During the 1996 presidential primaries, Senator Phil Gramm from Texas introduced us to his friend “Dickey Flatt” who owned a family printing business that had been started by his parents. Gramm said that every time he was faced with a vote to spend government funds, he would put it through his “Dickey Flatt test,” that is, he would consider how his actions would affect Mr. Flatt and millions like him in real life.
I use a similar barometer when I write and speak about things I think are important. I ask myself what the needs are of those in my audience, how I can present information and ideas and provoke thought along the way. I reflect on the truth of what I am sharing and how it will affect those who read or hear it. And most importantly, I ask myself “Will it draw others closer to Jesus or place stumbling blocks in the path?” In order to do this, I always put things through my own “Dickey Flatt test.”
Now, of course, Scripture is the standard of all truth so I am talking about the application of that truth, the working out of our salvation in fear and trembling as it were. This is where I lay down my WWMGT test. The “What Would My Grandmas Think?” test.
I have written about both of my grandmas in the past but let me share a brief bio.
My “country” grandma went to school through the 8th grade and came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ while she was a young girl who came from Missouri to Illinois to work as a household helper on a large farm. She married at 18 and raised three sons during the Great Depression, feeding everyone from her large garden and amazing pantry. She taught me how to embroider and quilt and make to-die-for bread stuffing for the Thanksgiving turkey. Her pie crusts were terrible but it didn’t stop her from baking into a pie anything and everything that grew on their tiny farm. She was a straight talker and didn’t hesitate to ask if she didn’t know something. She always said “I’m from Missouri, you have to show me.” Once in the mid-70’s she saw Phil Donahue interview a gay couple and asked me, “How DO they have sex, anyway?” Bless her heart. She was so resourceful and frugal that when she died we found a tattered old journal where she wrote down how much she had spent for nearly every single thing she had ever purchased. We also found a secret bank account where she had been stashing pension money, nearly $40,000.00 worth of it.
My other grandma, my “city” grandma actually lived in a small town in a pre-civil war Italianate house with 14 foot ceilings and marble fireplaces; my grandpa had bought it with cash shortly before the Crash of ’29. She raised nine children in that old home, its unusual contents telling the family stories: a large bearskin rug from their drive to Alaska before it was even a state, the basket made from an armadillo, the real Indian skeletons in a glass case on the wall, dug up by my grandpa and his older children during a “free dig” at Dixon Mounds in the 1930’s. Before she was the mother in this house, though, my grandma was raised in a strict Catholic household where her two younger sisters grew up to be nuns. My grandma became a born again Christian and a Baptist when she married my grandpa and thus began her lifelong love for the Scriptures. As long as I knew her she taught the adult Sunday School class in the church; even the seminary-trained pastors were often found sitting around her dining room table talking with her about theology. Her life was rough and so was my grandpa, who rarely attended church, smoked a stinky cigar, and left her a young widow in her mid fifties. To this day I still meet couples who have been married for more than 50 years who tell me my grandma’s counsel saved their marriages. The picture of with her open Bible on a metal table near her favorite chair in the living room is how I best remember her.
These two women came of age during an era of great change. They both remembered when women first won the right to vote, my “country” grandma only marking her ballot for the candidate of my grandpa’s choosing while my “city” grandma openly explained to those she discipled what it means to apply a Biblical worldview in all areas of life, including the voting booth. They married and raised children and cared for the needy during the Depression and saw sons and sons-in-laws and brothers and husbands go off to fight wars in both the European and Pacific theaters during WW2. And in the midst of it, they clung to their faith in a living God who gave them the Gospel and drew them to Himself every day.
During the years my “city grandma” taught Sunday school and my “country grandma” worked in the little Baptist church that sat no more than 50 feet from her vegetable garden, it didn’t really matter who did what in their homes or in the church, somebody just did it. Because my grandpas traveled far and worked long hours in the coal mines, often leaving before the children were up and arriving home long past their bedtime, it was up to these women to introduce Jesus to their little ones. They taught them from their Bibles and memorized the Word right along beside them.
My “city” grandma was a voracious reader and drank deeply from concordances and Bible commentaries simply because she believed the Bible to be God’s word to her! When Moody Bible Institute began their first radio broadcasts, she tuned in, taking notes and sending for study helps for various programs. Not once did it occur to her that this was only for the men folk! She was a Martha and a Mary, often preparing delicious meals to welcome church visitors, including the two older sister evangelists, Fran and Winnie, who both sang and preached during special meetings; my grandma delighted in those times of deep spiritual discussion as they shared dinner. No one reprimanded her for teaching and speaking and taking leadership at home or in the church simply because of her gender. They welcomed it because she was using gifts the Lord had given to her. In my grandmas’ day, there were no “waves” of feminism, white-washed or otherwise, and there was no name calling or labeling. There was no “role playing” or even a discussion of a proper place for these women. There was simply these women and many more like them purposing to live as believing wives, moms and grandmothers, by grace, every single day.
So, I ask myself, WWMGT? What would my grandmas think? About the word “complementarian.” About the labels and the theologians who insist on using them. About silly teachings like the Piper “cone of silence.” About the idea that adversarial rather than redeemed relationships are the standard, that inorganic role-playing should be taught to daughters and granddaughters and great-granddaughters? I am pretty sure I know.
In part two, I will be looking at WWMGT about “Gospel Sex.”





In light of what you wrote above, you may find this guy’s facebook page either infuriating or comical. Perhaps both. But dare don’t post your opinion, as he will just say you aren’t really saved.
https://www.facebook.com/jamesthepreacher
This guy associates with one of the churches we used to attend. He has LOTS of nasty stuff to say about women.
On another note, what you wrote above about your Grandmas is so encouraging and refreshing!
My own husband has worked long and horrible hours, and I am the one who feels like she’s “doing it all”. When I followed the patriarchal lifestyle, it was very hard for me to not struggle with bitterness towards my husband.
I still do have a “bitter” moment every now and then. But reading about your both of your grandma’s hard work in the “non-traditional” way, really does inspire and encourage me. ♥
>About silly teachings like the Piper “cone of silence.”
This I have not heard of. What is this? All that comes to mind is Maxwell Smart…
I really enjoyed hearing about your grandmas. Thanks!
C.L. Dyck,
Here is the video of Piper talking about women at his church praying/speaking. I tagged it the “cone of silence” from the Maxwell Smart scene because it reminds me of that! Would love to know your thoughts on this…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij9i5pO9zew
I think I had heard about that guy before, thinking about. In fact, for some reason I feel like I had interactions with him at some time in the past. {{{{{shudder}}}}}
You know, the homeschooling lifestyle, for the most part, is a mom doing the bulk of the day to day routine stuff. It is just a fact and one that the patrios need to recognize and quit assuming they are the ones in charge. Homeschooling requires a partnership between the mom and dad and even with the kids in many ways. As soon as everyone realizes they are part of the team, which, hopefully is right from the start, and “owns” what the family is doing, things begin to run smoothly. Again, this is why, for the life of me, I don’t get starting the whole shebang called family with the assumption that kids are “vipers in diapers” (Voddie Baucham) etc. Life is hard enough. When kids realize they are a crucial part of the whole deal, they not only own it but protect it, promote it, and prefer it!
Vipers in diapers? Ow.
I’ve thought about my own grandparents’ marriage – just my mother’s, because my paternal grandfather died before I was born and I don’t know much about his.
My grandparents had a farm and everyone, including the eight kids, had to work the fields. I know my grandmother was very submissive and he was pretty unpleasantly dismissive of her needs sometimes. And she was very, very spiritual and took Bible study seriously while I never saw any indication that he gave it a thought. But part of the complementary aspect of their marriage was their differing areas of authority and responsibility. My grandfather determined what crops to put in when and where. My grandmother was in charge of the chickens and other household animals, so to speak, although I guess they worked together on the pigs and so forth, and she had her kitchen garden, which fed the family on a daily basis. She would not have asked him if she had enough tomatoes and needed more okra this year, or whatever, and he would not have appreciated it if she had, because feeding everyone was her responsibility.
So it definitely was a partnership because neither could have done what they did without the other. The fact that there are differing roles for people in the partnership does not bother me at all. The things that bother me are when there is hierarchy, and when forces outside the family try to dictate who does what.
“So it definitely was a partnership because neither could have done what they did without the other. The fact that there are differing roles for people in the partnership does not bother me at all. The things that bother me are when there is hierarchy, and when forces outside the family try to dictate who does what.”
This is EXACTLY right, Laura! And this is also EXACTLY what is happening via those who are currently pushing “patriarchy” and “patriocentricity” and even “complementarity” in spite of what Mary Kassian thinks or says. This is not the vision I believe Mary had when she helped coin the phrase “complementarian.”
One of the voices most respected voices for complementarity these days is a young man/pastor named David Platt.
Here is a brief bio of him:
http://www.brookhills.org/new/pastor.html
Here is a link to a presentation he did on this topic. There is very much a prescribed role. As there is with Nancy Leigh DeMoss.) And according to Platt it should determine how we educate our sons and daughters in different ways. Again, who does this all sound like?
http://www.radical.net/media/schurch/view/871/secret-church-family-marriage-sex-and-the-gospel-part-2
Wow, he very much contradicts himself all through this thing. We’re created with equal dignity and worth, but then “God named the human race ‘man,’ not ‘woman.’”
And then “men and women were created to complement one another” but “1 Corinthians 11, ‘Man was not made for woman, but woman for man.’”
Of course, in that whole passage if you read it straight through Paul appears to contradict himself:
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
It’s hard to reconcile this one passage within itself, unless the second part is read as a response and correction to the first part; I’m reluctant to assert this without evidence but at least it makes the whole thing less a nonsense. But if you’re going to quote verse 9 to back up your theology of the family, then I don’t think you can ignore verse 12 like it’s not there.
That guy is so messed up. I am not surprised you had dealings with him. And he’s probably the one that started the dealings, right? LOL! Ironically, he hates Jack Schaap.
Yes, life is hard! I have a great husband…but we are definitely “non-traditional” and neither can we be. We have so many circumstances that just make it pretty much impossible for us to live the “patriarchy” lifestyle…even when we tried. Or when I tried, and tried to force my husband into that mold. (blush) (And isn’t that how it works most of the time anyway???)
In “Bible College” I had the opportunity to date “true patriarchy” men…and for some reason I choose my “nerdy”, introverted, quiet and hard-working husband, who thinks women are people too and treats them with mutual respect.
Instead of the loud, “confident” (i.e. arrogant),men who think they know everything,(which comes across as “spiritual”) and think women should do what they expect them to do.
I really got an awesome husband, and I shutter to think where I would of been now, if I had chosen to date another man (He is kind of like that facebook profile) that was interested in me around the same time.
@Karen, Putting your link together with the “Is it Wrong for Guys to Listen to Female Speakers” video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyT2fDrb0vo&feature=endscreen&NR=1
–I think “the pulpit” is a Western symbol of pastoral authority, for one thing, and standing at it is a cultural gesture at best, and neutral at worst. Kind of like Max Smart’s technology.
Revering the pulpit (or its general vicinity) seems to be an American “thing.” I don’t get it. It’s not what I would argue from to make the case in question.
–It seemed to me that in the vid you linked, Piper relegated women to “children and youth” and women’s ministry. That’s equivalent with the churches I’ve attended in 17 years of being a Christian. That does not mean I’m personally comfortable with that as an interpretation of Scripture on the subject. I think it’s a great way to divide and conquer, and a denial of the assertion that husbands are to have an active participation in their wives’ spiritual lives. Homeschooling dominionism and patriocentricity have taught me just how much slips by men and into their households when they’re banned from the room because a woman is the teacher, and they mustn’t profane themselves by listening to what their wives are being taught.
–”It’s not wrong unless you begin to rely on her as your shepherd.” Whathuh? Since when are the decrees of God (especially to a Calvinist/sovereigntist pastor) vested in our emotions and leanings and interpersonal situations? I’m not in favour of female head pastors because I do believe in a degree of symbology in the order of service, but this is a silly line of reasoning.
–The “shepherd authority” thing, to me, is full of red flags. I’ve previously encountered it as a “strange doctrine” of American fundamentalism that goes beyond a symbolic order of service and infringes on men’s and women’s personhoods.
Piper on submission to an abuser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=dFPkN3zKN2s
Just sick. Why do these guys always go straight to “group sex”? It’s like they’re stuck in the Woodstock era. Also, “endures being smacked” (or, in this day and age, more likely “endures being sodomized due to Mark Driscoll’s legitimization of that sin in his ‘Christian sex book’”) does not lead to “goes to the church.” It leads to “goes to the police.” The church does not have the legal and civil authority to restrain the abuser and truly meet her need to be safe without violating the law in turn, and we’re to be subject to civil authorities, according to Scripture.
So many things wrong there.
As far as James the so-called Preacher…at a glance, what a joke, that guy.
“Most lesbians are lesbians because they are too ugly to get a man.” (Aug. 2)
“I am spending too much time on FB lately and will be off for a week.” (Aug. 6)
“Just thought I would get on briefly to inform my “friends” that YT [YouTube] deleted my account today!” (Aug. 7)
“When a friend of mine asked his pastor why the NT gives no commands for tithing to NT believers, the pastor responded…” (Aug. 10)
“Our churches today (most of them) are…” (Aug. 11)
“Beware of [redacted,] brethren as I am leery of any “believer” that condones and likes the Beatles, Pink Floyd etc.” (Aug. 11)
LOL Yes, somebody does spend too much time on Facebook…apparently it’s a workable substitute for self-discipline and basic common sense.
C.L.Dyck,
Glad you posted those other links. First of all, this is a mark of the American culture in many ways and historical at all. And the point I was trying to make the other day….we do not see this pulpit model anywhere in Scripture. Also, Elisabeth Elliott often taught behind the pulpit and even on Sunday mornings. There have been people who testified in the comments on this blog to having heard her speak at their very conservative church. The point Piper SHOULD have been making is that it is wrong for ANYONE to see one other person other than the Holy Spirit through His Word as their main teacher. How many people have you heard quote from Piper way too many times even in a single sermon? And it would also have been an appropriate place to talk about being Bereans. The podcast next week deals with this issue, btw.
>Elisabeth Elliott often taught behind the pulpit and even on Sunday mornings.
John MacArthur has a study book on complementarianism in which he extols Elliott for her adamant refusal to take the pulpit in a pastoral role even when there was no “qualified man” on the mission field. So she wrote the sermon and instructed a native guy to speak it.
I lost all intellectual respect for MacArthur’s study and Elliott’s complementarianism right there. Absurd. A) How is that avoiding “taking authority over”? B) What kind of farce might that have impressed upon the people she was trying to minister to regarding the nature and purpose of gathering as believers?
>it is wrong for ANYONE to see one other person other than the Holy Spirit through His Word as their main teacher.
Yes!
>How many people have you heard quote from Piper way too many times even in a single sermon?
{squirms} Including my own, a couple of times…
Oh yeah, was going to add: One of my close friends was shocked that my past churches would have forbidden me to teach adult Sunday School to a mixed crowd. I was told, “In our church, only the head pastor position is reserved to a man. You would definitely be expected to take on responsibility for teaching in the S.S.”
Having visited that church, it had a firmer stance on the Gospel and personal holiness than most of the ones I’ve attended over the years.
Glad you’re pointing out through your grandma’s stories that complementarianism is a relatively new phenomenon because it’s often portrayed as the opposite. I remember reading through a history book with my kids a couple years ago about how the World Wars affected women & their roles. I had always blamed feminism for everything wrong in the world (that’s only a slight exaggeration) so it was interesting for me to learn that women entered the work force and did jobs that were traditionally “men’s jobs” because it needed doing and they were available to do it. I think we have the luxury here in the modern US to worry about men & women’s roles…other times and places were/are too busy doing what needs to be done to be debating and limiting who should be doing what.
Did Voddie B really say kids are vipers in diapers? That’s a new one to me.
Here is a great response from Jon Zens to the video from Piper on the “cone of silence” perspective.
http://www.searchingtogether.org/blog/?p=155
Btw, yes, Becky that is a Voddie quote and has been picked up by others.