My wife hasn't been following the comments, but I'll be sure to pass yours along.

The entire conference was intended to speak to the "feminization" of the church and how that - the church acting like women - is the cause for the cultural and church decline.

I didn't get that impression. I understood it to be about encouraging pastors to take up their responsibilities.

I feel as though your wife is misrepresenting the position of the conference speakers by implying they were speaking to the emasculation of men through their shirking of responsibility.

I don't think they were speaking about emasculation, and I didn't understand my wife to make that implication either.

it was speaking very pointedly to the feminization of the church (or the church acting too much like women).

I disagree. What I heard was very positive about the need for femininity in the church (and moreover, in men).

There is a difference between saying that women are capable of all these virtues but men are shirking their half of the responsibility and so this is a call for men to take responsibility too, and saying that "man is built with a mission in mind, and his mission is the garden, the tilling of the field, the discovering of the new thing, and her role is to enable and help and equip him" (Douglas Wilson).

Given that Wilson is clearly referencing Genesis, I don't see the difference that you're picking up..?

Perhaps your wife didn't listen carefully to the whole conference.

We didn't listen to the whole conference. We read Piper's transcript and watched the Q&A. Our comments here, I think was clear, are in regards to those.

There is no mistaking that women are being relegated to a second-tier role in the church and missions.

I disagree. I think that sneaks in certain assumptions that I don't think scripture makes, in regards to the worthiness of differing roles. I think 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 speaks very strongly against the idea that differing roles within the church are on different 'tiers':

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,
(1 Corinthians 12:21-22 ESV)

Masculinity, at least in the Q and A is defined in contrast to femininity. I suggest you go back and read the definitions.

As I understood it, they took characteristics and were saying that they might be considered masculine or feminine virtues, and made the point that both men and women need to have both.

They defined masculinity as "the glad assumption of sacrificial responsibility" and the corresponding definition of femininity was "the glad acceptance of that sacrifice."

Yes, I recall that. What's your problem with that? It certainly seems to be in accord with Ephesians 5:25.

the overarching "feel" of the conference is male-superiority.

From what I heard, I disagree. It was certainly of the view that men are called to lead the church, but that is not male-superiority.

"If it's done right, this masculine feel creates a space" for femininity does appear to devalue women as compared to the weight of significance ascribed to men.

How does it devalue?

"feminine feels all over the place" in this overarching masculine feel makes women inferior to men in the church, pure and simple.

Again, how is that 'pure and simple'? I disagree that it makes anyone inferior. See again my point about 1 Corinthians 12.

Both masculinity and femininity derive their source from God, both made in the image of God. You cannot put primacy on the one without doing so at the expense of the other. And to the degree that you weigh the value of one more heavily than the other, is the degree to which you devalue the other.

I don't see such a dichotomy as you seem to. I do not see them weighing one over the other, or saying that one is more valuable than the other.

I still have difficulty in seeing how I have a wrong view of complementarian marriage. I lived in complementarianism for 50 years. I don't think I have a mistaken understanding.

What you appear to be arguing against is domination. Perhaps in your context, that was called complimentarianism. I call it domination, and I reject that too. Furthermore, you said that my view, which I think is complimentarian, is rather more egalitarian. I think this shows that we're not talking about the same thing.

I don't see that Proverbs 31 or 1 Tim 5:8 goes against my view - rather, I would say it compliments it well.

I really don't think it's going to helpful to keep going around these circles, as you appear to still be reacting against something I'm not presenting. I think our positions are very close indeed, certainly in practice. There's no need for us to agree.

I believe that you brought up the comparison to politics.

No, you brought it up, and quick page search for 'democracy' bears that out. Why would I bring it up if I think it's a flawed comparison?

I think that a marriage is a partnership of two equally responsible people.

That's fine. I think a marriage is a covenant relationship between two equally valuable people who become one flesh, and are both given responsibilities. That we disagree slightly makes no difference to either one of us.

You ask about democracies of two people - that would be an egalitarian marriage

Putting aside the inherent flaw of comparing a covenant joining to a political system comprised of autonomous, separate individuals, you can't have a democracy of two if those two disagree. That's called a hung parliament, and you need a casting vote to break it which was what I was alluding to.

Egalitarian marriages are as stable as complementarian marriages and raise responsible children. In additiion to this, many complementarians may have privately egalitarian marriages. They are successful.

No doubt. I didn't say otherwise. Lots of things are successful or stable but as Christians we're interested in what God calls us to, and it's dangerous to equate those two things (akin to prosperity preachers arguing that numbers is a sign of blessing)

I believe that when a marriage is intolerable, it is better to part ways without having to prove adultery or violence. I believe those are the main reasons for parting ways, but one should quietly go - no point in trying to reason and reconcile with someone who maltreats their spouse. Just have a dignified parting and move on.

There's some quite loaded terms in there, and frankly, I don't know anyone who would suggest that a spouse being mistreated, abused, or cheated on should stay. Again, you seem to have a domination model in view, which I too reject. I simply don't see how the complimentarian view of sacrificial love can be put in the same category as maltreatment. Clearly, they are at opposite ends.

Suzanne, you've made it very clear what you believe about equal ultimate responsibility. That's fine.. as I said, I'm not trying to persuade to accept my view, rather, to show you what it's not (and not what you seem to think "complimentarian" means. I think you're comparision of marriage to politics is deeply flawed, but I don't think it's going to help anyone to go into that. I do have one quetsion though: what happens in a democracy when the vote is 50-50? How does a leader get 'voted out of office' when there's only one other voter?

I think you've quite misunderstood me (it's clear you have very strong preconceptions on this issue)

You have a basic logical conflict You believe that women bear equal responsibilty according to their God given nature, but you believe that they don't bear equal responsiblity according to exegesis. How do your resolve this conflict and treat women as you would be treated yourself?

I was talking about husbands and wives, not women & men (i.e. I am NOT saying that men always have more responsibility than women). I understand the NT to teach that before God, husbands bear the ultimate responsibility for their familes. This does not mean that other family members do not have responsibilities - of course they do. It does not mean that husbands and wives are not of equal value or worth - of course they are (Galatians 3:28). If the responsibility God charges husbands with is to lead with a love that causes them to lay down their lives as Christ did for the church, how does that fall foul of treating others as we would want to be treated, as you allege?

I dn't think that the masses are less desiring of democracy than anywhere else in the world.

We're not talking about 'the masses', we're talking about whether Christians are to equate democracy with Christianity (we're not) or if we're called to seek political influence and change (we're not). Rather, we're called to seek first the Kingdom of God. Jesus resisted the call from certain Jews to overthrow the Roman empire. He told people to pay their taxes, and seek the Kingdom of God - obey your leaders so long as it doesn't go against Christ's teaching. This is the same whether we're under an Emporer, a Queen, or President. I happen to like that I get to vote.. great. Jesus didn't seem concerned that his followers didn't. He calls us to love justice and mercy, and to spread the good news about His Kingdom, not to spread democracy, as nice as we happen to find it.
Comparing the view I've put forth to being a Roman Bond-servant is really quite disingenuous.
I think we actually agree more than not, and this is only serving to show that the label which seems to be throwing you off is as unhelpful as I suggest.

I feel that my understanding is in accordance with our basic equal human nature and accords with the way that God interacts with human beings, that each one of us answers equally to God.

As do I.

I am not quite sure what your "the buck stopping with the husband" belief is based on, our how that works in the life of a Christian.

Ephesians 5:22-33 & 1 Corinthians 11:3

Of course, simply quoting proof-texts is not going to solve anything - as I said, it's an exegetical dispute.

I don't see a scripture charging the husband with greater responsibility than the wife.

Fine.. we have an exegetical disagreement... that's ok.

And this is where I am saying that I think it does. For example, the scripture teaches rulers and masters to rule for the sake of their dependents. And Christians are to submit to Roman law, to empire, to masters, to all those in seats of power.

We're called to submit to our leaders except when what they ask us to do is contrary to what Christ calls us to do - whatever authority they have is derivative. We submit primarily to Christ.

because of the risk of abuse, Christians do not support non-democratic forms of governments.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true.. seems a bit of an western ethno-centric point of view. I'd certainly be interested to know what Christians in the middle-east and asia have to say about that.. I think Jesus calls us beyond politics to Kingdom view.

Again, it seems to me what you're calling 'complimentarianism' is really domination, and I reject that too. There's no 'check' to a lot of bad theology, but that doesn't mean right theology needs to go out the window, or that there aren't people pointing out the error.

I actually think the terms 'egalitarian' and 'complimentarian' are fairly unhelpful, as comps agree that husband and wife are of equal value and worth, and egals agree that husbands and wives compliment eachother. So it is no surprise that they are often very similar in practical outworking.

["executive power"] is the part that I believe is wrong, because it is unnecessary

I also don't think talking about "power" is helpful, as it's not about that - it's about sacrificial responsibility. That is, it's not about one person 'getting to do want they want' but about the buck stopping with someone - the husband being answerable to God for upholding the responsibility charged to him. Whether you think that is 'necessary' is beside the point. The issue is whether that's what the NT teaches, and whether I like it or not, that's what I understand it to teach. It is sobering and absolutely not about getting my way - rather, the opposite: it's a call to lead by giving up for the sake of the other.
I don't think this paradigm leads to abuse. It is a wrong view that leads to abuse.

Between the egalitarian view of neither having 'final decision-making authority' and the domination view of 'husband has all decision- making power' is a spectrum of views, and I think it's false dichotomy to portray those as the only two options.

I think that in a healthy complimentarian marriage virtual all decisions impacting others in the family will be mutual (there are, of course, decisions in which a husband does not need to give input, which his wife will rightly make by herself, and vice versa). A complimentarian view is one which seeks to allow each spouse to operate to their strengths - to compliment the other . I would think that the times when an 'executive decision' needs to be made where mutual agreement cannot be reached would be very rare indeed, and I can't imagine such a situation arising, personally, and if it did, we would seek outside counsel (as we would on very major decisions anyway), and such a decision would certainly not be made lightly or in any kind of self-serving spirit. Remember that I've said that whatever 'headship' responsibility or authority (as opposed to 'power') is derivative from the headship of Christ to whom both spouses submit, and involves the mutual submission to one another, and is sacrificial leadership which seeks to lay down one's life for the other. That is not, as you've apparently taken it, to imply that women aren't or cannot be sacrificial. Of course they are, and should be at the appropriate times. The point, rather, is that God calls men to lead sacrificially, and if they do that, I can't see how that it at all resembles the kind of domination view you seem to have in mind.

I'm not trying to persuade you of my view, rather, I'm trying to show you that it is not what you seem have assumed "complimentarianism" is.

I also do not wish to deny the fact that some women do suffer abuse from their husbands. I agree that this is wrong, and reprehensible. But I also want to point out that this is the result of a distortion and wrong view of 'headship' means. Wrong understanding and abuse does not negate right understanding and proper use.

I've tried to be as clear as I can in pointing out where I feel you're importing a whole range of preconceptions, and how they don't apply to what I'm saying.