Comments on: Internet Monk Radio Podcast #62 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/internet-monk-radio-podcast-62 ...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:14:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joe http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/internet-monk-radio-podcast-62/comment-page-1#comment-98269 Joe Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:57:13 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/internet-monk-radio-podcast-62#comment-98269 Darren: I think what Michael is saying is that he agrees in general with the spirit of the complementarian movement, namely that men and women are different creatures and they function in different ways in a marriage situation, but disagrees with the hyper-specificity that many evangelicals in the complementarian camp are now moving toward in articulating exactly what the roles of men and women ought to be. In which case I believe that his position is a perfectly reasonable one. Michael, I hope that this is a fair summation of what you were saying in the last segment of your podcast. Darren:

I think what Michael is saying is that he agrees in general with the spirit of the complementarian movement, namely that men and women are different creatures and they function in different ways in a marriage situation, but disagrees with the hyper-specificity that many evangelicals in the complementarian camp are now moving toward in articulating exactly what the roles of men and women ought to be. In which case I believe that his position is a perfectly reasonable one.

Michael, I hope that this is a fair summation of what you were saying in the last segment of your podcast.

]]> By: Darren Fox http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/internet-monk-radio-podcast-62/comment-page-1#comment-97687 Darren Fox Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:04:03 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/internet-monk-radio-podcast-62#comment-97687 Near the end of your podcast you said you would not define yourself as a complementarian, but would probably prefer to go to that kind of church. Is that a case of having your cake and eating it too? Sounds like you like the results of the complementarian movement but despise the fact that you do. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but your statement seems kind of contradictory. Any clarity you can provide would be most appreciated. Near the end of your podcast you said you would not define yourself as a complementarian, but would probably prefer to go to that kind of church. Is that a case of having your cake and eating it too? Sounds like you like the results of the complementarian movement but despise the fact that you do. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but your statement seems kind of contradictory. Any clarity you can provide would be most appreciated.

]]>