Search this blog

Guest Blogger: Rachel Schultz

As a fourth grader, I filled my role as Vice President of our elementary school bank with such a staggering solemnity that my path to becoming the first female President seemed not only viable, but unavoidable. I was ambitious; I cared about women; and I liked being a girl. Which meant I was ready for feminism to creep into my adolescent worldview. I spent most of my spare time as a 14 year old campaigning for pro-feminist politicians and scrutinizing statements made by male public figures.

After converting to Christianity, I began to revisit those basic questions: What exactly do women need to be empowered to do? Am I oppressed for being female? What is femininity? My eyes, which I thought were so wide open and enlightened, looked around to see the pro-women people I stood with held ardently to certain tenets I now called sin. I thought I could ignore the dangerous rationalizations about choice and women's health, which have come to define this movement's talking points. But it has become apparent to me that the modern feminist movement ignores some real problems, while fabricating superficial ones. If in listing examples of modern marginalization of women, photoshopping of celebrities is included in the same breath as sex trafficking, then it seems any sense of perspective has been lost. This sisterhood promises freedom, but eschewing submission and promoting abortion leaves women anything but free. As a result, I came to the conclusion that feminism had abandoned me.

Western feminism settles for nothing less than a top to bottom reinventing of marriage, femininity, and motherhood. Honorable endeavors like opposing sex-selective infanticide, pornography, or ritual female genital mutilation are scarcely what occupy the concerns of today's feminism. The banner of women's liberation amounts to not much more than an insistence there are no mental, physical, or emotional complications to conjugation with anyone, ever. Strangely, women are both equal to men and better than men. The movement's definitions are odd and empty and sex somehow has no relation to the babies it conceives. When I read accounts of babies born alive from failed abortions being left on tables to die, I hate what feminism has become.

The maddening part is that there are real ways women are oppressed, but third wave feminism gives those ways a backseat to qualms about media portrayal and invented "microagressions" (which are, by the way, the antithesis of Prov. 19:11). In our current curious culture there is an odd delight in being offended. There is just that weird way about us where we find taking offense empowering. We get to have been wronged and therefore bravely upholding a virtue. We like a force to battle against and joining something bigger than ourselves. The simple existence of different viewpoints assumes oppression. Even Twitter will now let you report a post for being offensive, disrespectful or "in disagreement with my opinion." Instead, I wish feminist voices would devote their efforts to protesting real injustices. When I hear "equal work for equal pay" or see another post about Hobby Lobby's war on women, I cannot help but think feminism has done better with selecting slogans than identifying actual problems.

Margaret Sanger's disciples claim to have freed our gender by opening doors, but many goals in the feminist mindset are not freeing at all. Women are encouraged to grab all they can at no expense—to measure their worth by how much they control their autonomy. Conversely, as Christians, we are to depend on God, not ourselves. True freedom is to be able to not sin. It only comes from Jesus Christ. It is for God to find you pleasing. How could being free possibly include disavowing God's order and design? If feminism has evolved into different manifestations of trying to buck submission, we must stay away. Trying to take control is running from the treasure of being under headship. Godly forms of authority are instituted for our good and to save us from death. Even with fumbling, imperfect hands, my elder carefully shepherding me is not the enemy. In its right design, entering into all the blessing and provision of marriage is never a prison. A man who is a cruel husband does not necessitate an uprising against men. It necessitates that man's need to repent.

Christians who help women in hard places or celebrate the many noble and inspiring things women have accomplished might be tempted to identify as a "feminist." But should that be called feminism? Let's call it being a Christian. If you are (rightly!) sympathetic to the real problems women face, go ahead and love your female neighbor as yourself, but don't allow all kinds of wrong thinking to sneak in the back door.

If I could rewrite the feminist narrative it would be this: We are equal in value and dignity before God. We should, along with men, have a spirit of submission before our God. We cannot and should not do everything men do, as we are not the same as men. We should be protected. While only males should be ordained in the church, women can, like men, receive and proclaim Christ's kingdom. I reject that to support real things to help women means I must embrace abortion on demand and deny biblically sanctioned submission. Christians should be on the front lines of those who champion valuing and protecting women. We do not, however, overlap with the current feminist mantra. That is good. To be a real woman all you have to do is, well, nothing. Because God made you one or he did not. I love being a woman. But even more than I am female, I am in Christ.

View Comments


16 thoughts on “The Feminism We Don’t Need”

  1. Neville Briggs says:

    On what authority does anyone declare that ” only men should be ordained in the church ” that statement is found nowhere in the scriptures.

    It seems that a major theme of Calvinist teaching is about control and who is the boss. Jesus clearly said that His followers were not to have such an attitude.

  2. Linda says:

    Terrific post, Rachel. I especially loved: “In our current curious culture there is an odd delight in being offended. There is just that weird way about us where we find taking offense empowering. We get to have been wronged and therefore bravely upholding a virtue. We like a force to battle against and joining something bigger than ourselves. The simple existence of different viewpoints assumes oppression.”
    This is not the place to argue for egalitarianism vs complementarianism, Neville. The case for complementarianism cannot be made in a few pithy sentences here in order to change your mind. Neither can we defend Calvanism here without hours and hours of back and forth sparring. I sincerely pray that no one wastes their time trying to do so.
    I for one find the viewpoint here to be a refreshing oasis in a sea of worldly and (sadly) “christian” feminism that is in abundance on the web and at women’s conferences. Again – thank you, Rachel!

  3. Curt Day says:

    This article has a few problems. The first problem is that it doesn’t distinguish between the plight of women in the public square from women in the Church or as they practice their individual religious beliefs. In fact, writer of this article allows the former to be swallowed by the latter.

    Second, any movement that responds to significant oppression will respond to that oppression in a mixture of ways. Some of the issues raised and responses given are pertinent to the oppression while others will be more of a result of all-or-nothing thinking that distort the significance of an issue or provides a response that goes to far. That is just the nature of responding to trauma and trauma is what many forms of oppression cause.

    Finally, the feminist movement is not a monolith and so care must be then when one speaks of the positions it has taken. If we take pornography for example, there are feminists on both sides of that issue. We are too familiar with the feminists who support the production and consumption of pornography, but there are those who use feminism to oppose pornography and they do so quite effectively from a secular feminist position. Two such people that come to mind here are Gail Dines and Robert Jensen. Yes, Jensen is a male, but he also makes a significant issue of criticizing pornography from a feminist position and he does so powerfully.

    As for the feminism we need, both society and individual Christians need to pick and choose from feminism rather than accept or reject it on an all-or-nothing basis. And we also need to realize that feminism addresses issues from the public square and thus we need to respect, rather than deny, the sphere from which it is speaking.

  4. Phil H says:

    Neville Briggs-

    Re: 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14

  5. Neville Briggs says:

    Thanks Phil.

    Neither of those passages that you cited, says anything about being ordained.
    I can’t find a statement anywhere in the NT that says “only men should be ordained “.

    Also, if we are going to observe strict requirements of women’s places according to Paul, then we should take notice of Jesus words ” But you are not to be called Rabbi for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father and He is in Heaven. Nor are you to be called teacher, for you have one teacher, the Christ ”

    I have heard men insisting on supposed Biblical submission of women, men who had titles such as Doctor ( doctor means teacher ) Reverend ( one who is revered ) and Father. Isn’t that a double standard of obedience to scripture.

  6. To Phil H.

    As Nevile points out 1 Tim 2 has nothing to do with ordination…its about teaching and domination. However the Greek translation puts it in a whole new light which does not align with a reformed position.

    ..”Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”–Paul, 1 Timothy 2:11-12. I’ve spent a far amount of time researching this so hope it informs the discussion.
    Paul’s letters are difficult to interpret because they are like listening to one side of a telephone conversation, but incorrect translations only further complicate our understanding of his words. There are a few key words that are mistranslated in 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.
    Hesuchios/Hesuchia: Traditionalists normally translate this word as “silence” (at least in passages concerning women), but the word in all other places is translated as “peacefulness” “Peaceable” or “quietness.” The word does not carry the meaning of literal silence or absence of speech, but of an atmosphere or presence in which learning should take place. Strong’s Greek Dictionary define shesuchios/hesuchias as “properly, keeping one’s seat,” “stillness” “undisturbed,” “undisturbing,” and “peaceable.”
    When Paul has absence of speech in mind, he uses the term“sigao.” The same word is used just nine verses earlier and is translated as “peaceable,” 1 Timothy 2:1-2. Hesuchios/hesuchia is translated as quiet/quietness in 1 Thess. 4:11, 2 Thess. 3:12, 1 Peter 3:4. None of these verses are about silence, as in the literal absence of speech, but a tranquil quietness or peaceable presence/environment. This fits the context much better than a literal silence, since Paul just rebuked the men in the congregation for praying while angry and quarrelling. Obviously, this would NOT be the optimum environment for anyone to learn in. Thus, Paul tells Timothy to make sure the woman can learn in quietness or peacefulness, and not amid the chaos that was taking over church meetings.
    Paul also instructs that women should learn in full submission. This is not a unique request asked only of women, but men are also suppose to learn in full submission to the gospel and sound teaching. The reason this command is directed toward women here is only because teaching women in the same way as men was still a revolutionary practice and still repulsive to many men, believers or not.
    Now, onto the main mistranslations and controversy….
    “…nor to have authority over [authentein] a man…”
    Exousia is the normal word used for “authority,” a carrying out of one’s official duties. But this is not the word Paul uses here. He instead picks the word authentein and it is the ONLY time this word appears in the New Testament. Exousia, however, appears over 100 times. Other uses of authentein from the same time period show that this word does not simply mean legitimate or routine authority, but carries violent, sexual, and dominating meanings.
    Authentein. It cannot be stressed enough how unusual this word is, especially for Paul. Paul writes about authority quite a bit and he never uses authentein as a synonym for legitimate, godly authority. For most mentions of authority, he uses exousia. Louw and Nida’s Lexicon lists 12 common ancient Greek words that are synonyms for routine or legitimate authority, exousia being the most common throughout the new testament. There are 47 words that are synonyms for legitimate “rule” or “governing.” Yet Paul uses none of these words in 1 Timothy 2:11, he chooses the unusual authentein. I can’t find any evidence that authentein, in any of its forms, connotates a routine or legitimate authority until the late third to fourth centuries, far too removed from Paul’s era to provide relevant meanings and contexts. And even once the word took on a less severe meaning in later centuries, THIS passage was ALWAYS been understood as Paul forbidding women to dominate a man, not simply exercise legitimate Christ-like authority. Consider these early translations: Old Latin Version from the second – fourth century translates this verse as “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate a man {neque dominari in viro}.
    The Vulgate, from the second to fourth century, translates this verse as “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man {neque dominari in virum}.
    “There is a basically unbroken tradition, stemming from the oldest version and running down to the twenty first century, that translates authentein as “to dominate” and not “to exercise authority over.”-Linda Belleville
    It is not until the 1500s that the verb authentein used in this verse changes from the drastically negatively-charged “to dominate/domineer” to a slightly water-downed phrase, “to usurp authority” (thanks, King James). Still different from exercising legitimate authority, but much less forceful than the violent and even sexual connotations of the original authentein. The King James version asserts that women are not to wrestle authority or seize it from men. No believer is permitted to usurp authority or act in self-interest over others. It is not until after World War II that authentein really gets the botched-translated: “to exercise/assume authority over.” That’s right, less than 80 years ago! So, the notion that women may never exercise godly authority within the body based on this verse is completely unbiblical, both logically and historically. Interesting isn’t.

    In relation to ordination its man created process, and like Neville I cant find any reference to it in the NT.

    In relation to feminism Christ treated women equally and so should we.

  7. Martha Hoste says:

    Thank you for this. My daughter, a Bible School graduate shared it on her FB, then I shared it on mine. Within a very short time I had a favorable comment from another young person (man). Just Thank You for reminding us that not everyone thinks we are freaks. Your voice speaks for many strong women who love their God-given identity. Very encouraging.

  8. Martin says:

    Grahame … very interesting. Thank you.

    Linda … since Rachel alluded to complementarian positions in her article, it is not inappropriate for Neville to push back on that – although that was not the focus of her article. Perhaps she cites a complementarian position because the TGC site is complementarian.

    Where complemetarianism misses the mark is ‘fulfillment of law’ – in this case Paul’s law (at least what complementariness cite from Paul and which is practiced in many churches). Even if we were to agree that authority is imprinted on the male gene, then males have it in within their authoritative power to share that same authority with females. What does that grace look like? It would be to invite females to come along side them with the same authority that they themselves possess. It would be the fulfillment of the ‘law’ that complementarians espouse. Grace is the fulfillment of law.

  9. Ray says:

    Many thanks for your post, Grahame. I found it very informative and thought provoking, though I don’t come to the same conclusion as you.

    I think the explanation of Hesuchios/Hesuchia is indeed very helpful. Likewise, you drawing our attention to the use of the very unusual choice of the word, authentein, is certainly worth pondering on. However, I’m not sure they actually change the complementarian position significantly, because the underlying explanation is still grounded in the order of creation. Paul, through the Spirit, could easily have said neither men nor women should exercise authentein since you were both created to operate in an egalitarian mode. But he does not. And surely, if anyone in a patriarchal society should be warned against authentein, it really ought to be the men, would you not agree? Men in such a society are surely more likely to be domineering and overbearing than their counterparts. So maybe, instead of pointing to egalitarianism, Paul is indeed using a strong word to stress the inappropriateness of women exercising authority over men in the family of God context. In other words, stressing complementarianism. Taking the sentences as a whole, it is also still very telling, don’t you think, that though Eve was the first to sin, yet God holds Adam totally responsible – as in Romans 5. The Spirit could easily have placed all responsibility on Eve (and doubly so for leading her husband into the same sin!), and it would not have been at all inappropriate, and God would still have to enact His plan of salvation. Factually, Eve sinning first is exactly what happened. Yet, Romans 5 insists that “sin entered the world through one man”, and that man was Adam. And throughout that whole chapter the finger of God keeps repeatedly pointing accusingly at Adam. Had the Spirit so wished, He could easily have substituted, in all places, ‘man’ for ‘woman’ and ‘Adam’ for ‘Eve’, and Romans 5 would still read fine as far as we are concerned. But clearly, it was not fine as far as God was concerned. God clearly is determined to make Adam responsible for his wife’s transgression, and falling for it himself. I could try and do all manner of theological, mental and linguistic gymnastics to deny the clear implication of the headship of Adam, but it would be denying the clear implication.

    I am also not sure of your final statement, “In relation to feminism Christ treated women equally”. He clearly gave himself to all people in like manner: young, old, men, women, children, rich, poor. But to me, He was a truly gracious, caring complementarian gent – if I may so put it – and so should we be.

    Put it this way, in a life or death terror situation, do you think God expects you to sacrifice your life for that of your wife’s, or should it be the other way round, or doesn’t it matter which? I’m pretty clear on that one and I hope you are too.

  10. Thanks Ray for your repsonse. Simply my wife would lay down her life for me and I would do the same for her, depending on the situation. One does not want either to happen. Christ laid his life down for both genders, there was not disparity in salvation for man, women and child. All equal in Gods eyes. We are the ones that stuggle. In my view…. the concept of complementarism isnt biblical, base on my research and can create gender bias. Plenty of denominations not practice complementarism.

  11. Ray says:

    Many thanks, Grahame. Appreciate the dialogue. Apologies for not being very clear. Hopefully the following will be more helpful.

    Suppose you’re on a sinking liner, and there is only one place left in the lifeboat, and there are only the two of you left on the liner still. Suppose if both of you get in, the weight will be too much, the lifeboat will sink and everybody dies. All things being absolutely equal – i.e. both are just as ready to die, and whoever dies will be missed just as much as the other had died, and whoever lives will result is just as much good as if the other had, etc., etc. – is there really no biblical passage/s to help us decide who goes in the boat and who stays and drowns? Is it, in egalitarian terms, really down to a toss of the coin? Does it really not matter one whit either way? For me, I’d go straight to Eph 5:25-33. It would be my absolute privilege and honour to see that my wife gets in the boat and I stay and forfeit my life. And conversely, it would be to my shame, no matter how persuasive my wife might be – remembering the Garden of Eden and Rom 5, if I ended up in that boat and my wife is left to drown. Because, as far as these passages are concerned, and in the sight of God, it would be my absolute delight and responsibility to love my wife even unto death.

    I think I also understand salvation differently, or rather, I understand it the same as you, but I would not want extrapolate it unwarrantedly. You are absolutely correct that there is no distinction in salvation – praise God! But surely it does not mean, for example, if my CEO becomes a Christian that I can say to him, hey Steve, we are equal in God’s sight now, why don’t you take my job and develop software, and let me have go at running this multi-billion dollar corporation for a while. Or if your 8 year old daughter becomes a Christian, surely you would not contemplate the idea that she swap roles with you or even share equal responsibility of running household with you? Surely, you would remain responsible for her welfare and protection, and God will hold you responsible for it – regardless of the fact that, in terms of salvation, you are both in Christ, both have equal access to God, and both are His children, both are equally love and so on. So, irrespective of salvation, the roles and responsibilities remain different and unaltered – just as in the CEO example.

    So in response to both your points, I just don’t see how complementarianism is unbiblical. In fact, I would argue that it as wholly reasonable and thoroughly biblical.

    In any case, many thanks, once again, for the thought provoking discussion.

  12. Ray thanks for you reply. The life boat scenario is simple wife in the boat not me. Reformist theology in relation to the position of men and women creates a hierarchy of men over women. Early church had women elders in it so its mute point eg Lydia. I See myself in a more evangelical tradition (although I grew up in a Dutch reform church) so we can debate biblically all day and get no where. In essence the debate is unnecessary all we need to do is model Christ male or female and follow him out into a unbelieving world and be ministers of reconciliation to those who are perishing. Surely this part of the priesthood of all believers role male or female. Blessings

  13. Ray says:

    Thanks for your response Grahame. Could I get you to rethink? The reason why it is “simple wife in the boat not me” is because it is simply there in the scriptures (e.g. Eph 5:25-33). It has really nothing to do with reformed theology – it is there irrespective. It demonstrates that, in the final analysis, we men simply cannot deny our God given responsibility to our wives and that responsibility is not symmetrically reciprocal. Fundamentally, your simple answer betrays its complementarian roots. Otherwise, the equally simple answer is to toss a coin – that would be the most egalitarian and does not violate the woman’s choice of acting honourably in choosing death. If the thought of leaving the ladies to drown while menfolk row away in lifeboats appeals to you then by all means change your mind and choose the latter. It does not appeal to me.

    Nor can anything conclusive be said but the fact that Lydia heard the Good News, ensured that her family (and servants, if any) heard it as well, that by God’s grace all were saved and baptized, and in response to that grace invited the apostle and fellow workers to stay at her place (Acts 16:14-15) – all this does not make this new convert an elder, it just makes her a new and very hospitable convert. Neither does meeting at Chloe’s, Nympha’s or Priscilla and Aquila’s automatically imply they were elders/pastors. Primarily, this is just a piece of geographical information. We have examples of that in our own church where we meet at someone’s house and that person is not the leader of the homegroup. Likewise we have ladies who open their homes, who are not the head of the household, much less deacons or elders, nor are the husbands even Christians! It just means these ladies are hospitable Christians with very understanding husbands – praise God!

    And yes and amen to priesthood of believers, but we are not all deacons, elders/overseers, right? But you knew that, I’m sure.

    Anyway, as you say, I also have the same important tasks to do. Many blessings to you likewise.

  14. Ray perhaps you may find it interesting to obtain a copy of William Tyndales bible before it was altered by King James. Tyndale when he translated the bible from the Gernman and Greek he found a much flatter church structure, which was gift based. I prefer to look to scripture on this point. eg To seek answers let’s look at . Tim. 3:1-10; 11-13. The question is whether the church should have male leadership only or male and female leadership alongside one another. Although the word “man” is used in 3:1, 5 for someone seeking the office of Bishop, the Greek word used is tis, a neuter word meaning male or female. Had Paul wanted to communicate that this office was to be limited to the male gender, he would have used the word andron which specifies male only. In the KJ on Titus 1:6, the word is also tis.
    Women served as elders and deacons in the early church just as the men; yet with the onset of apostasy, their ministry declined. By the third century, women deacons were being called “deaconesses.” Although they were still being ordained, their ministry was looked upon as something less than a male deacon. Think with me about women “likewise” (3:11). That women are included in the list of qualifications for bishops and deacons is seen in the word “likewise” which is hosautos in the Greek. “Likewise” joins the whole list of qualifications of bishops/elders with deacons and with women which translates as “wives.” Paul first gives the requirements for men seeking the office of bishop/elder and deacon and then gives some additional ones for women.
    In his book, Who Says a Woman Can’t Teach?, Charles Trombley says that “some commentators say Paul gives additional requirements for the bishops’ and deacons’ wives. Since there isn’t a definite article in the sentence construction, nor is the possessive case used, this suggestion must be rejected.” ). “Women,” then, is the correct translation.
    Women Elders
    Example: The letter of II. John is addressed to “the elect lady.” The term “elect” was used to designate the overseer (bishop/elder) of a church. Most scholars agree that in the early church, there were no differences between episkopos (bishop) and presbuteros (presbyter or elder). Both words describe the same function. After completing his list of qualifications for bishop and deacons in 3:1-10, he continued by including women when he said, gunaikas hosautos or “women likewise.” Hosautos links the entire list of qualifications with one another. It links the deacons with the bishops in v. 8 and then links them to women in v. 11. In I. Tim. 4 and 5:17-19, Paul discussed the office of presbyter (elder). The usual translation is “older men” and “older women,” but the Greek word is the same one used for elders elsewhere.
    The word presbuteros also means “older,” and simply means those males and females in the church who carry out functional positions that basically model servanthood and pastoral care and help develop less immature ones. What kind of churches do we have? Positional/hierarchical oriented churches or functional churches? Elder ship is something that one does. It is not a slot that one fills. This seems to clear up a lot of misunderstandings thus it clarifies what I believe to be true the roles are not gender specific.

  15. Ray says:

    Many thanks, Grahame. I really do appreciate you taking the trouble to write this explanation. I fear that I’m taking up too much of your time. I have and am trying to follow your logic and explanations, I’ve even downloaded Tyndale’s translation, but I’m failing miserably. I’m happy to put that down to being just me. I’m also trying to see if the strong charge that “complementarianism isn’t biblical” holds water. And I’m having trouble there too. I’ll summarize:

    1. When push comes to shove, as demonstrated by the sinking ship and lifeboat scenario, you answered “simple[:] wife in boat not me”. The reason why it is so simple is because it is so clear for all to see from Eph 5:25-33 that men are responsible for loving their wives – even to the point of death, as in Christ. This is clearly complementarian. The equally simple egalitarian answer would be to toss a coin to see who goes and lives and who stays and dies, but the passage won’t allow that – as you agree: “simple”.

    2. I asked how is it possible or even fair of God – when it was Eve to succumbed to temptation first, ate the fruit and then led Adam in to disobeying God’s command – to place all the responsibility of the fall on Adam, as in Rom 5:12-21? Unless, of course, as far as God was concerned, Adam was responsible for Eve. Again, this has complementarianism written all over it.

    3. You argued we are all equal because of salvation, and rightly so – but only in the respect that we are all equally children of God, loved by God, have access to Him through prayer, are all priests and priestesses through this access, etc, etc, etc. But you know as well as I that this does not enable me to swap lowly job with that of a Christian CEO, nor make an 8 year of born-again daughter have equal say with her dad, nor does it make a brand new convert a deacon or an elder. Surely equality in salvation cannot be extrapolated in such a dubious manner to bolster the egalitarian cause.

    4. You offered as proof that “Early church had women elders in it so its mute point eg Lydia.” And I fail to see how a brand new convert, offering the hospitality of her home, can suddenly make her into an elder, thus silencing all subsequent objections.

    5. Would you grant me that the use of the use of neuter tis does not 100% impose both a male and female interpretation on all that is subsequently said, especially if the very next verse refers to a man (andra) of one wife? Would you further grant me that it is not imperative that we must interpret 1 Tim 3:11 to be referring to women deacons and elders, especially since, self-evidently, 1 Tim 3:11 is sandwiched between 1 Tim 3:8-12, which is a section about deacons; having dealt with elders/overseers in 1 Tim 3:1-7 beforehand; and that it is entirely possible and not at all unreasonable to interpret it as women deaconesses of wives of deacons?

    For me, 1, 2, and 3 are the clinchers. And I would happily agree to disagree if you’d grant me at least the possibility that complementarianism may not be unbiblical.

    Once again, I appreciate the thought provoking dialogue. Probably, like you, I’m feeling a little bit guilty now and that I need to spend time on other tasks! You probably won’t hear from me again on this issue for a long while!

    God bless.

  16. tank trouble says:

    An incredible article you write, very very interesting and informative. I hope you will keep writing articles as good as this, so I gained extensive insight. Thanks a lot!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Kevin DeYoung photo

Kevin DeYoung

Kevin DeYoung is the senior pastor at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina. He is chairman of the board of The Gospel Coalition, assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte), and a PhD candidate at the University of Leicester. Kevin and his wife, Trisha, have seven children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Kevin DeYoung's Books