A RESPONSE TO DENNY BURK’S POST ON THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPLEMENTARIANISM TO THE GOSPEL
BY
WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.
AUGUST 30, 2012
Denny Burk recently posted an interesting and provocative piece regarding the relationship and importance of complementarianism and inerrancy to the Gospel.
I have two responses to Denny Burk’s post which is summed up in the following quote:
“The gymnastics required to get from ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,’ in the Bible, to ‘I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man’ in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.”
1. To practically equate complementarianism—as The Gospel Coalition defines it—with an accurate definition of the Gospel and inerrancy, I find to be borderline idolatry and heresy, and a position that cannot be defended or argued from Scripture. This argument coming from the same people who will not equate social and economic justice with a wholistic definition of the Gospel (and certainly not inerrancy) simply proves that much of what we call biblical Christianity is simply cultural Christianity, and the passing on of someone’s biases, prejudices and preferences, in the name of or under the ruse of—orthodoxy.
By the way, I am a complementarian, if believing that the Bible teaches that a female cannot be a senior pastor because of God’s design, makes one a complementarian. I fully believe what the 2000 BFM states, and it does not preclude a woman from teaching a man in a public setting. If that’s what it teaches, certainly FBC Dallas under Dr. Criswell was in violation each week with his wife regularly teaching men.
2. How do you get from, “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all, for to one is given…different kinds of tongues…And God has appointed these in the church…varieties of tongues…For he who speaks in tongue does not speak to men but to God…in the spirit he speaks mysteries…He who speaks in tongues edifies himself…I wish you all spoke in tongues…for if I pray in tongue, my spirit prays…I thank my God that I speak in tongues more than you all…If anyone speaks in tongue [and there is no interpreter]…let him speak to himself and to God…do not forbid to speak in tongues (I Cor. 12:7, 10, 28; 14:2, 4, 5, 14, 18, 27, 39)—to—“I forbid you to speak in tongues privately or publicly, with or without interpretation, and if you do so, you can’t serve as an IMB missionary, and you have psychological, emotional or demonic issues and influences effecting your private devotions”? I don’t know for certain, but it would not surprise me if Burk and Duncan can do the “gymnastics” required to get there. And if they can get there and consider themselves inerrantists, so can the egalitarian get from I Timothy 2:12 to egalitarianism and yet be an inerrantist and hold a proper view of the Gospel.
The way we got there is by employing the same thinking, hermeneutic, rationale and personal and cultural preferences and biases on the text as Lig Duncan has done here, and Burk affirmatively quotes him here.
If evangelicals can ignore the clear teaching of Scripture and arbitrarily decide to “forbid speaking in tongues,” why can’t the egalitarian do the same thing with the 1 Timothy 2:12 passage? I know you would say, “Not so”! Evangelicals arrived at their position on forbidding tongues based on careful and critical exegesis. “This is what my egalitarian friends say as well. I’m sure you are aware that those who conclude that same-sex marriage and monogamous homosexual relationships are not sinful also claim they reached those conclusions through careful and critical exegesis.
Therefore, I conclude where I started: To equate complementarianism and inerrancy (of which I wholeheartedly believe in) with an accurate understanding or definition of the Gospel is idolizing the doctrines of inerrancy and complementarianism to a height that the Bible does not elevate their doctrines and consequently distorts the true Gospel. It further removes our focus on the Gospel from where Jesus placed it; and that is on the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14, 15). An accurate view of gender roles in Scripture is not a “gospel” essential, nor does it threaten one’s belief regarding inerrancy. That is a cultural Christian perspective, not a biblical Christian perspective.
I have no problem with Burk and Duncan advocating a robust complementarianism as it relates to the office of the Senior Pastor. My disagreement with them lies in the fact that they appear to argue that their positions are inextricably combined with the Gospel. Not only do I find this position without biblical merit, but an unjustified indictment against all of the churches that I’m aware of (predominately African American) that at a very minimum allow a female annually on Sunday morning to address the congregation at the regular preaching hour on “Women’s Day” and many who allow women to speak/preach intermittingly throughout the year. What Burk and Duncan are advocating is robust Fundamentalism masquerading as the Gospel.
If I understand Burk and Duncan correctly, those of us who allow this do not have a proper understanding of the Gospel, and we threaten belief in inerrancy. Pleeeeeezze! These are the very reasons we allow these practices, because we believe they are biblical.
Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. 
August 31, 2012 at 7:20 am
Dear Pastor McKissic,
Thanks for the spirited interaction. I’ll respond briefly to each of your points.:
1. I did not “equate” the gender issue with the gospel and inerrancy. I was careful, actually, to distinguish them. My point is that egalitarian hermeneutics are dangerous, and those interpretive approaches can lead to an erosion of evangelical convictions about the gospel and inerrancy.
2. The hermeneutic that cessationists use is grammatico-historical exegesis that recognizes the authority of scripture. That is not the case with many egalitarian approaches. Consider, for example, the trajectory hermeneutic of William Webb in “Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals.”
Again, I happily acknowledge that there are egalitarians who are otherwise faithfully evangelical. That is why I cited the example of Roger Nicole who remained both evangelical and egalitarian all the way to his death. It seems to me, however, that guys like him tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Having said that, I happily acknowledge the exceptions and wish there were more.
Blessings!
Denny
August 31, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Denny,
Thanks for visiting. I got the impression based on the following statement taken from your blog post on this subject that you were practically equating the gospel with complementarianism. You wrote,
“I think Lig Duncan said it best: ‘The denial of complementarianism undermines the church’s practical embrace of the authority of Scripture(thus eventually and inevitably harming the church’s witness to the gospel).”
Certainly you convolute, conflate, associate, relate, or pick whatever word you choose the Gospel–rightly proclaimed–wedded to complementarianism and the authority of Scripture. I believe the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 settled matters like this once and for all.
If I’m misinterpreting you I will gladly set the record straight. But, if denying complementarianism “undermines the church’s practical embrace of the authority of Scripture…and harm the church’s witness to the gospel,” I don’t see how I could be misunderstanding you?
I value you as a brother in Christ. Enjoy reading your blog. Appreciate you and the work that you do.
Dwight
September 16, 2012 at 9:55 am
Dear Rev. Dwight McKissic – Please PLEASE tell anyone you speak to – go to the polls on Nov 6 and VOTE. It is critical that we exercise our freedom and right to vote. If you supported any democrat in the past, I would like to understand why. Do you think God supports abortion? I do not. I believe He is appalled that we have so little respect for human life that we would murder a human in the early stages of development. Why didn’t that prevent you from voting for a democrat in the last election?? The democrats supported same-sex marriage before Obama said he did. Don’t you realize that if you voted for any democrat, you supported same-sex marriage in the past? That is part of their platform. We should never vote FOR a specific candidate. They are all human and fallible. We should always vote in a way that aligns us with God. The only way we can be aligned with God is to vote for the platform that most closely aligns to His Word. The republican platform says life begins at conception and marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I am not pleased with Romney as the republican candidate. I agree mormonism is not fully aligned with God. However, if we believe that God is all powerful, we should exercise our right to vote, aligning with His views, and praying that He will intervene on our behalf and guide the president to do His will. You may say that we can do the same thing voting for a democrat, but I would disagree. If we align ourselves to satan by voting for his agenda instead of God’s, we haven’t done our part and should have no expectation that God will help us. We need to do what we can to align with God and then trust Him to provide for us as He sees fit. Telling people to stay home on Nov 6 is like giving up. OK God – I’m going to sit at home and wait for you to fix everything for me. I’ll sit here until you give me a job God. No – God expects us to do our part and go out and search for a job. Personally, I’m so disappointed in the number of Jews and Christians who are so proud to be liberals. I believe to truly believe in God and live by His Word is mutually exclusive from liberalism. Liberalism says you can do whatever you want – just be happy. That is satan speaking – not God. God never said that. He said if we would live the way He tells us to live, we will be happy. It’s a totally different approach. He gave us free will to choose between God and satan – but it’s not a one time choice. We are choosing every time we do anything – which is why we must be diligent and think about what we are doing. We are so easily swayed to be selfish – which means we often choose satan instead of choosing what God would have us do. When we have plenty of time to assess a situation, I just don’t see how we can choose satan. This is why the church is failing. We don’t take a stand on anything. Jesus was despised and said that we who follow Him would also be despised. But statistics show that we look just like our secular neighbors. We divorce, we have abortions, we support same-sex marriage. Now is the time – Stand up for Jesus and stand on His side of the issues.
September 18, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Dear Dr. McKissic,
I noticed in this message you’ve submitted that the terms, wholistic definition of the Gospel, true Gospel, proper understanding of the Gospel, inerrancy to the Gospel etc. along with “I find to be borderline idolatry and heresy”, relative to Paul’s saying “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” 1 Tim. 2:12. Do you also judge the following statement made by Paul to also be in the category of a further heresy of Paul’s relative to the “true Gospel” or “proper understanding of the Gospel” as you see the truth?
“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13
A short answer of Yes for heresy or No for not being heresy is sufficient, but not responding will be a violation of “Give to the one who asks you.” [JC AD 33]
Regards
Theodore A. Jones
1 Cor. 4:6
May 2, 2013 at 2:17 pm
To equate social and economic justice with the Gospel is a confusion of Law and Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for our sins and rose again, offering salvation to all who repent and believe.
Jesus’ commands concerning the poor are Law. If we are in Christ, we will keep His commands (John 14:21). But these commands are not the Gospel, and to combine Law and Gospel is to create a false Gospel, condemned by the Council of Jerusalem and the Epistle to the Galatians. Using the word “wholistic” doesn’t make this any less in error.
Rev. McKissic, I hope that you will come back and correct this error, which is no less an error than the one that you are responding to in this post.
May 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Rev. McKissic, I apologize if the above comment comes off as harsh and unfriendly. That wasn’t my intent, but the nuances and subtleties of speech are lacking in this medium.
Despite my criticism above, I commend you for responding to the attempts of others to add to the Gospel.
January 21, 2014 at 2:06 pm
I quite like reading through an article that can make men and women think.
Also, thank you for allowing for me to comment!
April 23, 2014 at 4:37 am
I’m not sure exactly why but this website is loading incredibly slow for me.
Is anyone else having this issue or is it a issue on my end?
I’ll check back later on and see if the problem still exists.