have certain representations in order for things to be just, the Bible doesn't think like that either. It doesn't think that you have to have female representation on an elder board or on your pastoral staff. That's not the way that the Bible talks about things. Um so we shouldn't be thinking about those things uh like that. We need to be thinking like the Bible thinks and like the way that the way the Bible presents things. It is not a bad thing in your church that you only have men as pastors. Now, if they're not qualified, that'd be bad. But if they're qualified, if they meet the qualifications and they're godly men and they're serving as pastors, that is not oppressing anyone. That is a blessing for your church, it's obedience to Jesus, and you shouldn't apologize for that or blush about it. It's what the Bible teaches, it's what faithful discipleship for churches means. And if you're trying to push for some kind of DEI um representation so that you have you're not looking at biblical qualifications anymore, but you're looking at other characteristics that are not that don't qualify you for anything, like race, gender, you know, those things are not the the the qualifying things. The qualifying things are are godliness, right? These godly characteristics. And um, so uh we just need to be thinking about this like the scripture thinks about it and not be moved by these worldly concepts that are just you know overtaking a lot of people's thinking.

Jeff 37:43

Well, Danny, uh this is the great conversation. We could uh boy, this this is just kind of scratching the surface, isn't it? But I would encourage our listeners, get this book, get mirror complementarianism. And uh the the uh I love the title, I do love it because it's a little bit um provocative in a good kind of way. And so read this because I think I'm hoping this will be kind of kind of a standard textbook. I know we had the big thick book, yeah, uh, the blue book back in the day, back in the 90s and early 2000s that had the various authors in it that sort of standard, but it was a much more academic, and of course the academic acumen is underneath this is Denny's an academic, he's also a pastor uh at Kenwood Baptist Church, one of the elders there, has been for many, many years, and uh you're a local churchman first and foremost. And so that that comes through in this book. There's a lot of pastoral meat here. So I recommend this highly to get this book. If you're wavering on the issue, you want to know how it is, you wonder why we're making such a big uh deal about this, get the book and read it. It's very winsomely written. Uh Danny uh Danny uh writes in a way that uh you know it's it's compelling uh without being quarrelsome, uh, which I think is Christ-like uh a Christ-like quality in writing uh that we we try to try to emulate here at Baptist Courier and Courier Publishing. So uh we we appreciate your work at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and uh we're thankful uh for Southern Seminary and Kenwood Baptist Church and all the things you do. We're grateful for you, and of course, your friendship for Travis and I've been a long time, and that will continue to the future. Travis, you have anything else before we wrap it up here?

Travis 39:20

No, I think I would just echo what Jeff said. Denny, thanks for your work at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dr. Burk 39:28

I'm grateful for you guys, grateful for your friendship, thankful for South Carolina Baptists. Man, it was a real privilege to be on the show. Yeah.

Jeff 39:36

Well, thanks a lot. And yeah, don't forget that particular, that definite article at the Southern Baptist. Thank you for listening to this podcast of the Baptist Career and Career Publishing. Be sure to follow us on all social media platforms, give us a five-star review, and send any questions you want us to consider to Courier Conversations at gmail.com. If you prefer to watch our conversations, check us out on YouTube by clicking the link in the description.