Paul David Tripp recently visited Louisville for a conference on biblical counseling. Gender Blog was fortunate to have an opportunity to sit down with him and discuss issues of gender and culture. Following is the first part of a three-part interview with him.

Paul Tripp is the president of Paul Tripp Ministries, a nonprofit organization, whose mission statement is "Connecting the transforming power of Jesus Christ to everyday life." He is on the pastoral staff at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pa., where he preaches on Sunday evenings and leads the ministry to Center City. 

 Gender Blog: As you travel and speak across the evangelical world, are you seeing more men and women embracing God's good design for the home and the church as it has been historically understood by the church?

Paul David Tripp: My observation of this present generation of young families that are in the church is that they are more serious and more informed than my generation was. When I am doing parenting conferences, I am talking very strongly about boys needing their dad and girls needing their mom to teach them what a godly man looks like and what a godly woman looks like. I see young couples who are eating that up. On the other hand, I think that our 10-year-olds to 18-year-olds are absolutely under siege. I think androgynous Western culture is everywhere. I think homosexuality is normalized to the junior high schooler/high schooler in ways that are shocking. We are facing a tidal wave of gender-confused young people in the church. 

Gender Blog: Where do you see culture pushing in on biblical truth and causing such gender confusion?

Paul David Tripp: When you have girls who sort of like intense relationships with their peers and guys who like to have ‘best buds' in their lives and you have a culture that sexualizes all of that, it creates all kinds of confusion. They see on television young girls kissing one another and those kinds of things—what is a natural desire for community gets interpreted as being something sexual—and then it begins to blur the boundaries of what a woman is and what a man is, and there is the whole genre of music and fashion that caters to that; it's vexing.

Gender Blog: Where are some specific places you see this happening? 

Paul David Tripp: There is a college in the suburbs of Philadelphia, as part of their week of orientation, have a couple of days of gender clarification. Basically, they ask a set of questions and put students through a set of exercises that, unless you are very strong and very aware, you will leave absolutely confused as to what it's like to be a man and what it's like to be a woman and whether you are a homosexual or straight. It is a crafted attempt to blur all the boundaries. When you add to that the whole normalization of "transgender," homosexuality, I just think that our kids are under siege. I can't help but think that this is fairly typical in our colleges and universities.

Gender Blog: Given the present cultural realities, must parents be intentional in teaching on gender from a young age?

Paul David Tripp: When I talk about sexuality in that way, every time I do a parenting weekend, I say to parents, ‘It's no longer just an issue of sexuality or gender, it's a fundamental cultural redefinition of human identity.' It's that profound and we do not have the ability to be silent because the world is not silent. We have to speak in ways that are clarifying to protect our children against that confusion... I have a letter that was handed to me from a man who is in ministry in Philadelphia that tries to minister to the homosexual community. He spoke at Tenth (Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia) on Sunday, and it was a letter written by a 15-year-old girl who had attended Tenth her whole life and who was in massive confusion. She was very offended by what he had said and could not believe that God would ever treat these issues and treat these people in this way. Her parents have no idea, because she has matriculated in that wider culture. So, while her parents are being silent—had one quasi-embarrassed talk about the subject—the world is not being silent.

[The following excerpt is from Elisabeth Elliot's chapter in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, entitled "The Essence of Femininity: A Personal Perspective." It can be accessed in full here.]

The feminist theology of Christians (I cannot call it "Christian feminist theology") is a Procrustean bed on which doctrine and the plain facts of human nature and history, not to mention the Bible itself, are arbitrarily stretched or chopped off to fit. Why, I ask, does feminist theology start with the answers? One who spoke on "A Biblical Approach to Feminism" defined her task (a formidable one, I should say!) as the attempt to interpret the Bible in a fashion favorable to the cause of equality. The "interpretation" called for amounts to a thorough revision of the doctrines of creation, man, Trinity, and the inspiration of Scripture, and a reconstruction of religious history, with the intent of purging each of these of what is called a patriarchal conspiracy against women. Why must feminists substitute for the glorious hierarchical vision of blessedness a ramshackle and incoherent ideal that flattens all human beings to a single level-a faceless, colorless, sexless wasteland where rule and submission are regarded as a curse, where the roles of men and women are treated like machine parts that are interchangeable, replaceable, and adjustable, and where fulfillment is a matter of pure politics, things like equality and rights?

Gender Blog continues with the latest installment of our "Unchanging Truth" series. These articles, while not as current, are still beneficial, and they demonstrate the consistent application of biblical truth by complementarian scholars, authors, and pastors through the years.

The following is an excerpt from an interview with John Piper entitled "Courage in the Pastorate", first published in 2000.

JBMW: How did you come to your convictions about biblical manhood and womanhood?

JP: None of us know exactly how we have come to think the way we do because the seeds of our convictions are sown long before we know anything about it. Most important was the fact that I grew up in a Bible-believing home, where my parents said that the Bible is true and to be obeyed, regardless of what the culture says. So I've never felt a strong impulse to change my views just because they are at variance with the culture-at-large. I don't care about being up-to-date in Kansas City. I care about honoring the Scriptures. So when I realized that the Scriptures teach a complementary view of manhood and womanhood, I accepted that teaching, even though it went against the dominant viewpoint of the culture. Further, I viewed the Scripture's teaching as a good thing, because God is good.

However, I would be naïve if I didn't say that the home where I grew up had a significant impact on me, though not exactly in the way some people might think. My dad was away from home two-thirds of the year in evangelistic meetings, so my mother was everything to me. She was my financial adviser, the one who taught me how to make pancakes, the one who taught me how to clean my room, and the one who made sure I got out and played football and basketball with the guys. And yet when my daddy came home, he was clearly the leader. He took the initiative. He was the one who said, "We're going to worship this morning," or, "Let's have devotions, Mommy you read this, Johnny you read that." When we went to a restaurant, he drove the car, and he paid the bill. He was taking all those intangible initiatives, and I was absorbing his words and actions and the fact that my mother loved it-omnicompetent though she was. I had the privilege of seeing my mother run the household by herself most of the time and yet also see her gladly submit to Dad's leadership when he was there. So the idea that his leadership signified her incompetence never occurred to me.

When I graduated from high school, as I recall, I was nineteenth in my class, of 300 or so, and the eighteen who were ahead of me were women, except for my friend Kenny. When I went to Wheaton, it was women who were always ruining the grade curve because they were so bright. I grew up surrounded by tremendously intelligent, articulate, competent women, most of whom were very happy that men were strong, godly leaders in their homes and in the church. So this background strengthened me for the days of controversy when I had to decide for myself: "Am I going to go with the cultural flow of egalitarian feminism, or am I going to stick with the plain meaning of Scripture?" And the more I studied the issue, the less compelling the arguments on the egalitarian side seemed. So I remain a believer in a very happy, hope-filled, creative, complementarian view.

One more point. The essential thing about God, as I see Him in the Scriptures, is that He is sovereign and good. This means that when He tells us to do things, they're good for us. So I'm going to trust His Word and believe that for the man to be the head of the woman in the home and for men to be the godly, spiritual leaders in the church is really good for women, good for men, good for kids, good for evangelism, good for world missions, and good for every kind of ministry that the church ought to do.

You can read the rest of this interview here.

[Editor's Note: Today is the second and final part of a report on the Trinity and Gender panel discussion held last week at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Part I is available here. The audio of the panel discussion is available for download here.]

Gender Debate

A correct understanding of the Trinity has implications for the home and the church, both theologians pointed out. Ware said that within manhood and womanhood we see equality of essence, but differentiation of roles, as evidenced in the Godhead.

According to Ware, the implication of the complementarian position of the Trinity is that roles and relationships are marked by authority and submission.

"It would only make sense that in creating man and woman in his image, God is creating them within a structure of authority and submission," Ware said, "We see Paul correlating these things, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, by grounding all other relationships of headship and submission with the ultimate relationship of the Father and the Son."

"It is just as Godlike to submit with joy and gladness to rightful authority, as it is Godlike to exert wise and beneficial, rightful authority. And this does not simply apply to male/female relationships. This applies to any relationship where authority and submission are being played out."

Pastoral Implications

Allison encouraged pastors to teach doctrine of the Trinity within their local congregations. Allison said he is surprised how few students have heard messages on this prior to coming to seminary.

"God has given us adequate revelation and we are morally bound to teach and preach what God has revealed. This has implications for the home and the order of the church," he said.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been the topic of much debate among evangelicals in recent years. And this year is no different.

A full room of students, faculty, and staff gathered on Sept. 9 at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to hear Bruce Ware and Gregg Allison discuss the recent book by Millard Erickson, Who's Tampering With The Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate. In the book, Erickson interacts with a number theologians regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, including Ware and Wayne Grudem. In interacting with Ware and Grudem, Erickson argues for an incarnational-only understanding of the Son's submission to the Father.

The event was co-sponsored by The School of Church Ministries at Southern Seminary and The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Randy Stinson, dean of the School of Church Ministries at Southern Seminary and president of CBMW, moderated the discussion.

Ware began the event by providing a brief overview regarding the two views on the Trinity. Both Ware and Allison serve as professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary.

"The question is whether or not the relationship of authority and submission is one that characterizes the relationship of the Father and the Son eternally, or was it just missional or incarnational," Ware said.

He added, "What we see in the incarnation is an instance of what is true eternally. The Son was always the Son of the Father. This reflects the broader eternal pattern of authority and submission."

Erickson's view, according to Ware, argues that "the submission of the Son to the Father is only incarnational. In eternity past there was no authority and submission relationship and in eternity future there will be no authority and submission relationship."

Both sides make serious claims against the other. "There are claims of implicit heresy on both sides," said Ware, highlighting the importance of the issue. Erickson's charges Ware with a form of Arianism, which says that the Son is not of the same essence as the Father. This is a charge that Ware said he takes very seriously. But the charges against Erickson, and others, are just as severe.

Erickson asserts, Ware said, "that if you can distinguish the property of the Son, that is distinct from the property of the Father, then you have to say the essence of the Son is different than the essence of the Father.  (Egalitarians) argue that we can't hold to homoousios."

But Ware said the view of Erickson, whom he called a good friend, is equally dangerous. "This reduces to Unitarianism, and at best Modalism," Ware said. "God is simply three names, not three beings or person specific properties."

"There have to be distinguishing properties; otherwise we just have three names. Something has to distinguish the Father from the Son, and the Son from the Holy Spirit," Ware said.

Historical Evidence for Orthodox View of the Trinity

Within the debate, both sides claim church history as proof for their particular view. Allison, who is writing a massive volume on historical theology, said the complementarian position on the Trinity has been overwhelmingly held by orthodox theologians and ministers throughout the history of the church. 

"Overwhelmingly the church has affirmed what we affirm. God is three persons, equal in essence, nature, and attributes," Allison said.

He described the historically orthodox rendering of the Trinity using the illustration of three columns. Each column contains attributes that are the same, while each column also contains realities about the persons of the Godhead that distinguish one from the other.

Stinson asked Allison to explain the discrepancy in the debate if both sides are claiming church history as their ally. Because the early church did not specifically discuss authority and submission in their teaching on the Trinity, Erickson takes this as the early church fathers not holding to authority and submission. Allison said that the church fathers saw authority and submission as so natural that they did not have to make it explicit in their writings.

Biblical Evidence

Stinson asked Ware and Allison to explain how these views play out in a biblical discussion. Ware said to consider eternity past in Ephesians 1:9, stating that the "he purposed in him" is saying something about the Trinity. "Erickson wants to say the whole Trinity decides this," Ware said, "but this is not reversible. It is not collective of the Trinity. The Father chose us in Christ. We see the role of the Father as the architect and designer who wills what will come to pass."

Creation also reveals something that is done in eternity past. Genesis 1 and John 1 reveal that God creates through the agency of the Son, Ware said.

We also see Christ's submission in eternity future, Ware added. "Revelation 1:1 indicates there is an ongoing relationship of authority that the Father has over the Son."

"There is not a single instance in the Bible where the Father carries out the will of the Son. It is not reciprocal. If we say it is not really this way, then we don't really know God's revelation," said Ware.

Erickson would say that these texts don't prove what we think they do. He sees the Father's choosing in Ephesians 1 as having no particular significance. Rather, he implies that there is a mutual authority throughout. For example, Erickson points to the Spirit's proceeding from the Father and the Son. Ware, however, cautioned that such texts must be read carefully. While the Spirit does indeed proceed from the Father and the Son, Ware also noted that Acts records that the Son received from the Father the gift of the Spirit.

Ware added that Erickson's most convincing use of Scripture is his interpretation of Philippians 2. Erickson claims that Christ took on a role of servitude and obedience that he had not exercised before, thereby proving that his submission to the Father was incarnational only. Ware, however, responded by saying, "Paul is not merely referring to servitude per se. It is servitude as a man."