Mary Kassian: June Cleaver and Dummy Complementarians

I thought of a passage from the book of Jeremiah 29:11-13: “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord.” It irked me that too often women are made to feel guilty for seeking the next open door.  – Sarah Palin

NASA
"NASA's Curiosity rover and its parachute as spotted by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter as Curiosity descended to the surface on Aug. 5.- NASA (Men and women may soon be from Mars)

As most of you know, this past week has been very busy for your two glam bloggers. We have been privileged to begin to experience the “community of believers” on the Internet in a unique way. So many of today’s leaders express disdain for blogging, claiming that “church” can only be done in a physical, local sense. Having experienced the TWW community for the past few years, we have come to the conclusion that community online is possible and we shall be writing about this in the weeks to come. For now, let me refer you to Chaplin Mike’s post at the Internet Monk here to get you thinking along these lines.

I truly believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through all believers and, in particular, through our TWW community. In fact, it is your discussions that often lead us to look at particular issues and individuals and so, I present today’s post!

I found it interesting that there was much discussion on Mary Kassian and some articles she is posting. I also find it interesting that she has “shut down” comments.  Is she afraid of something? I think this is a possibility since some of her conclusions are based on weak exegesis of Scripture as well as pop psychology with no basis in fact. I would be afraid to take comments if I were in her shoes as well.

Complementarianism is for Dummies-Redux link

Deb did a short review of this post here. Unless stated, all quotes by Kassian are from this post.

May Kassian is responsible(along with others) for The Danvers Statement 

The Danvers statement, written 26 years ago in 1986, is the epicenter of the definition of complementarianism. If you refer to Deb’s post it is important to realize that this was a “secret and invitation only” meeting.  Kassian claims, in her post that she “should know what the word "complementarian" means since she helped (I assume in a complementary fashion) ”coin the term.”  I am so glad she cleared that up. Now I know who to blame.

Make no mistake about this statement.  There was a presupposed set of beliefs and this meeting was of like-minded individuals who sought to define what they believe and make it an indisputable doctrinal statement. In fact, it is often presented as the only possible “biblical” or “gospel.” Folks, always ask questions when someone is presenting “biblical” truth.

Egalitarians are wounded women and Kassian is not.

Interestingly, an important article that she wrote for CBMW, is not able to be viewed because the site is down, probably being spiffed up for popular consumption. However, an article from PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries:  Are Women Innocent Victims by Carol Tharp MD link quotes directly from that currently unavailable article. The title to that Kassian’s article was  "For Those Who Hate Feminists—And Those Who Don’t which was found at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Newsletter , Vol. 1, No. 2

I believe it is imperative to understand Kassian’s views on women who propose egalitarianism or contrary points of views. Her perspectives appear intended to marginalize women who disagree with her. Let me predict something. When the CBMW blog once again arises like a phoenix, I predict this article will go missing.
In the article, she makes the following points:

  • “Kassian says she only had "good men" in her life.”
  • “Kassian contends that a woman "who has been molested by her grandfather, ignored by her father, sexually derided by her brother, slapped by her husband, and ridiculed by her male friends . . . reacts to the wounding by adopting a feminist and/or egalitarian philosophy which assures her of worth and value as a woman."
  • Kassian says such women “must be “healed” to get complementarianism.”
  • “Kassian continues in the mindset of the psychotherapist, saying that the woman "needs healing of her pain before she is able to respond to truth."
  • She restates her position. "Most feminists will not be persuaded by theological finesse or expertise. Theirs is a wounding of the heart and their minds and will only be set aright as their hearts are healed."

Dr. Tharp remarks:

“Remember that the cities into which the apostles moved were not filled with "good men." These cities were at least as depraved as the places where you and I live. Yet the apostles did not approach either male or female with the diagnosis of wounding nor did they ever suggest that truth could not be accepted until the pain was healed.”
“Her article leads me to assume she means that her male associates have not been wife beaters and child molesters like the male associates of the woman she describes. However, Scripture does not divide mankind into good and bad. It simply says that no one is good or does good. All have turned away and are unrighteous (Romans 3: 10-12).”

Kassian endorses a subtle form of spiritual abuse via this tactic

I believe that the “egalitarians are hurt women” assumption on the part of Kassian is part of the spiritual abuse game plan that is found in many of today’s churches. If one disagrees with a pastor, one is considered “wounded” or “bitter.” We have documented such tactics, time and time again on this blog. This is a despicable maneuver because it feigns “concern” for those poor women who were not blessed by morally superior relationships such as hers. (Old Dee, however, is very suspicious when people claim moral superiority. They are often concealing something).

Kassian exhibits a logic problem as well

How does she “know” all egalitarians are “wounded?” Having done this blog for a few years, I can say that there are complementarians who are wounded as well. Where are the randomized, double blind studies? Or did another ho-hum “observer” of the Christian ethos start a new urban legend? We have a page on this blog called “Dave’s Pulpit Myths link .  For example there is “NASA scientists have discovered the missing day of Joshua’s time” fable.

Many pew sitters tend to “believe” whatever is spouted up front without asking questions. Does anyone remember the old “Proctor and Gamble are Satan worshippers” nonsense? This sort of assumption is embarrassing because it comes from an SBTS seminary professor. No wonder the world has a field day with is. The sad part of this gibberish is that some stupid or naïve men and women will promote this view based on hearsay alone.

There is also another logical problem with her argument. Since many men support an egalitarian point of view, does this mean they were “beat up” emotionally as well?

Kassian claims that  complementarian relationship is supposed to be a living witness to the story of Jesus.

“Complementarians believe that males were designed to shine the spotlight on Christ’s relationship to the church (and the LORD God’s relationship to Christ) in a way that females cannot, and that females were designed to shine the spotlight on the Church’s relationship to Christ (and Christ’s relationship to the LORD God) in a way that males cannot. Who we are as male and female is ultimately not about us. It’s about testifying to the story of Jesus.”

Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of people saying that there is a symbolism in certain acts and buildings that will draw people to the story of Jesus. This is a myth perpetrated by many Christians.

For example, there is the “If we build something, people will see Christ” myth. I refer you to Robert Jeffress, FBC Dallas pastor and the bon vivant of the “build it for the Lord” crowd. He has spearheaded the $130 million expansion of the church, complete with a $12 million fountain”.  Jeffress says “It has been our goal in building this new campus that it would, architecturally, point people to Christ."” See the "Jesus" fountain here.

It’s time to ask hard questions folks. How many people do you know who came to Jesus by viewing a pretty fountain? Also, how many people do you know who look at Christian marriages and say, “Wow, now I get it. Fred and Martha’s marriage has helped me to understand the Trinity?” In fact, I think there are lots and lots for people who, after being on the receiving end of some condemnation on the part of Christians, point to Christian marriages and say, “Christianity is hogwash. They have higher divorce rates than we atheists. “

Folks, we are far more well-known for our failures than our supposed “symbols.” That might be OK if we emphasized our sinfulness  and our need for the grace of Jesus. But, it seems to me, that we usually emphasize our relative superiority. I want numbers, not anecdotes. How many people have come to the Lord after viewing our “symbolic Godhead marriages?”

Kassian states that complementarity does not condone the patriarchal, societal oppression of women.

Kassian makes a big deal that they  (the secretive Danvers group) did not use the word “traditionalism”  instead of “complementarianism “ since it could be misunderstood. Then she inserts “patriarchy” into the discussion.The seminary at which she teaches (obviously not men), Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is both a proponent of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) as well as patriarchy.

Kassian is well aware that the new word for her form of complementarianism is patriarchy. Russell Moore said “… I hate … the word 'complementarian', I prefer the word 'patriarchy'…" link

She is also aware that the ESS doctrine says that women will be subordinate to men throughout eternity . I believe that she is afraid to use such terms but that she believes them. Read how she words this.

“Technically, “patriarchy” simply means a social organization in which the father is the head of the family. But since the 1970s, feminists have redefined the historic use of the term, and attributed negative connotations to it. Nowadays, people regard patriarchy as the oppressive rule of men. “Patriarchy” is regarded as a misogynistic system in which women are put down and squelched. That’s why we rejected the term”

She does not reject "patriarchy". I bet she would have used it if those confounded wounded feminists hadn’t screwed it up and alerted everyone.

I contend that June Cleaver is the ideal role model of the complementarians.

Kassian says

“June Cleaver is a traditional, American, cultural TV stereotype. She is NOT the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like sixty or seventy years ago.”

This is disingenuous.  I contend that June Cleaver is exactly the model of a true woman which is being declared by some of the most outspoken complementarians. Women are to be well-dressed, great cooks, very submissive, not speak out in church unless it is to other women or little kids, and take abuse “for a season.”

John Piper has said that women have to be very careful not to insult a man’s leadership when giving him road directions, for crying out loud. Others say women are gullible and easily deceived. (I think this last concept will be cleansed from the CBMW site-gotta keep those things secret because the poor wounded women don’t understand the deeper spiritual truth in that.)

In fact, I have a question. What, precisely, do these comps not like about June Cleaver? She seems to reflect their points of view rather perfectly.

Finally, Kassian may have some other assumption that need to be discussed.

For example, at the Deconstructing Christian Images blog here in a post called “Ain’t I a Woman," a review of Kassian's Tru Woman 101 alleges that Kassian has some rather strange ideas about men and women.if these prove true, then I believe there is a problem with her "winsome trajectory."

  • Adam was created in the desert and placed in the Garden meaning he is strong and rugged and women were created in the garden meaning they are soft and need comfort and protection.
  • Adam named Eve and she accepted his instruction therefore women were meant to defer to men.
  • God instructed Adam prior to Eve’s appearance. He was supposed to clue Eve in which means that men are the ones who are to be the leaders.

I believe there is much more that needs to be understood about Mary Kassian’s ideas.  Her conclusions on this post are merely an outgrowth of some deeply held suppositions, some of which appear to be based in conjecture. Complementarianism for Dummies is just that- for dummies. It is simplistic and condescending.

Take for example this statement “Okay, now that we’ve cleared up some misconceptions and false terminology about complementarianism…” Who is this “we?” What makes her think that things have been cleared up? In fact, I am even more confused but perhaps I am one of those wounded, uppity women needing to be pitied. I wonder,  are we the dummies or is she?

Lydia's Corner: Genesis 16:1-18:15 Matthew 6:1-24 Psalm 7:1-17 Proverbs 2:1-5

 

 

Comments

Mary Kassian: June Cleaver and Dummy Complementarians — 240 Comments

  1. I really dislike the word “winsome”. I get a mental picture of someone talking while wearing a tight, insincere smile.

  2. Holy Cow…she milks a lot of meaning out of those verses in Genesis, I’ve never seen exegesis like this in my life. She’s drawing a lot of potentially unwarranted concusions from a timeline…

  3. Tina
    I do not like winsome as well, hence the quotes. It is my litmus test for attending a church. If the pastor uses it within two sermons, the church is off my list.

  4. 1. After a stint of only three years in the Reformed community, I have to come to hate the word “winsome” with a passion. It’s just obscure and archaic enough to sound sophisticated, and just meaningless enough to prevent thought.

    2. “Adam was created in the desert and placed in the Garden meaning he is strong and rugged and women were created in the garden meaning they are soft and need comfort and protection.”

    I was just talking about this goofy idea with my mom this morning. This is also in John Eldredge’s sappyfest Wild At Heart, which was the first place I ever heard it. I read the first chapter and couldn’t keep going.

    http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Heart-Discovering-Secret-Mans/dp/0785268839

  5. Also, as I try to feel out the many zones on the spectrum of comp-egal, I have come to the conclusion that CBMW can no longer be described as “soft comp” (if they ever were in the first place). Here’s just a few reasons:

    – John Piper’s assertion that women must submit to complete (male) strangers when giving them directions.
    – Mary Kassian (who I always knew was one of the more patriarchal contributors at CBMW, even when I self-described as comp) “suggests” that women consider not speaking in church (since they have 167 other hours during the week in which to talk)
    – Russell Moore prefers the word “patriarchy” over “complementarianism.”
    – Doug Wilson is being invited to John Piper’s conferences. ‘Nuff said there.

    There are others, but I can’t remember them right now. All of the above ideas are patriarchal nonsense, plain and simple. It befuddles me how CBMW ever managed to be held up as the poster organization for soft/moderate comp. If this is “soft,” what does “hard” look like?! As I’ve said here before, I’m on the fence, and I don’t have a problem with comps, but I DO have a problem with patriarchs who call themselves comps.

    So…I suppose my agenda at the moment is to 1) discover the REAL definition of “soft comp”; 2) find the dividing line is between “soft comp” and conservative egalitarianism; and 3) understand the differences between more conservative and more liberal egalitarians. Lots more reading to do.

  6. If the “sinful” or “evil” opposite of complementarianism/patriarchy appears ONLY as egalitarianism, as it seems to be here, I would be quite curious to find out whether Ms. Kassian or other Danvers group members have done any exposition on what happens when complementarianism/patriarchy itself goes awry – that is, if it ever does.

    I do understand that a single article cannot cover every issue. So, I would think that as part of their apologetics campaign to defend their view, someone from the Danvers group surely must have written something about theologies or cultures or religions that take patriarchy to an extreme, and described how that inevitably leads to the harming of women.

    What exactly does “unhealthy complementarianism” lead to? How does “malignant patriarchalism” (which is not the same as their mere, mild form of partriarchy in which the male is head of the family structure) relate to oppression of women and the resulting depression, domestic violence, and loss of the providential gifts of women in these theologies, cultures, and religions?

    Or are they just conjecturing egalitarianism as evil/sinful because it is their understanding of the theoretical opposite of complementarianism? That would seem intellectually honest, if they aren’t doing any relevant research.

    So, if anyone out there can crowd-source links to how complementarianists say their view (or direct distortions of patriarchy) can degenerate to the place that it causes sin/evil, please let me know. Otherwise, if there are no indicators in the academic work of Ms. Kassian and others from the Danvers Statement group about any ill-leaning forms of their own supposed biblical mandate of patriarchy, I’d suggest they need to.

  7. I find it striking how much amateur psychoanalysis seems to be practiced by a group of people who, as a general rule, deny the validity of psychoanalysis.

  8. @ That Bad Dog. Perhaps in such approaches, theology is so all encompassing that it automatically covers all other academic disciplines. Problem is, theology is thinking about the Bible and is not the Bible itself, but some seem to take Theology As Inspired/Inerrant, so whatever bad psychoanalytic-type thoughts get incorporated are right up there with “good” theological interpretation.

    It is odd, because it does represent a particular kind of internally-consistent logic, but not necessarily great critical thinking skills … But then, that is the trouble with paradigms – the way we process information affects everything else, including our theology, and we can’t see how polluted our theology can become because of the limits in our epistemology-learning styles-processing approaches.

  9. So glad you mentioned the false belief that egalitarian women are egalitarian because they’ve been wounded, and so glad that to see that I’m not the only one who sees it as subtly abusive. I feel as if I faced a lot of that manipulative stuff at my old church.

    Some women are, of course, egalitarian because they have been abused within a complementarian relationship of some kind, which has woken them up to the abuses complementarianism can facilitate. But when these women speak up they find they are confronted by the No True Complementarian fallacy.

    So these women are hurt by patriarchy, then speak out against patriarchy, only to be told ‘oh, but you’ve been WOUNDED so we can’t trust your reactions’. I think the term for that kind of abuse is ‘gaslighting’.

    CBMW are gaslighters.

  10. Semi-apologies for going all technical in my last comment, but I’ve been in an academic vein, working on the questions of why and how an underlying information processing style that is exceptionally black-and-white, either/or, this-or-that in approach seems to lead inevitably to both big gaps and big excesses in our faith and practice, and not being able to see them. I think this problem specifically helps explain why:

    * Hierarchy can go into extreme authoritarianism.

    * Complementarianism/patriarchy can go into extreme patriarchalism.

    * Legalism can go into “totalism” (the kind of all-or-nothing, rule-based thinking required in totalitarian “cults,” according to Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, who researched the criteria for identifying such “thought reform cults”).

    * Rationalism can go into philosophical (and theological) perfectionism.

    It’s kinda scary …

  11. @ Sophie. Ironic how advocates of such linear, hierarchical thinking can exhibit such circular reasoning when it suits their purposes … and minimizes/marginalizes anyone with an opposing view.

  12. brad/futuristguy –

    There’s no such thing as complementarianism gone awry. There is only complementarianism and sinfulness. That’s the stock answer.

    It drives me crazy that they put sinful egalitarianism as the opposite of godly complementarianism. The opposite of patriarchy is matriarchy. The opposite of complementarianism would be the belief that wives have the final decision-making responsibility and that men are not to be pastors or lead women. But that the God said the wives and female church leadership need to be really, really nice to the men and that God made men to like having women in charge of the home and church. They feel safer and more valued that way.

  13. “who has been molested by her grandfather, ignored by her father, sexually derided by her brother, slapped by her husband, and ridiculed by her male friends . . . reacts to the wounding by adopting a feminist and/or egalitarian philosophy which assures her of worth and value as a woman”

    That would explain why I’ve been an egalitarian since childhood after being raised by two loving and healthy grandfathers, an extremely invested Christian father, tons of affectionate uncles, fun boy cousins, a husband who is absolutely to die for, and a bunch of male friends who couldn’t make me prouder to be called their buddy. Oh, and that would explain why my husband, who isn’t female AND hasn’t been wounded by EITHER gender, is egalitarian.

  14. @ Dana. That’s the thing isn’t it? A purely “reductionistic” thinking style can only think in either/or terms. There is no shading or gradation in between. (Actually, I’m sure that complementarianism and egalitarianism are NOT the only possible ways to construct a theology of gender, but it sure seems that patriarchy certainly wants me to fit into only one or the other.)

    P.S. I appreciate your twisting their logic inside out to show how silly their system sounds when taken in that direction.

  15. Hester, you made an interesting comment:

    “understand the differences between more conservative and more liberal egalitarians”

    As someone who has delved deeply into egalitarianism, I’m wondering how you define liberal and conservative? Do you mean liberal just in the realm of their views on gender? People who embrace egalitarian ideas about gender can still run the gamut on whether they are liberal or conservative in general about other issues.

  16. It is very easy. Everything they believe is “biblical gospel truth” and any contrary position is sinful, even if not opposite, just different.

  17. I think the Comp for Dummies was a big mistake. It is very condescending.

    I’ve found time and time again when comps surf onto my site and read any of a number of posts I’ve written about egal/comp topics, they automatically assume that I’ve never been properly instructed as to what comp is. So they give me a very basic outline that highlights all the basic points about complementarianism. It always makes me laugh because I’ve spent literally hundreds of hours reading, writing, discussing, and praying about these topics.

    I honestly think the average comp thinks that anyone who isn’t a comp is either a bitter feminist who doesn’t submit to the Bible or else is someone who simply needs to be instructed in the basics of the doctrine. As someone said above, there is no middle ground and no comprehension that theologically conservative men and women take these issues seriously and end up questioning complementarianism on the strength of the biblical arguments.

    I had not heard MK’s unhealthy women embrace egalitarianism argument. That’s ironic since it was robust spiritual health and marrying a spiritually healthy man that led me away from comp to actually seriously consider egalitarianism.

  18. I haven’t even finished reading this post yet, but Mary Kassian’s comments one abused women turning to feminism are a heartless revictimisation of those who’ve been abused. I just do not get how she could say something so horribly insensitive to people who’ve been hurt so badly.

  19. One of the many things that drives me bonkers is this kind of blanket statement based on some imagined connection i.e. egalitarians must be wounded and responding to their wounded selves. Excuse me? They are the kinds of statements that are easily made, sound good to the people making and have no actual basis in fact. When I cross-examine witnesses, this is often a favorite topic because it can expose when someone is trying to put off as a true and objective fact something that is an unfounded and unsupported personal opinion. But I don’t think you’ll see Mary Kassian in the witness box any time soon. Her danger to women lies in the fact that many see her a someone who is knowledgeable via her Ph.D. and as someone who has authority because she speaks to large gatherings and has the Piper stamp of approval. Exposing her fallacious reasoning must be done loudly and often.

  20. I think one question I might ask is: What are the bases for your opinion that are not purely anectodal?

  21. @Brad I understand what you are saying. I don’t think they typically even realize what they are doing is an amateurish version of the psych fields they deny are valid. But there is a real difference between an exegetical or even a theological argument, and this kind of armchair psychology.

    One of the things that really bugged me about the recent Doug Wilson thing was that his original remarks, which were reproduced as some kind Gospel insight into the 50 Shade thing, were basically poor-quality Freudianisms. When his remarks were challenged, both he and his defenders argued that to disagree with him was to deny the word of God. But there was never any word of God involved.

    This happens over and over again – editorializing and psychologizing by patriarchs-comps is presented as if it were exegetical argument. Which it isn’t. Ever.

  22. I’ve actually been thinking a lot about comp marriages in our circle of friends and acquaintances. Every one of them includes a wife that I would consider to be opinionated, outspoken, and possessive of leadership qualities. It’s hard for me to believe these wives aren’t in charge or at least share the leadership of their marriages and homes. I wonder if the wives are in charge but pretend to the world they aren’t. Something else my husband and I have both noticed is that many of these men don’t seem very happy. In a couple of instances, the husbands seem heavily burdened. Maybe it’s the financial pressures because the wives don’t work so they can homeschool. ??

  23. Hypothetically, what if I, as the husband, tell the wife to submit to my headship when I tell her to be my equal and partner?

    Wouldn’t that dissolve Kassian’s whole approach?

  24. @ Sad Observer:

    That’s just it. I don’t know enough about the egal “spectrum” to be able to say, for certain, what is “liberal” or “conservative” within egalitarianism. When you grow up in the Christian homeschool community, ALL egalitarianism is painted as a monolithic, emotionally-driven, theologically bankrupt “liberal” movement. Of course, most people think this way: groups that they are outside of and don’t understand are always portrayed as monolithic (all members believing exactly the same things). So basically I’m just trying to get a handle on the finer points/nuances of the egalitarian position and where they may differ from person to person.

    For instance, earlier this week there was a lot of discussion going on here about who does and does not agree with Rachel Held-Evans and why. I gleaned from that discussion that RHE is on the more “liberal” end of egalitarianism (though precisely why that is I’m not quite sure yet), whereas an egal like Wade Burleson would probably fall on the more “conservative” end of the spectrum.

    I guess one of my starting points (I’m not referring to any egal writer in particular here) would have to do with the way they treat Scripture. Some egals seem very prone to writing seemingly everything off as cultural bias, whereas others engage in careful and detailed exegesis of the text. And yes, I know that some comps (usu. patriarchs) enthrone cultural biases and refuse to get rid of them even when they should be junked. That’s just as bad in the other direction.

  25. @ Cal:

    Awesome. Is that like tying toast (which always lands butter side down) butter side up to the back of a cat (which always lands on its feet)?

  26. Hester,

    Concerning your agenda: “1) discover the REAL definition of “soft comp”; 2) find the dividing line is between “soft comp” and conservative egalitarianism; and 3) understand the differences between more conservative and more liberal egalitarians. Lots more reading to do.”

    Yes, lots of reading which will enable you to dialogue.

    But that’s about it.

    “Complementarisnism” is an invention: an invented system of do’s and don’t’s, shoulds and shouldn’ts, so-called virtuous acts and dreamed-up sins. It’s not real.

    But it gives professional christians something to do. Something to talk about, write about, meet about, manage people about. Something to make oodles of money over, as well as spend oodles of money on.

    An entire industry! Wow!

    So, study of it could be interesting and would equip you to join conversations.

    But over something that has as much substance as a flat earth.

    Spare yourself the expense of time, effort, mind-twisting, and being antagonized by obnoxious people. The only truth to be found on this subject is for people to treat each other the way they want to be treated.

  27. Herr Doktor Goebbels did a fantastic job of educating the dummies in 1930s Germany on the differences between Aryan and non-Aryan skulls too. All backed up of course by indisputable measurement data. Whether it’s reams & reams of caliper data or mined Holy Writ, one can manufacture just about anything one wants to.

  28. I think Kassian should quit writing in a blog format, or anything online, as a MAN might stumble upon it and LEARN from HER, a woman. She should go home and knit, clean her house, and give up her academic career…maybe have a baby late in life if it is still possible since patriarchs typically shun birth control, of course breasfeed if she DID have another child, and that typically takes up most of your time so you can’t go around instructing anyone………..and then practice what she’s preaching…but of course, then she would be QUIET.

  29. Wendy,

    “…many of these men don’t seem very happy. In a couple of instances, the husbands seem heavily burdened.”

    I suspect these husbands are indeed heavily burdened — by a moral & godly requirement that is impossible for them to fulfill. Peer acceptance that is conditional on how well they can pretend.

    I’m exhausted already!

    It is impossible to aspire to the (fake) godly ideal of husbandly leadership when you are married to a woman who is opinionated, outspoken, and gifted in leadership. The only way they can succeed is if their partner diminishes, shrinks, and fades. They probably know deep down inside, if not right at the surface, how unfair, silly, and relationally destructive that would be. They are caught, in a requirement that is impossible and as it turns out pretty dumb. To further complicate this, they are told and perhaps believe themselves that God means for it to be this way.

    A heavy burden, indeed. (so dang ridiculous)

  30. Hester,

    Ooookay, gotcha. I didn’t realize what your background was or where you were coming from, so I understand your question better now. Thanks!

    I heard the discussion about RHE. I think (though I can’t say for sure) she is considered liberal egal more so because she also leans liberal on a lot of other political and religious issues. Many egals lean conservative on most other things. It just depends on the individual.

    I encourage people to check out Christians for Biblical Equality. They are a group that presents basic egalitarian info while still holding fairly conservative views on a lot of other issues, so people who are uncomfortable with Evans might identify more with CBE.

    Yes, there are some egalitarians who want to write everything off as cultural. Then, however, there are many egalitarians who genuinely and prayerfully have come to the conclusion that the troubling verses make more exegetical sense if they are read through a cultural lens. Then there are egalitarians who don’t see them as cultural at all. I personally characterize the first in that list as more liberal and the second and third as leaning more conservative, but I’m no expert.

    There are also some who believe in full female leadership in the church but do believe that the husband has a unique role in the marriage, although I doubt you’d see any of them measuring up to Mary Kassian’s standards.

  31. Well, she is right about “egalitarian philosophy” assuring some of us wounded women of our worth and value. Mary says that like it’s a bad thing. God is enlightening and actually bringing healing through wonderful blogs like this one – through egalitarian teachers. Why would I not embrace this great gift of God?

  32. Oasis, I thought of this too! It’s like saying that beaten slaves can’t be trusted to give an accurate view of how good freedom is because their masters just weren’t nice enough.

  33. I’ve never seen exegesis like this in my life.

    It’s called eisegesis. At least in polite company.

  34. sad observer – “It’s like saying that beaten slaves can’t be trusted to give an accurate view of how good freedom is because their masters just weren’t nice enough.”

    Scary thing is, I’ve read comments that made this exact argument over Doug Wilson’s ‘conquering and colonising’ language. The person repeatedly said that the women who found the language hurtful were being to driven by emotions and so shouldn’t be participating in the conversation over whether or not that language was appropriate. It was enough to make you want to hit your head into a wall.

  35. I find her assumptions most amusing…
    since my experience is nearly the polar opposite!

    “Kassian says she only had “good men” in her life.”
    I have been hurt by many wounded men in my life

    “Kassian contends that a woman “who has been molested by her grandfather, ignored by her father, sexually derided by her brother, slapped by her husband, and ridiculed by her male friends . . . reacts to the wounding by adopting a feminist and/or egalitarian philosophy which assures her of worth and value as a woman.”
    Being molested by [blood relatives who are supposed to “protect”me] broke my boundaries and turned me into a sitting duck for patriarchal teachings where a wife MUST be submissive IN EVERYTHING (or violate their understanding of Eph 5:24 and be branded “rebellious”).

    Kassian says such women “must be “healed” to get complementarianism.”
    “Kassian continues in the mindset of the psychotherapist, saying that the woman “needs healing of her pain before she is able to respond to truth.”
    She restates her position. “Most feminists will not be persuaded by theological finesse or expertise. Theirs is a wounding of the heart and their minds and will only be set aright as their hearts are healed.”

    God healed me by revealing to me the “height and depth and length and breadth” of His love and the fact that He values my voice and my heart. He does NOT expect me to “shut-up and get back in your place” as quiet submissive second class household help and sex slave.

  36. What, precisely, do these comps not like about June Cleaver? She seems to reflect their points of view rather perfectly.-dee

    In this day and age, comp men need to keep their options open. They might want her out bringing home bacon. In my circles, I’ve heard comp moms who WANTED to be a SAHM but hubby had expensive tastes and wanted the kid in daycare at 6 weeks old. She is -of course- obligated to submit to his final decision in the matter.

  37. Funny thing you know, it was only after I embraced egalitarianism, and became convinced that it was a more accurate exegesis, that I discovered how wounded I was. When I thought that was how I was supposed to be treated in various contexts, I thought that my unhappiness was sinful rebellion, and I tried harder and harder to squash myself to conform to the church’s expectations. then chance reading opened the door to other possibilities, and I began to explore the issue, in order to maximise my obedience to God. It was only after i learned that this ultra-passive role was not who God had created me to be, that I found out how much I had been short-changed. Then there was real grieving to be done. MK has it back to front and inside out.

    Besides, i just don’t get the logic that if you’ve been abused by somebody, that makes your opinion invalid. That takes blame the victim to a whole new level. Isn’t it the abuser, and those who enable abuse, whose opinions should therefore count less?

  38. Wendy,

    Interesting observation, I actually have observed the opposite, in comp. marriages the wives gripe about their husbands endlessly. He spends all our money on this, he can’t manage his time like he should, I wish he was the spiritual leader – i.e. I wish he did x, y, and z and it is rarely a spiritual thing they wish he would be a spiritual leader over. I just shake my head. In the non-focused-on-comp-churches I went to, where women did all sorts of things with their lives – including homeschooling, but they were more hippy, free-style than strict comps. – I never heard anyone complain about their spouses – well, I did once, but she ended up divorced and he has some mental issues, but, really? The husband is supposed to be some genie that grants wishes to his wife by reading her mind? and then, if he doesn’t/won’t she can’t say “no” we aren’t overspending or “well, then, I will go out to work and you can look after the kids” – and some of these wives have degrees and could make more than their spouses if they reversed who did what. But then, that is all so foreign to them that I think it would overthrow their marriages, because these marriages aren’t really built on true love and sacrifice, but on assigned roles and perceptions of what it should be.

  39. Good comments, everyone.

    Oh, I get so tired of the arguments that say ‘you just don’t understand complementarianism, that’s why you disagree’ or ‘you’ve been hurt and that clouds your judgment’. Similarly, women who voice opinions are often deemed shrill and emotional. These are ad hominem attacks that are meant shut down dialogue.

    The twisted semantics this crowd engages in is astounding. If complementarianism is NOT all the things MK listed, then what does it actually look like? And if, in practice, it looks like egalitarianism, why hold onto the complementarian label? Furthermore, if it looks like egalitarianism in practice but is ideologically grounded in the tenets of inequality and hierarchy, then this is still a very patronising view of women.

    This paradox came up at my last church. The pastor said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that a man could be a lazy slob, watching tv and never helping in the house, but if he asked (instructed) his wife to bring him food and vacuum the floor, as a good complementarian she had to joyfully comply. But, he said, the husband here would be his taking advantage of his position and authority. It would be something an immature man might do, but not a mature Christian.

    The pastor couldn’t see how his qualifier didn’t change the fact that in his view of gender relations, the husband would be entirely sanctioned to behave this way. It doesn’t matter if the man is immature or mature, because if he has authority, he is ALLOWED to behave this way.

    You can’t say that these practices are simply abuses of complementarianism. They are what happens when complementarianism is taken to its full manifestation.

  40. Stepford complementarianism?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf02wZ_Okw8

    From 1:23 onwards –

    Joanna: Bobbie! Bobbie… this isn’t you…
    Bobbie: That’s right, Joanna! This isn’t me, it’s a whole new me. I’m happy, and I’m healthy, because I understand what’s important in life.
    Joanna: Yes, your new book!
    Bobbie: That’s right! That’s what’s important, my new cookbook. And my husband, and my family, and making a perfect home. It’s a lesson every gal needs to learn, especially you. I’m your friend, Joanna, I’m going to help you. You need me.
    Joanna: You stay away from me!
    Bobbie: You are driven.
    Joanna: Well, sometimes…
    Bobbie: And you’re selfish! You wanna rule the world! I can fix you. I can change you.

  41. “…as a good complementarian she had to joyfully comply”

    I can’t stand all the ‘joyfully’, ‘intelligently’ stuff. ‘Yes, you HAVE to do whatever your husband says. But look, you can be joyful and intelligent while doing it! Doesn’t that seem like a nice thing, now that I’ve included the words ‘joy’ and ‘intelligence’? Sure it does!’.

    If I intelligently submit to something, that means I’ve thought through the issues involved in the submission and reched the conclusion that I will submit. But complementarianism commands submission for no other reason than you happen to female. You HAVE to submit. And if you always have to reach the same conclusion, there is no need to think things through. Where’s the intelligence in that?

    I know the idea of ‘joyful’ submission is just window-dressing to make submission sound more appealing, but as far as I’m concerned, the whole ‘joyful’ thing is just another burden. You aren’t even allowed to feel begrudging or angry while you practice the submission that you feel bound to comply with because of your gender; now you apparently have to be HAPPY about it, too.

  42. @ Sad Observer:

    Yes, so far I am liking CBE. They seem pretty exegetically responsible. There’s a huge part of me that has wished egal was correct since I was about eight, and I’ve recently come across a mountain of evidence (like I said) that “soft” comp was actually hard comp/patriarchy in disguise. Maybe my 8-year-old self was right. But of course, wishing egal was correct means I’m a wicked feminist with a rebellious and unteachable spirit, right? ; ) I guess I’ll be doomed to spinsterhood because I have an opinion of my own.

  43. On the Bible and its interpretation I am conservative. I think we should go to the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT, take the words as they would have been understood in the time of the original writing (and understanding that the OT was mostly written during the Babylonian exile!), place that into its cultural context of the time, and then exegete it as it would have been exegeted by educated religious people of that time, as in the people of the churches to whom the material was originally sent.

    When one does that, most of the passages that comps say support comp, do not do that. One has to twist the language from the original understanding to get support for comp. An example is the whole “head” as “boss” thing. IT ISN’T IN THE NT!!! And the head covering thing is plumb ridiculous. The writer who said that circumcision was unimportant imposing head covering!!??!!! Rather, I believe it makes sense that Paul was poking a bit of fun at the church by pointing out the outlandish consequence of their dispute, just as he did over speaking in tongues, saying that love is more important that speaking in tongues, even if one spoke in the language of the angels.

    Just as the religious leaders in the South twisted scripture to support the continuation of slavery in all its manifestations in the US, so comps are twisting the scripture to subjugate women.

    As a male, I have been egalitarian on racial issues for 55 years, on gender issues for 50 or so, and on other peoples’ gender preferences for 35 or more, as long as they do not seek to deny me the right to make my own choices (and I am happily and faithfully married for more than 30 years to a woman God brought into my life through a low probability set of circumstances only He could cause to occur).

    I believe there is support for all of the above in the Bible. We are to love the unloveliest, encourage those who are downfallen, bind up the wounded, and expose the love that God, in Christ, has extended to us through Jesus. I do not believe that comp does that.

  44. Hester, there are more egal men out there than you might think. And praying that God will bring a godly man into your life, while going about the business of being His servant, may help. My wife never planned on marriage. But she came to a Sunday School class for single adults, stole my heart, and within a month we were engaged.

    Keep in mind that, if you are egal, you have as much place to initiate a conversation about life and love as does the man of your dreams. Just don’t act like the whiny and needy woman the comps say egal women are.

  45. The other thing I find odd about the ‘egalitarians/feminists are just reacting to (real or perceived) hurt’ line is that fact that the sole area – of my life at least – that consistently reduces or questions womens’ and girls’ abilities and ‘roles’ in life is Christian circles. Family, school, friends, all instilled a sense of value, intelligence and achievement – heck, part of my high school’s mission statement was about creating ‘independently-minded young ladies’. I’m a feminist not because I think people have tried to hold me back, but because they encouraged me to believe in my own self-worth, because I was never told that being female made me in any way less value or less able than males. Kassian has it completely the wrong way around.

  46. Charis
    You are exactly right there are men who expect a woman to get out and work when the woman just wants to stay at home with her children. I am a homeschool mom that does not take on an complementarian view. I think it is important to note: that not all moms who are HS and SAHM are all of comp. mindset. In fact homeschooling has grown so much it has become more of an accepted way of schooling for both believers and unbelievers alike. I HS because I don’t care for the public school system today, but my husband never pushed me into that direction. Don’t mean to keep bringing this HS issue in but we cant assume that they are comp.
    My husband and I thankfully never bought into these comp. views. I mean we did have our issues with control, but I was part of that as well. We also cannot forget that women can also get controlling and we have to watch that as well. I think what did it for me or put it another way how the Lord dealt with me is to not have expectations; my husband also learned not to as well. When we left our problems in the
    Lords hands He taught us to start respecting each other. Sometimes I
    give in where his gifts are stronger and sometimes he gives in where I am gifted; sometimes we are just in sync. Sometimes we just get in an argument then end up having to ask forgiveness. It is a matter of respect and sacrifice to each other; not a competition on who is in charge.

    I hate these views by neo- Calvinists because they miss the ingredient that creates beautiful and successful marriages; they replace what God created with their own versions, their own false teachings. The ingredient is Jesus Christ and His love. We never saw in the NT a shunning of women as a lesser individual; we see the precious relationship of Jesus with women, such as Mary, Martha and Mary, the Samaritan woman, Mary Magdeline, the woman who touched Jesus ‘ garment and so on. In fact, Christ made it a point to emphasize His love for women.

  47. Am I buying into the comp mindset when I say that men have some gifts that women do not, and that women have some gifts that men do not, and that God did make them to “complement” each other?

    By saying that, I don’t think I mean that man is superior to woman, nor that woman is superior to man, but I do think that God meant us to “complement”–help make complete–each other.

    The way that certain people twist that, however, IS reprehensible.

  48. Oasis

    I believe that God created all of us with unique gifts and talents. In all realtionships, be it with the church or others, we need to recognize and listen to the words of others. The church suffers when people are marginalized because of their gender. In fact, something occurred last evening that affected me greatly. I plan to write about it in the next couple of days. if only a church had listened to me years ago. Instead they now must endure embarrassment because they did not. 

    We also do this with positions as well as gender. Pastors are supposed to be obeyed and the congregations are to shut and obey.Many people do not understand that pastors, just like all of us, are capable of sin. When it is exposed, the followers cannot understand it. They, as well as their pastor,  do not understand the Bible which is a narrative of a fallen people and a loving Father. Sometimes, the preachers take on the role of the “Father” and in so doing, screw up everything.

  49. YOU GO GIRLS!!!!!!

    This all needs to be examined and discussed with some intelligence. I was going to add “winsomeness” since I personally love that word, but decided against it!!!!! 😉 Perhaps I will choose “graciousness” instead since that is how Jesus’ words were described!

    Thanks for this……

  50. JJ

    I contend that “theologically comp, functionally egalitarian” is silly. They are attempting to have it both ways. Deep down inside, most of these guys are actually a bit uncomfortable with their beliefs and are attempting, in a schizophrenic way, to pretend they are really nice guys and would never, ever act like a comp described by a John Piper. (Do not upset your husbands by giving them directions, ladies).

  51. “I think we should go to the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT, take the words as they would have been understood in the time of the original writing (and understanding that the OT was mostly written during the Babylonian exile!), place that into its cultural context of the time, and then exegete it as it would have been exegeted by educated religious people of that time, as in the people of the churches to whom the material was originally sent.”

    this is the mindset I was trying to describe earlier! Thanks!

  52. Tina,

    “Am I buying into the comp mindset when I say that men have some gifts that women do not, and that women have some gifts that men do not, and that God did make them to “complement” each other?”

    Well, just in my own opinion, I don’t think that necessarily means a comp viewpoint. Egalitarians run the gamut on how much they believe men and women are different by nature. I believe BOTH ends of that spectrum can be legit egalitarian.

    I think you can tell comp thinking by several distinctions.

    1). It tries to make role *behaviors* that are ENFORCED by those assumed differences. For example, let’s say that someone believes women are more nurturing by nature. A comp might come along and say, “See? That proves that she should not work after her kids are born, because the presence of nurturing means she must use it at all times in XYZ way.” He’s taken a general observation and turned it into a rule.

    2). Their claim of which gifts belong to which gender is extensive and exclusive. They will give pretty long lists of which trait are masculine and which feminine, and have trouble admitting that many women and men don’t fit many of the things on that list.

    3). Their claim of which gifts belong to which gender is not in harmony with scripture (though they claim it is), but is instead calculated to “fit” their idea of role behaviors. For instance, many comps claim that all men have (or should have) leadership in ways that all women don’t/shouldn’t. Well, that’s a pretty strong statement, and one that is never found in the Bible. Further, it contradicts many times in the Bible where women exercise leadership and are pleasing to God while doing so. But to a complementarian, admitting that some women are gifted for leadership undermines their idea of which role each gender should fulfill.

    That’s my thoughts, anyway.

  53. I live in the Bible Belt, in the land of SBC churches, including a few well-known SBC megachurches. We were once entrenched in this landscape. In fact, I taught high school courses in a very large homeschool program for a couple of years.

    In this area, there are a few non-churched “hippy” homeschoolers and maybe a few egal homeschoolers (whom I much prefer) 🙂 – but they are few and far between. One of my best childhood friends, a woman I’ve known all of my life with whom I shared a college dorm room and with whom I’ve celebrated every major life milestone, began to change several years ago. I’ve seen another close friend become more and more rigid and dogmatic in her beliefs. Both homeschool, both have become neo-Calvinists, both are Tea Party Republicans who will FIGHT you if you dare to state different opinions on ANY of these education, doctrinal, or political belief systems. In fact, they all but say you’re not truly a Christian if you don’t homeschool and vote and believe they way they do. I am almost certain they don’t believe that my husband and I are truly the “elect”. And they’re not the only ones I know – there are loads of them here. It’s so depressing. I am still grieving the loss of these friends and family members who once had a vibrant faith and who once loved and accepted those who didn’t necessarily hold all of their views.

    In my neck of the woods, the perceptions about the link between homeschoolers and comps are valid.

  54. That’s funny; she’s cut off comments.

    I left one there four days ago.
    She flat out ignored a well written out question about the relationship between husband/wife and slave/master by someone named Heather.
    My comment still sits in moderation.
    I said that it seemed there was no conversation going on. Just pat answers to the questions she wanted to answer….no response to the hard ones.

  55. “Am I buying into the comp mindset when I say that men have some gifts that women do not, and that women have some gifts that men do not, and that God did make them to “complement” each other?”

    That’s a good question and I think about it quite a lot.

    My view is that you can believe women are one way and men are another and still believe in mutual submission, which is what makes a person ‘egalitarian’.

    I don’t think men and women are the same; I think men have male biology and chemistry, and females have female biology and chemistry. Or to put it another way, to my mind the difference is genitalia and hormones. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a big enough difference to fit the verses in Genesis that describe God creating them ‘male and female’ and thinking it was good. To many complementarians, that would mean I consider men and women to be the same. But that’s quite obviously not what I think. It’s just that I don’t understand the need to build complicated definitions of gender and sex around the one straightforward difference.

  56. I’ve seen another close friend become more and more rigid and dogmatic in her beliefs. Both homeschool, both have become neo-Calvinists, both are Tea Party Republicans who will FIGHT you if you dare to state different opinions on ANY of these education, doctrinal, or political belief systems. — Wendy

    Purity of Ideology, just like classic Communists.

    “Ees Party Line, Comrade!”

    In fact, they all but say you’re not truly a Christian if you don’t homeschool and vote and believe they way they do. I am almost certain they don’t believe that my husband and I are truly the “elect”. — Wendy

    “TRAITOR! THOUGHT-CRIMINAL! REACTIONARY CAPITALIST BOURGEOISIE! GOLDSTEINIST!”

  57. I used to be in the patriarchy crowd. Then I switched to “complementarian.” You see, I thought complementarian meant taking the talents and gifts from each partner and using them to better the marriage and our family. Then I found out that there really is no complementing going on in complementarian thought, it is only hierarchy.

    They need to just call it what it is. Their inability to say what they believe is turning people off. I know it did for me.

  58. IMO, hyper-patriarchy and radical pro-abortion feminism are two sides of the same coin, both rooted in feminine self hatred and self rejection.

    With 2/5ths of girls experiencing some form of sexual abuse and 50% of Christian men having looked at porn recently (from Christianity Today) being born female becomes a huge vulnerability and liability.

    Rad-fems attempt to obliterate their femininity and do violence to their maternal instinct by insisting upon their “freedom” to remove their own unborn child.

    On the other side of the coin, childhood sexual abuse set me up to be be a voiceless, uber-submissive wife. To be born female was to be born fundamentally weak and inferior. The Christian world was filled with messages that left me feeling like God really didn’t think much of women (after all, they cannot be trusted with ANY leadership or authority)! So I got on the QF hamster wheel of trying to win God’s approval and find some shred of value and worth in being born female by being uber-submissive homeschooling QF wife and mother.

    While I appreciate CBE’s efforts, to me they seem more focused on breaking the “glass ceiling” for women in the church job market. Where is a SAHP to go for support and understanding?

  59. No More Perfect

    You get it! That is why Russell Moore’s statement about not liking the word comp and liking the word patriarchy is so important. There is no functional difference. I think some of the men like th eword because it gives some men who have not done so well in this life, a way to pretend that they are very, very important. The image it brings worth is some guy struitting around with a fancy cloak, a staff and a crown on his head, telling the servants what to do. 

    They don’t say what they mean because they know that there will be an outcry so they try to couch it in “acceptable” terms. 

  60. Yeh Wendy you will find that, but I live in the heart of the Bible belt. (Nashville Tn) and find that this is not always so. My sister goes to a big homeschool group that is quite free of those stereotypes. What you experience in your life is not always what goes on in others. And to stereotype all Tea Party people as this one certain group is not always true either. People in the Tea Party are a mix of parties who just do not want our freedoms to be taken away-you may not agree; I have listened to those who are a part of the Tea Party who don’t even call themselves Christians.
    Also, we need to have grace even for those who are caught up this mindset of complementarian views; I was there once until I started maturing in the Lord (still got a long way to go…..actually my lifetime). As Christians when we react to those who are in this abuse we need approach them encouraging them to start looking to the Lord instead of man and loving them despite the beliefs.

  61. Charis (by the way that is a beautiful name :))
    I see exactly what you saying – in fact we live in such a confused country right now where their all kinds of dysfunctions.
    I find it amazing that Jesus came to destroy that curse that was placed on mankind- there are no reasons for control on anyone! I feel the reason many stories in the NT are about women is because Jesus was making a statement about how women were to be treated. Before Christ., women were looked upon as a part/reason for the curse; these are the effects of the curse. Christ broke the curse. We see in Scripture Jesus did the unthinkable in this culture- he associated with women. He slept at their homes; he met with a Samaritan who was an adulterer; he let a women wash his feet with her hair; he stood up for adulterous women; and dome women followed him from town to town. No wonder they hated Jesus; he broke the rules by their standards.

  62. Note to Mrs Kassian:

    Driscoll’s wife was sexually abused in childhood (autobiographical testimony)

    Cindy Schaap was raised in Jack Hyles household where sexual exploitation of women was rampant (eyewitness acct Linda Hyles)

    I was a childhood victim which blinded me to HUGE red flags with my own husband.

    Grace Driscoll, Cindy Schaap, and I all thought (or still think 🙁 ) that we are obliged to to “submit in EVERYTHING” Eph 5:24

    Do you see a different pattern than what you proposed?

  63. Faith,

    Please read my comment again. I don’t believe I stereotyped all Tea Party people. I was telling the story of some dear friends who are part of a VERY popular mindset/movement in my area – homeschool (or Christian school), Tea Party, neo-Calvinism. And I believe I stressed over and over that this is what I’ve been seeing for years in MY neck of the woods. Clearly, not all Tea Partiers are Christian. Look at the gurus of the Tea Party that many Christians are looking to….

    It’s great that you’re seeing something different in Nashville. I grew up in Western NC, moved to VA for grad school, then came right back. I’ve been observing what’s happening here for a long time.

    As far as loving them and pointing them back to Jesus, it’s hard to do when they reject you. My brother, a SEBTS-trained, neo-Calvinist SBC pastor has little to nothing to do with us and his family of origin any longer. Some of my friends, including the previous ones to whom I was close, avoid those of us who don’t toe the party line any longer. It isn’t for lack of trying on my part. In fact, this has been a major source of grief and hurt for me.

  64. I just want to say one more thing to be clear – many of the folks about whom I’m speaking were VERY close friends and family members. The SEBTS-trained, neo-Calvinist SBC pastor brother of mine: He is 11 years younger than me, and I wasn’t just his big sister – I helped raise him. I’m not stereotyping them all, just pointing out the mindset/movement/trend that I have seen up close and personal for many years here. I taught in the largest homeschool program in this area. I’ve been close friends with these folks – some of them since childhood. I have extended grace over and over, but I guess we non-elect aren’t worth it.

  65. HUG,

    Purity of Ideology, just like classic Communists.

    Yes. It actually scares me how rabid they are. Mostly, it makes me sad because of the rejection and the blatant ways they judge those of us who don’t believe as they do.

  66. No I understand Wendy the hurt, not in the way you have but in the way that we as a family never fit in. So it was more of when we spoke up in certain churches we were not “really” a part of the church. We became very lonely and felt isolated. Especially when I spoke up as a woman I was not heard. They were not mean per say, but I knew I was ignored. Especially when I talked about the Holy Spirit. So anyway, I am not trying to get on to you. I am just saying many people are at different points in their life and walk a wrong direction and some never get back because they refuse to see their own sin. Some will, however, because the Lord Jesus matures us will see the truth and start making that journey back home. For me I just stopped thinking about the people who hurt me and started looking at me and my own responsibility to the Lord. It was freeing to be set free from expectations on me and my expectations on others. Right now we don’t have a “church” but have it home; it has been the best thing, but for others it may not be.
    Wendy I do not want to come across that I am not sensitive to what any of you guys have gone through, so forgive me if I do. 🙂

  67. @ Wendy:

    “My brother, a SEBTS-trained, neo-Calvinist SBC pastor has little to nothing to do with us and his family of origin any longer. Some of my friends, including the previous ones to whom I was close, avoid those of us who don’t toe the party line any longer.”

    This is what worries me about these groups. Avoiding those who don’t agree with you on ultrafine points of doctrine to this extent is classic cult behavior. My mom grew up across the street from a family whose daughter lived in a communal cult, and when they tried to bring her baby clothes, she handed them back over the gate and said they were the “work of the devil.”

  68. Faith,

    I have corresponded with Wendy through email. She has provided Dee and me with more details about her hurts, and I can assure you that they are very deep. I appreciate your conciliatory comment.

    My family toured the Holocaust Museum on Saturday and while I am in no way comparing the Neo-Calvinist crowd to the Nazis, it was scary to realize the similarities of techniques. I will be writing a post about what I learned soon. We MUST always be on guard about MIND CONTROL!

  69. So sorry to you Wendy, I would try looking beyond “Christians” or Evangelical Christians for a community. You’d be surprised by some of the wonderful people beyond the church’s walls. Some may be leaving for the same reasons you are.

  70. Yes I understand Deb. Sometimes when we write on blogs the way we are in person is not as reflected on a blog. I can say this to Wendy if she met me in person I would give her a great smile and a hug. 🙂

  71. Oh yes we have to be aware of mind control. I remember something on the blog of That mom (who I guess frequents this blog – right?) ; when she did an interview with Cindy Kunsman. I think she said (paraphrased) that once we know the truth it is very difficult for those who want to control to do so again.

    Thanks Cindy Kunsman, for that stuck with me.

    Even though the hurt is there something else blossoms when we know truth- that is wisdom and discernment. Take heart with that.

  72. So, Mrs. Kassian believes that the only reason you wouldn’t agree with her is because you were hurt/abused? So, isn’t that saying that if you have been affected by the falleness of this world you will not truly understand them? That is odd since all of us are damaged by the falleness of this world. This sounds like the Pharisees! Remember the Pharisee saying “Thank you God that I am not like that man!?” In that parable who went away justified? In there comp. paradigm I have yet to see anything about Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins (male or female) I know these groups are sin focused but it isn’t a focus on the God who took on flesh to atone for those sins. It is some project to see who can get the most holy the quickest. How sad!

  73. Faith,

    Thanks for your comments. We (Dee and I together with our commenters) are getting the word out about a crowd that strives to CONTROL information. I pray many of our brothers ans sisters in Christ are paying attention. It is mind-boggling how the Neo-Cals control the flow of information. Not many allow comments on the Internet, for example. Why?

  74. Charis makes good points about both sides of the debate, including the fringes. I knew a couple where the wife worked in a bank or something until she decided in middle age to be a feminist and change jobs to being a social worker. She took it all very seriously, used to have feminist lit on her shelves, etc. Her husband was quite a laid-back guy and I don’t think he ever did anything to harm her. Over the years I saw them drift apart, but she blamed him for the break-up which struck me as bizarre as she had been the one going off on her own for holidays, etc. At one point she was almost a parody of that type of person, in my opinion.

    Re Wendy’s sad story about family ties being loosened, I think that is tragic and in a way a poor witness to the Gospel when people behave like that. I think rather it is the sinful human nature at work, or maybe what Paul calls “party spirit” in Galatians? There was a documentary on British TV a while ago about two brothers, one of whom had become a very radical Muslim (they were white Brits which made it unusual). The non-Muslim brother was quite bewildered at the change in his brother, who on meeting him apparently went off on a rant about “unbelievers” and spent most of the time haranguing him. Last month the convert was arrested as a suspected terrorist.

  75. these marriages aren’t really built on true love and sacrifice, but on assigned roles and perceptions of what it should be.

    +1.

    So true!

  76. All of us are to be complementary in the sense of using our strengths and capabilities in concert with others in the church to build up the body of Christ, and in marriage, to also build up each other and the family. But relatively few strengths are gender-determined, which is the comp fallacy.

    In my home, either or both of us do a good job shopping, cooking, cleaning, taking care of children (I could not nurse them, but once they were on the bottle, that was my assignment if I were home), disciplining children (gentle, discussion and time out oriented), bookkeeping and pay bills. My spouse is a great gardener but has me dig the holes for larger plants. When we move dirt, I push the wheelbarrow and she tells me where to dump it. She removes old plasterboard and I put up the new, etc. She has a great capacity to quickly get to know people and remember every detail she learns about them; it takes me ten or fifteen encounters to get name and face linked, but I have better understanding of the hidden motives (psychology graduate degree). She has a better understanding of a lot of scripture than any preacher I have ever heard, seeing things in the text that clearly are there, but seem to get missed. (Like how did the royal official in John 4:43ff know that Jesus could heal his child — because some of the staff that filled the vessels with water that became wine at the wedding must have told people about the miracle only they and the disciples knew about; thus, they shared the good news!), whereas I am expert at church organization and structure, bylaws, non-profit status, etc. I do taxes, she does decor, ad infinitum.

    Ours is a completely egalitarian marriage. I would not have it any other way. I never wanted someone who could not function on her own were I to be ill or go to the ultimate reward.

    BTW, when women can be preachers in evangelical and SBC churches, all of the other patriachy BS will be on its way to oblivion. It is not the only place to be egalitarian, but it will likely be the last bastion of the patriarchalists, from which they will push this nonsense to day before they meet their maker and learn the truth!

  77. Faith,

    “I think she said (paraphrased) that once we know the truth it is very difficult for those who want to control to do so again.”

    So true. And if you can rebuild your trust after you’ve been burned by the truth, then you have the best of both worlds – the ability to trust and experience community, but the wisdom never to be manipulated again. It’s the rebuilding trust part that’s hard for many of us, I think.

  78. Kolya – I saw that documentary. Didn’t know the brother had been arrested though! Not surprised in the least. The memory that stands out to me from that programme is the Muslim fanatic brother explaining that playing or watching football is supposedly ‘haram’ because Muhammad never did it – yet as he explained that, he was sitting there tapping away on the internet! Seems like hypocrisy come in all stripes.

  79. @ Deb 3:47 pm. You commented about information control, and that is a classic feature of a sociological “cult,” as defined and described over 50 years ago by Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, in *Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China.* I thought I’d offer a blog quote that ties in with what you’ve suggesting.

    The following quotation is relatively dense, but it’s not exactly easy to simplify this material. I have edited it slightly because the introduction is missing here. Anyway, this clip comes from my summary of Dr. Lifton’s research findings about “Milieu Control” (limiting of communications). This is one of his eight criteria for identifying authoritarian “cults” that seek to enforce “totalism” (i.e., comprehensive control over its members’ worldview – both beliefs and behaviors).

    I tried to capture not just the “what” of the dynamics involved in restricting communications and limiting it to whatever supports the officially sanctioned worldview, but also the “so what” of how it affects the people who follow it. Some rather frightening probabilities in terms of lack of, or loss of, critical thinking skills.

    [P.S. By posting this, I’m NOT saying that all complementarians are this way. However, I do believe “milieu control” represents the logical conclusion of the kind of black-and-white mindset that undergirds “patriarchalism” and “authoritarianism” and “perfectionism” and other excessive forms of polarized thinking. We find a lot of this in the larger Neo-Reformed/Neo-Puritan movement and its host networks. They make their “milieu control” obvious by their actions, such as not allowing comments on their blogs, or deleting blog comments that oppose their views, or requiring staff to sign non-disclosure agreements and parishioners to sign waivers of confidentiality in their membership covenants.]

    Okay, so here’s the clip, and the link to a three-part series it was taken from is at the end.

    1. Milieu Control [Communications]

    “Milieu” is the cultural context in which something exists or in which an action occurs. In talking about totalistic systems, “milieu control” relates with how the social surroundings are manipulated to limit independent thought and promote “groupthink” (ideological conformity).

    Milieu control involves restricting the kinds of communication modes that are allowed (by promoting propaganda) and not allowed (by imposing censorship). This is designed to “save” people from having the trouble of figuring out for themselves the right way (which the leaders or the Party already have worked out); all the regular people have to do is adopt the truths of the ideology and follow the leaders.

    Typically, any disallowed forms of communication, like questions or criticism, are punished. This often occurs publicly, through a variety of means, such as verbal berating, hazing, and even imprisonment. When people know that such punishment is unavoidable, it serves to extinguish wrong beliefs and behaviors. It also reinforces for everyone the importance of adhering to the rules about what one can/cannot say.

    Also, the leaders enact the appearance of “social omniscience” where there is constant surveillance and therefore no secrets. Everyone knows that information is passed along all the time, so at any given moment, whatever you say might be overheard and transmitted to the leaders by informants. In Western forms like Orwell’s novel *Nineteen Eighty-four,* surveillance was done through technology of the omnipresent telescreens. In the Maoist Chinese form, reporting is done by people, including conditioning children to the point where they would denounce their parents, extended family, neighbors, teachers, etc., for failure to adhere to the Party’s ideology.

    How does milieu control affect people? This kind of constriction on communication pressures people to polarize what they think and feel. So, they split the real (i.e., the promoted paradigm/ideology) from the unreal (everything else). This results in destruction of any sense of personal equilibrium that balances self/the internal world and society/the outside world.

    For many, milieu control results in increased emotional passion for the belief system that is held in common. Meanwhile, it also increases mental passivity, which decreases independent judgment (i.e., individual discernment and decision-making). Ultimately, there is no independence, only dysfunctional dependence. It burns out people’s internal regulators so that all input (all truth) is expected to come from the external controllers.

    http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/the-hunger-games-trilogy-5a/

  80. I have to say Deb this is going on in certain Calvary Chapels. Several instances of child abuse have occurred and Chuck Smith is very dismissive and does not claim responsibilty by speaking out against these abusive pastors and their churches and yanking the dove from the church. Take a look at calvarychapelabuse.com. So unfortunately, we have a big job ahead to warn, but I believe the Lord has put us there for that reason.

  81. Deb, I think Paul Dohse would have a lot to offer on this. He’s been talking lately about the thought of “who owns whom” with reference to the NCs.

    One of my readers sent me an old Phil Johnson post from Pyromaniac blog where he dared to question the “authority” of Phil – this was a few years ago, mind you. He was treated so rudely and what I found interesting was the gang mentality in defense of Phil when the reader addressed it. They allow themselves to be owned by these “leaders”. It would be interesting to study these social dynamics. I find it frightening and it is a set-up for spiritual abuse.

  82. Sophie – oh so agree….
    Good statement. I think that is what makes this blog so vital. We can disagree and sometimes get frustrated with comments- I will be honest I do. 🙂
    BUT…big difference I don’t let it control me and in the end I appreciate those who posted and celebrate the fact that we have the freedom to do so. In no way would I want to force someone to conform to my thinking- that is the Lords job. Now people have pointed out things and I learn from others, but in the end it is Christ who transforms.
    Those that have to control are only insecure and fearful people, they really do not have the power.

  83. These leaders only have the power that others relinquish to them, otherwise they are quite useless.

  84. Glad to hear that Eagle’s up and about.

    Kolya, here’s the ‘My Brother the Islamist’ documentary if you want to reacquaint yourself with it (also for everyone else, it’s a compelling hour’s viewing and it’s relevant to the subject of fundamentalism and dangerous leadership):

    http://www.mybrothertheislamist.com

  85. (with apologies if any one else already pointed this out, I’ve not had a chance to read all the comments)

    I’m struck by how often spiritually-abusive churches and Christians organizations use the “let me insult you out of love and concern for you” technique.

    Case in point: “you need to be healed from past abuse before you can truly understand complimentarianism.” Wow. Really? If I may translate: “you don’t accept our theology because the awful pain you’ve gone through has had the unfortunate side-effect of leaving you dumber than a stick.”

    Friends, if you experience the “Christian love ad hominem,” chances are that you are dealing with a spiritual abuser…run, don’t walk, to the nearest exit…

  86. What about those in abusive relationships who honestly have no idea that the relationship they are in is dangerous? Finally, after they are “wounded” (to use MK’s own words) and leave, they realize that the relationship was wrong all along. This happens more than we know. People in verbally, sexually, and physically abusive relationships who stay because “he/she/it/mom/dad is doing this because they love me.”

    Sometimes it takes being wounded to realize that we were in danger the whole time.

  87. Julie Anne –

    What Paul is attempting to prove in his thesis is that the “doctrines” developed in many of the churches (Neo Calvinist, IFB, SGM) is what leads to much of the abuse that we see coming from those who are supposed to be leading. I think it comes down to a warped view of “authority” which is the opposite view of what Jesus said to have. And, yes, there are some pastors who don’t “lord over” congregations. But I have to say that the doctrines that are being taught in seminaries are producing “lording over” leaders at a discouraging rate.

  88. No More Perfect

    Another problem with applying the Kassian, Piper, et al., principles in problematic relationships is that it can lead to further abuse. Constant submission to an abuser can lead to escalating abuse.  

  89. Hi Sophie, thanks for digging that out. I will try to check it out in the next few days (currently inundated with work, working as we speak in fact! LOL).

    Re the “haram” thing you mentioned, that is legalism to a tee, isn’t it? This is the other thing I think other people have mentioned about certain types of fundamentalism, that they are parasitic in the sense that they rail against modernism in many forms (not just philosophical, but also political, scientific [Darwinism], etc, and yet they are not afraid of using the Internet or modern weaponry when it suits them. The accusation in other words is that they use things which in their “ideal” society could not have been invented because the atmosphere conducive to the necessary spirit of inquiry would not have existed. (Phew, that’s a long one…!).

    Or as the Private Eye picture gag put it, showing a Taliban leader proudly displaying his watch, “Now I always know what time it is… the 11 century AD!”

  90. Dee – exactly. Look at what Jesus preached and you will see no room for abuse. But look at what the comp camp says and it opens the people up to abuses of all kinds.

    This is one problem I have with the Christian community at large. It is so man centered now. Look at all the Christian books available! People are so busy reading books and commentaries and whatever the newest work from Joe Christian is that they rarely actually look to the Bible. In my mind, less books and less preaching and more engaging conversation with our Christian family is the way to go. There will still be abuse, but when we are actually engaged in discussion with one another there will be less blind following the blind and more iron sharpening iron.

  91. NMP, that’s a good point, and I know people who would tend to agree with you.

    I am not against Christian books, and I think things like commentaries can be helpful if done without an axe to grind, but I agree that there is a veritable flood nowadays. Perhaps part of the problem is that to publish there has to be a publishing house, but to stay in business a publishing house has to make money? Although in the UK some mainstream (ie not necessarily religious) book companies have “religious departments” to sell specifically Christian or other religious works.

    Having said all that, I think booksellers are finding it hard nowadays, judging by the number of mergers. In the UK the main Christian bookselling chain went into liquidation a year or so ago, although not all the branches closed.

  92. Kolya – I guess my point was more that women tend to read the books but rarely the Bible. I am not against books and commentaries, per se, but those in my sphere generally use those items as crutches rather than studying the Word for themselves. I find it highly ironic that “Bible study” groups in churches usually aren’t studying the Bible, but rather whatever popular Christian book has just hit the shelves.

    This leaves us wide open to abuse, text misinterpretation and a poor theology.

  93. Hi NMP, I do agree with you. I know that even in Reformed churches which pride themselves on reading and understanding the text and using proper exegesis, some still do Bible studies based on the latest popular book from a favoured writer/speaker and thereby are in danger of eisegesis.

    I think it is very hard to avoid approaching the preparation of a Bible study passage with one’s own hobbyhorses or doctrinal perspectives, but at the end of day I think we have to try!

  94. Kolya – “I think it is very hard to avoid approaching the preparation of a Bible study passage with one’s own hobbyhorses or doctrinal perspectives, but at the end of day I think we have to try!”

    If only more people thought this way! Well said, Kolya, well said.

  95. Sophie, saw the Islamic brother documentary- very sad….
    The difference between Christ and Islam is that Christ does not shun the unbeliever but died and loves the sinner. In this we can as Christians love those that do not know Him and shake their hands with our right hand. Unfortunately, Many Christians are acting like the Muslim and preaching the law instead of the grace that He is so willing to give as a free gift. With Christ the gift is free; with any kind of fundamentalism there is a price we must pay for salvation. Unfortunate……

  96. About the Bible study question I agree- I like good commentaries and then weigh them to what Scripture says. I used to use anti-Christian books totally, but now I can read and glean some truths and chuck the rest. An author does not hold much sway over my beliefs- they are just human. We have idolized way too much the American pastor or Christian celebrity; at some point this will crash.

  97. I so appreciate the wisdom, common sense, and greater biblical accuracy exhibited by the community here–in direct contrast to the ‘ridiculousness’ of Dr. MK’s comments.

    Y’all have touched on so many interconnected topics. I must say that as I began to read this post I began with the chuckles. As I read the comments, so many hit a nerve, or a funny bone, that the contrasts made exemplify how impractical the comp. position really is.

    I had to go to Webster for words to describe the flawed structure and fruit of the comp. position.

    The following are some of the words that tumble out when I think of MK and company. You might enjoy them as well.

    Ridiculous: 1. Unreasonable—completely unreasonable and not at all sensible or acceptable.

    2. Completely silly—silly and amusing.

    Synonyms: ludicrous, preposterous, absurd, silly, outlandish, outrageous, bizarre, unreasonable.

    Ludicrous: absurdly ridiculous—utterly ridiculous because of being absurd, incongruous, impractical or unsuitable

    Absurd: ludicrous—ridiculous because of being irrational, incongruous, or illogical

    Preposterous: outrageous or absurd—going very much against what is thought to be sensible or reasonable.

    Reprehensible: highly unacceptable and deserving censure.

    Synonyms: wrong, bad, disgraceful, inexcusable, shameful, inacceptable.

    And that’s just a sample of the words that get me going! 🙂

  98. Per Paul Dohse:

    I think there’s a pretty high probability that Dohse’s analysis of modern Neo-Calvinist doctrine is correct. However, he’s now starting to claim that Luther and Calvin believed in a fusion of justification and sanctification (due to some alleged links back to Plato/Socrates), and that I’m not sure he can sustain. My mother is a political science major who studied Plato extensively, and when I read her his analysis of Plato she said there were some problems in it. So yes, I like his blog, and I’d definitely encourage everybody to take a look at it, but just remember when you read him to only apply what you’re reading to modern Neo-Cals like Piper and Driscoll. (Thus the “neo” in the term – NEW Calvinists, i.e. unlike the old ones, and certainly not Lutheran.) His other assertions about the Reformation and Plato are far from proven, IMO.

  99. Eagle –

    Good to bear from you.

    Do you mean the CBMW? What kind of drugs are you on over there for that leg 🙂

  100. I like Paul Douse quite well…as far as the Plato I think where he makes the connection is with the writings of St. Augustine and Calvin- that was definitely a factor. Calvin often referred to the teachings of St. Augustine who relied heavily on Plato. Now Luther however I am not sure, but Calvin yes. The huge problem with Calvin was his belief of a church state; he was very dominionist in his views of the church. He persecuted quite a few Christians for their alternate views in Christianity.

  101. @ Faith:

    I like him too, but like I said, I have my reservations. I can at least see where he could get the idea with Calvin. Calvin’s behavior at Geneva disturbs me greatly and, I think, reduces Calvin’s credibility. I just haven’t read enough Calvin to know the context of Dohse’s quotes, and without really strong proof, I prefer to think that 500 years’ worth of scholarship hasn’t been THAT horribly wrong about such a major religious figure.

    As for Luther, as a Lutheran, let me tell you, anytime a non-Lutheran picks up Luther out of the blue and, a few days later, starts saying “Well, Luther believed X,” they will almost always be dead wrong, esp. if baptism is involved (most of Paul Dohse’s “gotcha” quotes on Luther involved baptism). You have to read A LOT of Luther to understand what he is saying. He talked in his own head a lot and had unique definitions for a lot of terms. He will not make sense at all if you try to read him through a Reformed or Arminian lens. Also, it’s pretty well known that Luther (pre-conversion) was obsessive about his sin and whether it was going to keep him out of heaven, so if he had really believed in progressive justification as Dohse claims, I think it’s pretty doubtful he would have been able to say the things he said later about assurance of salvation (because, logically, he still wouldn’t have had any).

    And while we’re on the topic of Luther, does anyone else find it funny how conspicuously absent Katy Luther is from comp’s lists of “godly women”? Can’t let people find out that the man who started the Reformation had a strong, opinionated wife who debated theology with him on a regular basis.

  102. I read Kassian’s posts and comments and was astounded that she claimed that complementarianism was no hierarchalism. I then checked and found that she had warmly endorsed Bruce Ware’s book on the trinity. I don’t see how life can get harsher than the absolute submission he describes.

    I am so glad you are taking this issue on.

  103. Hester, Have you not read quotes from Luther about women from his “Works”? Oh my. Let us hope he did not really believe what he wrote down!

  104. Charis, I appreciate your thoughts and insights. Thanks for sharing them regarding this important topic.

    I wanted to give a response re my engagement with Christians for Biblical Equality. I heard about this group a number of years ago. We got involved with some meetings held in a nearby city. It was good to be exposed to the monthly meetings and the speakers. Heard Mimi Haddad for the first time there.

    Although I was exposed to CBE back then, I was still under the impression that their main effort was getting the word out about biblical equality so that women could be involved in church leadership if they felt Christ’s call to do that. I have also appreciated the huge and scholarly resources that they have available.

    Last summer, Christians for Biblically Equality had their annual conference in Seattle, which made it easy for a number of us to carpool and attend.
    I was blown out of the water as the topics unfolded over that weekend.

    In a nutshell, CBE has a world focus regarding women and how they are treated worldwide, not just in the church in America!! There were plenary session speakers from numerous countries as well as in the smaller sessions. The information was excellent.

    It broadened my understanding of biblical equality on the world stage. No group is perfect, but there are many of us who highly regard CBE and endorse it without reservation.

    I invite anyone to check out their website and their resources. There are many free articles. You can sign up for their newsletter.

    http://www.cbeinternational.org

  105. Eagle,

    I was using my IPhone exclusively during our trip to D.C., and I know what you mean. It kept changing words on me. I hope I caught most of them. Some of them made me laugh.

    I will be so glad when you leg is healed. I hope some of the swelling and redness has gone away. I continue to keep you in my thoughts and prayers.

  106. Deb, you can turn the autocorrect off. Look in the settings. I turned mine off and it makes it a lot easier for me. The autocorrect takes words I want and makes them words I do not want, and sometimes, I do no see the change. So it is OFF of my phone.

  107. Arce, Deb, Eagle –

    I turned my autocorrect off after I sent a text to my 14 year old daughter that had the slang poo poo word in it! She got a good laugh out of it 🙂

    Sorry your leg is bugging you, Eagle.

  108. Faith,

    Thank you for your understanding. I hope my comments weren’t offensive either. What you shared about your journey (and where I am on my own) actually gives me hope that some of these folks will come around. Part of what bothers me is that I may have gone to some of these extremes myself, had it not been for that part of my personality that doesn’t like to conform. And then there were a series of circumstances (including the rejection of my brother and a church abuse situation) that caused me to start looking at and evaluating everything. I probably reeked of spiritual arrogance myself, and I’m sure there have been folks that I turned off or perhaps even alienated. I can remember thinking that “we” (others in my spiritual/theological/political camp) had things figured out and knew better and had “more of God” than those outside the camp. That’s what we’re told, and we soak it up and believe it and it becomes part of who we are.

  109. Val, Kolya, and others,

    Thank you for your support and encouraging comments. I love the TWW community.

  110. Sue –

    She endorsed Ware’s book. The end of an article Ware wrote in 2008 states this:

    “The relationships in the Trinity exhibit so beautifully a unity that is not sameness, and a diversity that is not discord. So, the kind of community that is the Trinity, and hence the kind of community God wants for us, is one that values both a unity in purpose and character and direction, but also a joyous distinctiveness in personal expression. Finally, the most marked characteristic of the trinitarian relationships is the presence of an eternal and inherent relationship of authority and submission. The Son always submits to, obeys, and carries out, the will of the Father, and when the Spirit comes, as Jesus says, He seeks always to glorify the Son. Authority and submission, therefore, are good because they are expressive of God! That is, it is God-like to express rightful, upbuilding authority; and it is God-like to express humble, assisting submission. Embrace rightful authority! Embrace rightful submission! Seeing this helps us understand so much better why God set up the authority and submission relationships he has, in marriage, in the home, in the church, and in society. The Persons of the Godhead delight in their eternal authority and submission roles, and we, too, ought to grow in embracing, not resisting, this same God-given structure.

    I don’t pretend to completely understand the mystery of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one God, but I don’t agree with much of what Ware says above.

  111. Oh Wendy you are so right!! I know exactly what you are saying- I was so wrong in many areas. Thankfully being out of the institutional church helped me to get out of all the clutter of what I had been taught for so many years. Not all of church was bad however- there is always truth in certain doctrinal beliefs but they tend to mix untruths in with the truth distorting the whole.

    I will pray for you and your pain dealing with these issues. Hug to you too. 🙂

  112. re Bridget’s quote of Ware:

    One thing that really frustrates me with these people is their complete inability to acknowledge that difference can exist without hierarchy! In their world the Son is only distinct from the Father by being put into a relationship of eternal subordination. Funny, I would have thought that the incarnation was a fairly hu8ge distinctive. Likewise they keep implying that egalitarianism + homosexuality. Huh? Just because i don’t see myself as subordinate to males doesn’t mean that I think there are no differences between male and female. I’ve been married to a male for 35 years, and i am not him and he is not me. i don’t believe that I have a right to preach and teach because I’m “as good as” a man, but because god honours His daughters just as much as His sons, and calls us to serve Him with the gifts we have each been uniquely given. I really don’t get this blind spot they have, but it sure keeps cropping up

    And I’m super-thrilled to see Eagle posting! 😀

  113. Bridget, I am not sure either, but it seems to me the best way to make sense of both the submission to the Father and equality between Jesus and the father texts, is to see the equality as an eternal truth, and the submission as something needed for the stay of Jesus on earth.

    As far as I know, all the texts about Jesus submitting refers to his earthly life.

  114. Yes, He came to be the second Adam, and as such, to live the life of perfect obedience which Adam failed to do. As a human he walked in full submission, as the eternal Son he is at one with the Father. For one to submit to another, imp[lies a difference in desires, so that one makes a choice to yield their will to the other. But how could there be that kind of disagreement in the Godhead?

  115. Yes Retha I agree with that, because there are verses in Scripture that state Jesus being one with the Father and having all power. When we diminish Christ to second tier status we are in danger of diminishing His diety. Other “Christian” cults (such as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witness) put Christ as lower than God. Is Neo-Calvinism also heading to that dangerous position?

  116. Arce, Thanks for the advice! I'll get my daughter to figure out how to do it on my IPhone since I'm such a technopeasant. 🙂

  117. Good to see Eagle back – his annoyance with his Android shows a definite recovery! 🙂

    Re Luther, although I am no Luther scholar, having read some of his works and the history around him I have the impression that he was an impulsive larger-than-life man who in his lesser moments said things in the heat of the moment that would have been better pondered before spoken. His disappointment with the Jews’ apparent refusal to consider his teachings led to a most unfortunate outburst that would later be picked up by Hitler. And as Francis Schaeffer said, his position on the Peasant Wars was unbalanced. He did much for the church and the faith, but we should never put him on a pedestal.

  118. Hester, don’t let them take good words hostage! Winsome winsome winsome!!! Wistful, wry and whimsical will be the next to go. Remember, Luther said not to let the devil have all the good music. We should likewise not let the comps have all the good words 😉

    Seriously, don’t you think there is a weird relationship between harsh and extremist doctrine and sweet, gentle words that are used to promote it? I think that this is a favorite weapon for the propaganda peddlers. Using the word “winsome” to describe a philosophy that basically silences women? Creepy!

    Speaking of Luther- as a fairly new Lutheran- of course he made many mistakes and should never be put on a pedestal. BUT- he was much less in line with the dominionist folks than was Calvin, I think, and he and his wife seemed to have a pretty egalitarian relationship for the time that they lived in. I noticed that he jokingly referred to her as “Lord” in some of his writings? I don’t think such matters can be joked about in modern comp. circles?

    But anyway, all I want to say is don’t surrender any words to them!

    Hester, I really enjoy your well thought out comments.

  119. Faith, you said “When we diminish Christ to second tier status we are in danger of diminishing His diety. Other “Christian” cults (such as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witness) put Christ as lower than God. Is Neo-Calvinism also heading to that dangerous position?”

    I absolutely believe the Reformed community is headed in that direction. I grew up in the PCA and am still a member of a PCA church. I have always heard much of God and Jesus, but rarely heard anything about the Holy Spirit. They preach and teach that He is the same in equality within the trinity, yet they hardly ever speak of Him. It is almost like He is a third leg to them. . .

    There is definitely a hierarchal view of the Trinity within any reformed group whether they want to say it or not.

  120. No More Perfect, you said “I absolutely believe the Reformed community is headed in that direction. I grew up in the PCA and am still a member of a PCA church. I have always heard much of God and Jesus, but rarely heard anything about the Holy Spirit. They preach and teach that He is the same in equality within the trinity, yet they hardly ever speak of Him. It is almost like He is a third leg to them. . .”

    Their holy trinity is the father, son, and the holy bible… no Spirit necessary.

    I grew up in the reformed baptist tradition, and my experience is very similar to yours.

    The Spirit was rarely, if ever, talked about. Much was made of the ‘Word’ of God, with as much reverence as if the bible was Jesus himself.

    When the Spirit was talked about, it was usually only to prove that the Trinity exists. His role in our lives was either ignored, or poo-pooed.

    I can’t even count how many times I was told “the heart is deceitful and terribly wicked”, and that we should not trust our hearts. The question I had then, and continue to have now, is “Does the Spirit not live in our hearts now? Is he not the Helper that Jesus promised? And if so, how can our hearts continue to be desperately, terribly wicked?”

  121. Searching – you said it better than I did.

    Lack of acknowledgement of the Holy Spirit is one reason we are referred to as the Frozen Chosen.

  122. Oops, sent that as who I used to post as: Kelly. Should have replied under my NMP nickname.

  123. “That is, it is God-like to express rightful, upbuilding authority; and it is God-like to express humble, assisting submission.”

    Regarding a portion of Bridget’s quote of Wade that just jumped out at me. His words are very revealing.

    Someone correct me here – but doesn’t the Bible discourage trying to be “like God” (especially considering His authority)? Christ like yes, but Father like? And where is the Biblical prescription for marriage to immitate the Trinity? Church and Christ – yes, trinity no. Even if we discover in Heaven that the Son really does submit to the Father eternally (which I don’t believe) I don’t see any connection to marriage. I don’t know of anywhere in the Bible that compares a husband to God the Father and a wife to God the Son.

  124. About the Holy Spirit- is not the Holy Spirit just as equal to the Father and the Son? This is ridiculous to diminish the Holy Spirit because the HS is the Fathers Spirit- no duh…..
    This is where the Neo-Cals do not like this however because Scripture talks about the HS living WITHIN us….ooh..This then means we can have access to the Father through Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. This is something the Neo-Cals cannot stand because that means we have FREEDOM. They want control.

  125. This we should be shouting from the rooftops- Deb, Dee, and Julie Anne have started the process: We are FREE in Christ and NO pastor or leader or elder has any control over you. There is no priest who is a man that stands between you and Jesus Christ/God the FAther as an intercessor. We can now through the Holy Spirit BOLDLY come before the throne.

    Jesus the Great High Priest

    Hebrews 4:14-16

    14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[f] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are —yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

    For those who have been hurt- no one has hold on you anymore because you are the Lords and you have the freedom to come to Him at any time.
    I state this because I love my sisters and brothers in Christ…..

    Ok I got a little emotional there, but I do mean it 🙂

  126. Further, the Bible teaches that Jesus came so that we might be free. All believers are priests, in a ministry of reconciliation, representing the person of Jesus the Christ to human persons, and praying on behalf of humans to God, seeking the salvation of those we encounter. And for this reason we try to live a life that will point others to Christ, because we love them, not because of condemnation that we would experience were we to live otherwise. So it is for good that we live as the children of God, and not to avoid punishment! We have been redeemed and our destiny is set.

  127. @ Kolya:

    I would say that’s a pretty good summation of Luther. He definitely struggled with anger problems on occasion and I think sometimes it leaked through into his writing. Also, Hitler did make use of Luther’s writings on Jews, but I’ve heard that he derived more/most of his philosophy in that area from Richard Wagner (who wrote cranky repulsive essays when he wasn’t writing opera).

  128. @ Laura:

    All right, I concede that I can see your point about “winning back” winsome. : ) And yes, it is definitely ironic that neo-Calvinists whose churches promote draconian church discipline and rigid gender roles use such “cute and fuzzy” words in public. (At least Mark Driscoll tells it like it is – he doesn’t want to be “winsome,” he wants to “go Old Testament on you.”) They always use “winsome” to describe how we should act toward nonbelievers, which makes me think of “soul-WINning” – which makes it sound as thought they don’t actually care about nonbelievers as people, just “evangelism targets” in a big numbers game that they have to WIN WINsomely.

  129. Thank you, Faith, for your support. I’m fairly new to this blogging thang and don’t feel I belong in the same league as the Glam Gals – with what they have been doing for years with excellent journalism, passion, and sensitivity. Their work has inspired me. I am fired up after having gone through spiritual abuse, a lawsuit by my pastor, and reading so many personal accounts of spiritual abuse. I hate what spiritual abuse does to people.

    A man named “Paul” sent me his story of how his abusive pastor interfered in his marriage, resulting in his wife filing for divorce (posted on the blog now). The divorce will be final next week. It’s a tragic story and because of being in a place where I read a lot of stories, I am seeing this horrific pattern in Neo-Cal churches – of pastors “owning” their congregants rather than shepherding them. This is insanity. This story is going to get bigger real soon.

    Dee and Deb, my blogging sisters, are wonderful “listeners” – they pay attention to the comments and e-mails of their readers, report all kinds of abuse and destructive trends by exposing them using this blog platform. They’ve taught me a lot. The things that are discussed here are so important.

  130. Searching, I’ve also noticed the trend in my own church, just pointed out on here, of emphasising “the heart is deceitful and terribly wicked”, to the point where I almost wonder if this is sometimes (maybe even unconsciously) used to silence opposition. And as my church is CofE rather than belonging to, say Presbyterianism or Baptists, it raises the question of how much this neo-Reformed teaching is entering churches.

    Thanks Hester for your words. Re Luther & Hitler, despite some mischievous (in my view) attempts to make Luther out as a forerunner of Hitler, I think Hitler was just a cynical opportunist who grabbed whatever he could from wherever he could to bolster his crazy ideas, for want of a better phrase. The Nazis liked to quote Nietzsche, but I notice they missed out the bits that didn’t suit them!

    As for Wagner, apart from his musical genius, I wonder if the psittacosis he contracted affected him at all?!

  131. I am curious……….my experiences in reformed/calvinic/conservative churches is that they also RARELY if ever talk about the reality of Satan – his presences, his hatred of the saints, his way of trying to keep a Christian down. Is this also the experience of others in these types of churches? Little of the Holy Spirit and very little of his arch-opposite, the devil.

  132. Justabeliever,
    I agree with your statement about the devil not being mentioned; this is true. We are constantly being baraged with temptations daily and Satan has be actively at work in the church, that I can tell you.

  133. @ justabeliever.

    I’ve wondered some similar things about specific theologies, and why they de-emphasize the roles of the Holy Spirit and also the context of spiritual warfare that we find ourselves in. My sense is that any denomination or movement that very strongly stresses abstract, systematic theology can become so rationalistic that they tend to become very information-based and rule-based.

    Thus, the parts that are more emotion-based and relationship-based get minimized. And those are typically the Holy Spirit’s work, individual and communal discernment (which rely on the Spirit’s leading for wisdom when there are no black-and-white rules in Scripture to cover an issue), and freedom in the social realm (where rule-based becomes all about controlling the culture, legislating moralism on others and calling it “salt and light” when it’s actually “assault and flight” – like hit-and-run Christian dominionism – that kind of thing that leaves out relational realities).

    For instance, I had a talk with a former pastor who is now in his early 70s. He went to seminary at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1960s, and he said the dominant view about demons and possession at that time was that it was their way of describing what we now understood to be problems of physical or mental illness. Umm … and that was what he was taught at a very conservative seminary.

    (P.S. I don’t know what they teach now at SWBTS, but my former pastor sure had a change of theology, in part from coming here to Marin County, California, reputedly the least active Christian population of any county in the U.S. at something like 3%, and a lot of “alternative religions” at home here and in the region. Couldn’t avoid the realities of spiritual warfare then – or the theories!)

  134. NMP said: “There is definitely a hierarchal view of the Trinity within any reformed group whether they want to say it or not.”

    Did careful study of the Scriptures lead them to see the Son as inferior to the Father and to ignore the Spirit, or did their commitment to cultural tradition cause them to invent a Trinitarian hierarchy to support their tradition? It appears to be the latter.

    As NC crept into my neck of the evangelical woods ESS became huge and so did hard comp. Husbands use ESS to infantilize and subjugate their wives, and the wives support it and submit to it because they’ve been taught to believe ESS is correct doctrine. Mutuality within the Trinity and mutual spousal submission in the love of Christ are considered heretical, no matter how much supporting Scripture you show them. My hope is that the wider Christian community will finally wake up, stop playing footsey with hierarchal comp. and ultimately dismiss it as unorthodox.

    Kolya said: “I’ve also noticed the trend in my own church, just pointed out on here, of emphasising “the heart is deceitful and terribly wicked”, to the point where I almost wonder if this is sometimes (maybe even unconsciously) used to silence opposition. And as my church is CofE rather than belonging to, say Presbyterianism or Baptists, it raises the question of how much this neo-Reformed teaching is entering churches.”

    So what you’re telling me is that returning to my Anglican roots is no guarantee of escape from this silliness? Oh dear. Time for a Plan B.

  135. @justabeliever.

    P.S. I’m relatively conservative in my theology, not Charismatic or Pentecostal, and yet strongly believe in the realities of the Holy Spirit’s numerous roles in our lives, and the realities of spiritual warfare. (That is, without becoming the equivalent of a “christian animist,” as I see in some of my friends who over-emphasize spiritual warfare.) But my paradigm is intentionally holistic and paradoxical – a lot of “both/and” thinking going on – where the rationalistic paradigms have a lot of “either/or” thinking going on. Which often leads them to over-emphasizing black-or-white thinking and the leadership hierarchies and gender-generation-social divisions inherent in such perspectives.

  136. Yes Brad I see where the over-emphasis of Satan and demons in certain denominations, such as,in many of your Charismatic movements. I try to look at issues with balance instead of being impulsive in my thinking. I use to be more impulsive, but the Lord has tempered me to stop and use my brain that He has given me. We tend to over-emphasize a lot in the church, which I think feeds fear and insecurity, thus resulting in control from your leaders. As Dee and DEb will be bringing in the issue of mind control this will all start to make sense to many. I started studying about mind control about 4 years ago which did help me to contemplate my own brainwashing from past churches I had been in.

  137. “I can’t even count how many times I was told “the heart is deceitful and terribly wicked”, and that we should not trust our hearts. The question I had then, and continue to have now, is “Does the Spirit not live in our hearts now? Is he not the Helper that Jesus promised? And if so, how can our hearts continue to be desperately, terribly wicked?””

    “Their holy trinity is the father, son, and the holy bible… no Spirit necessary.”

    Searching – you are correct. So, you can see how I, having been raised and still in a reformed church am having a hard time finding out just Who is the Holy Spirit? Good grief, if I could erase all things taught from church since a child, I would be a lot better off. This trying to remove presuppositions is the most hardest and tiring things I have ever done.

  138. @ES
    I liked your pocket theology lesson here! Well stated!

    “Even if we discover in Heaven that the Son really does submit to the Father eternally (which I don’t believe) I don’t see any connection to marriage. I don’t know of anywhere in the Bible that compares a husband to God the Father and a wife to God the Son.”

    Yes, no connection to marriage! And a faulty comparison, which would only add to the comp. confusion regarding marriage already!

  139. Instead of June Cleaver, Dee and Deb, can I suggest another complementarian women’s leader that can still show women how they should be?

    A good choice is Peggy Bundy from Married with Children. I mean she begs for sex, won’t cook or clean, eats on the coach all day, and believes that Al has too much time on his hands and needs a second income. — Eagle

    Eagle, looks like almost losing your life and/or leg from that strep infection hasn’t diminished your snark.

    Could we make a similar case for Al Bundy as the complementarian men’s leader? “I Was a Football Star in High School; Once I Scored Three Touchdowns in One Game” — doesn’t that sound like something a Driscollite would say? And then there’s Al’s fanboying of an apparently hyperviolent show-within-a-show called “Psycho Dad” — doesn’t that sound similar to a cage-fight fanboy?

    P.S. Just as Al Bundy was a Football Star in High School, wasn’t Peggy the Head Cheerleader? If so, the two are made for each other.

  140. I was 12 when I met a school friend and, through youth-group, became a Christian. My parents were well-off, non-religious, and thought it was a phase. When I grew up, ppl. looked at me with pity or condescension, since I was not from a “Christian family”. If my views differed from their’s, then it was due to my (obviously deficient) upbringing. We would wreck our lives if we read non-christian fiction, listened to popular, non-christian music, etc., etc.

    Looking back, my non-christian parents instilled a much deeper sense of value and self-worth than the Christians, especially regarding women. My Dad was more concerned with how I treated others when we had a talk at youth about Mormons, I read him the quiz we had taken, and the only answer he wanted to know was how do Christians treat Mormons. Looking back, it was my parents who had their value of humans in Christ-like focus, not the church with their fortified us/them mentality.

    Reading some of the comments here makes me sad. Why all the fear of differences? If Christ is who everyone says he is, then he doesn’t need men and women to play roles, vote a certain way or model a certain formula for church leadership, his Kingdom will last, regardless of who he gifts to lead it. He will last past the rise and fall of American world-power, he will last beyond the fall of evangelicalism’s upward church growth rate, he will last till the end of this earth’s age and beyond. Really, does he need our formula for a successful church, family, life to improve on his commands?

    The sad thing is, I know more non-christians who can see (and like) what Christ taught than many Christians can. They can’t believe how backwards evangelical Christian marriages are, they thought Michelle Duggar was a product of the deep American south, and didn’t realize the church around the corner (in Canada) taught the same thing about heads of households. They think evangelicals a cult, like Mormons, and wonder why anyone would join. No one sees Jesus in these institutions, only dogma and endless formulas and rules. And, sadly, I wonder if they are right. Those 7 churches in Revelations – only one got it right. So 6/7 screwed up. Not good odds for the church.

  141. P.S. I’m relatively conservative in my theology, not Charismatic or Pentecostal, and yet strongly believe in the realities of the Holy Spirit’s numerous roles in our lives, and the realities of spiritual warfare. (That is, without becoming the equivalent of a “christian animist,” as I see in some of my friends who over-emphasize spiritual warfare.) — Brad/Futurist Guy

    When it comes to “over-emphasizing spiritual warfare”, do you ever get the impression that —
    1) These guys should really be playing a high-level mage or cleric in D&D?
    2) To them, Satan must be more powerful than God (or He would be crushed without the help of Spiritual Warriors)?
    3) That the reason they’re so shrill finding DEMONS under every bed is they’ve followed through on (2) and are secretly afraid they’re on the losing side?

  142. No More Perfect –

    The best thing to do is read the Gospels and Acts. Maybe for an entire year just read the Gospels and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be our helper. It is refreshing to lay off the Epistles and refesh ourselves with Jesus’ life and his words, instead of reading the letters to churches which were often addressing issues. Use some good study books (concordances and different versions of the Bible). And don’t read the stuff on the suggested church reading list (that’s all I read for a time and it just about brain washes you). 🙂

  143. Yes, I still utterly fail to see the connection between marriage and the Trinity, esp. given that the Biblical metaphor is Christ and the church. It would seem to inevitably de-emphasize the Holy Spirit, since He doesn’t fit in the neat little picture. Frankly I think it would be better if both comps and egals just agreed to put the Trinity debate in the “Bad Ideas” box where it belongs. But that won’t happen, because too many people think it’s the ONLY WAY to understand/prove anything about gender roles.

    @ Kolya:

    I’d never heard about Wagner’s psittacosis. Genius though he may have been, Wagner seems to have been a generally unpleasant person, so I’m sure a disease wouldn’t have helped matters much. I actually read a quote from Hitler (in a history of opera class) in which he said, basically, that anyone who wants to understand Nazism should read Wagner.

  144. @ HUG:

    Yes, for all the hullaballoo about Harry Potter and LOTR and D&D being ungodly, some of those folks get remarkably superstitious about the strangest stuff.

  145. @ Koyla.

    Interesting observations you have here: “I’ve also noticed the trend in my own church, just pointed out on here, of emphasising “the heart is deceitful and terribly wicked”, to the point where I almost wonder if this is sometimes (maybe even unconsciously) used to silence opposition.”

    Yes, convenient to use for just that purpose! Stifle–by using the Bible when needed!

    @ Searching on.

    Re: “I can’t even count how many times I was told “the heart is deceitful and terribly wicked”, and that we should not trust our hearts. The question I had then, and continue to have now, is “Does the Spirit not live in our hearts now? Is he not the Helper that Jesus promised? And if so, how can our hearts continue to be desperately, terribly wicked?”

    Think about the two natures, the old nature and the new nature. Check out Romans 6. Every person was born into this world with an old nature = having a wicked heart.

    After regeneration by the Spirit of God, through the finished work of Christ, the believer in Christ is born again; they have a new nature, like the nature of Christ.

    When someone is regenerated by God’s Spirit, they get a ‘new heart.’ The old heart is not yanked out by the roots, but is still there. The power that is resident in the believer, by the resurrected power of the Living Christ, is the power of the Spirit to overcome the downward drag that we contend with.

    When believers in Christ are changed or resurrected in the twinkling of an eye, they will be fully changed and ready for eternity.

    Does that make things a bit clearer?

  146. @ Julie Anne:

    “A man named ‘Paul’ sent me his story of how his abusive pastor interfered in his marriage, resulting in his wife filing for divorce (posted on the blog now).”

    I think Paul Dohse may have a marriage-/divorce-related abuse story, too, but I’ve never been clear on the details. In any case it’s not the same Paul. Dohse has some very interesting material on the concept of “gospel-driven divorce,” a Neo-Calvinist idea in which a spouse can be divorced for not “fulfilling Christ’s image in the marriage” or some such yadayada. Basically, taken to ground, it boils down to divorce for just about anything (since you fails to fulfill Christ’s image whenever you sin).

  147. “Their holy trinity is the father, son, and the holy bible… no Spirit necessary.”

    You forgot the Westminster Catechism and Question 1. The PCA church I went to for a while gave the Sunday School kids presents one year when they memorized section X of their (shorter) catechism (might even have been the whole thing). They were about 10 years old. The pastor also dogged me a little when I first started coming about whether I’d started memorizing the catechism yet, and I only got him off my back when I said I was reading through the whole Bible.

    The Reformed’s relationship to their catechism really is disturbing and semi-idolatrous.

  148. @ES and Barb O. –

    That was one problem with Ware’s summation that I posted. He takes huge leaps when he goes from his ideas on the Trinity and then applies them to all of life! Scripture does not command any such things. Now comps are teaching that if you don’t understand their word, complementarian (made up word btw), and its correct outworking — then you’re going to get the Gospel wrong, or all family life as we know it will evaporate! The leaps they take are really quite absurd when you think about it.

    Part of the problem, I think, is the magical effect the letters after ones’ name seem to have on many people. I’m not against education, but we need to encourage all believers to read the scripture and ask the Holy Spirit for wisdom and help. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, required a degree for a believer to follow Jesus. It almost seems like seminary is a place to learn orthodoxy, but offers little instruction in much else (hopefully Greek and Hebrew). I’m not convinced that seminary is the place to help someone learn to love and care for people. This seems more like a life-long journey and gifting. Now, maybe a good preacher would come out of seminary . . . but I’m not convinced by the preaching I hear these days either.

  149. Hi Hester,

    Yes, Hitler loved Wagner, probably more than he loved Luther despite referencing him to support his anti-Semitism. After all Wagner seems not to have had those inconvenient Christian ideas that Luther had. Funnily enough some of the other Nazis didn’t enjoy Wagner’s lengthy stuff and apparently it was a duty rather than a pleasure attending such events with Hitler. Having just reread Wagner’s biography, I note with interest that in the 1840s he was involved in revolutionary politics – perhaps he was just one of those people who was a genius in his field but couldn’t help firing off ideas without due consideration?

    @Jenny, I understand your fears. Are you based in the UK or North America? In the UK I think the Reform crowd are quite an influential group, but I am not sure how much they are influenced as a group by the neo-Calvinistas who feature so prominently here, or whether it’s just individual ministerial choice. However I think their spiritual HQ, Sydney diocese in Australia, is hot on complementarianism (I think a couple of our Aussie brothers and sisters on here could comment on that). But I spoke to the wife of an older evangelical clergyman recently and she told me that Reform are a minority, even within evangelicalism.

    To be fair, there is much good one can learn from Reform, such as their handling of Scripture. My problems with them lie in other areas.

  150. Some of you seem to be drawing comparisons between June Cleaver and Adolph Hitler. This is unfair. Let the man speak for himself.  🙂
    “There is surely nothing finer than to educate a young thing for oneself; a lass of 18 or 20 years’ old is as pliable as wax. It must be possible for a man to impose his stamp on any girl. Indeed, a woman wants nothing else”
    “the one absolute aim of female education must be with a view to the future mother”
    And, “Woman’s world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men.”
    These quotes courtesy of “The Leader” and do not necessarily reflect the views of this station.

  151. Yes, Hester – Paul Dohse does have his own personal divorce story and when he read “Paul’s” story, he took a personal interest in it and they have now connected. It was interesting when I asked my reader what name he’d like me to use for his story and he selected “Paul”. I immediately thought of Paul Dohse’s own divorce story.

    I just got off the phone with reader, “Paul”. It is far worse than he disclosed on my blog, sadly – one of those empire kind of churches that we typically hear about. They all graduate from the Creepy Spiritual Abuse School (CSAS), talk the same talk, treat people the same way. They want to own you and your personal life. Have I said lately that I hate spiritual abuse?

  152. Dave A A, Hitler’s expression for women’s role was “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” (children, kitchen, church). Even here though there was some bizarre inconsistency, as Eva Braun used makeup (which apparently Hitler didn’t like) and one of his favourite women was Hanna Reitsch, a female test pilot who flew some very hot planes. In a strange way maybe that was a small triumph of experience over ideology?

  153. Yes, for all the hullaballoo about Harry Potter and LOTR and D&D being ungodly, some of those folks get remarkably superstitious about the strangest stuff. — Hester

    As a pencil/paper/funny dice guy since 1976, all I can say is “Wasn’t one of the Roman Empire’s beefs about these ‘Christians’ were they weren’t superstitious enough to be a real religion?”

    Dave A A, Hitler’s expression for women’s role was “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” (children, kitchen, church). — Kolya

    Does that mean A.H. was a Complementarian? The 1943 OSS psych profile on him was where I first heard the term “Hypermasculinity”.

  154. Dave A A –

    Well, those quotes are enlightening! I have heard men AND women, leaders and non-leaders, say such things in the Christian realm. Sad.

  155. “2) To them, Satan must be more powerful than God (or He would be crushed without the help of Spiritual Warriors)?”

    Yes–that’s why they need these—

    That’s a mighty big sword for this lady to battle with as she calls out “wakey wakey” to the angels she sees so they can do battle. God needs her to wake up the angels.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q25oPxQ7zH0

  156. @ Bridget

    “Part of the problem, I think, is the magical effect the letters after ones’ name seem to have on many people.”

    It ain’t necessarily them thar letters that er the problem. It is whar them thar guys get them thar letters–now that’s where the problem lies!

    Hey, and then there’s that ‘magic’ that kinda happens when they get them thar letters. Now that’s somethin’ ta keep yer eyes on!!Ooooo,could get spooky before ya know it.

  157. @ Bridget

    Now then, thar’s the meddlin’ that comes with some of what is called preachin’ out yonder.

    “Now, maybe a good preacher would come out of seminary . . . but I’m not convinced by the preaching I hear these days either.”

    Yup, certainly causes one ta wonder. What do they teach some of them young sprouts anyways??

    When it comes ta preachin’ there is the good, the bad, and the ugly. I’ve heard some of it all over time. Good preachin’?– well, them’s blessed folks fer sure!

  158. Koyla said “I’ve also noticed the trend in my own church, just pointed out on here, of emphasising “the heart is deceitful and terribly wicked”, to the point where I almost wonder if this is sometimes (maybe even unconsciously) used to silence opposition.”

    How better to control others than to instill in them a primal fear and distrust of their own mental, emotional and spiritual gifts? Repeating “..your heart is desperately wicked! Don’t ever trust it!” would render your children (or peers) little more than infants, relying upon you utterly to make their decisions for them. You being the one in authority, the one with the power, the only one with the wisdom and knowledge to actually decide anything. FOR THEIR OWN GOOD, of course.

    @NMP,

    I’m with you. My own journey away from my reformed upbringing included a 2 year hiatus from church & the bible… I too am tired at times.

    @Hester

    Ah yes, the catechism… I had forgotten about that. So many hours spent memorizing and repeating aloud the Westminister Catechism… something that would be called `shameless indoctrination` in any other religion is affectionately referred to as `training`or `hiding god`s word in our children`s hearts`.

    Let`s not teach our children to think, let`s just shove this man-made doctrine down their throats until they are smaller copies of ourselves, parroting everything we say, without the benefit of being able to test it against other beliefs and creeds to decide for themselves what they actually think and believe.

  159. @Headless Unicorn Guy 6:11 pm. You asked about the over-emphasis on spiritual warfare.

    From my conversations and research over the past 20 years, I’ve concluded there is a legitimate concern about this particular overemphasis on “strategic level prayer and spiritual warfare,” “spiritual mapping,” and the Sentinel Group’s “Transformation” video series. When I talk to those who practice this abiblical system, I don’t hear much difference between what they’re saying and what I could hear a wiccan or animist say.

    It is dangerous ground because it acts like God is blocked and the Holy Spirit is locked out UNTIL sufficient prayer has happened, or the “ruling spirits” of a region have been defeated, or enough Christians are praying for a specific issue or place. That puts rules on God that He never, ever reveals in Scripture as being legitimate. At best, it morphs a true spiritual gift of discernment into very questionable rituals. At worst, it is a half-step away from suggesting that it *all* depends upon us and our spiritual warfare in order for the Spirit to be “released.”

    That said, spiritual warfare is a legitimate practice … just not as it’s been defined, described, and practiced in these movements. Overcoming the Evil One is listed in 1 John as an indicator of moving toward maturity – it is a marker of the “young men” who are becoming strong in the Lord.

    For an important book on theological and pastoral issues in a theology integrated around spiritual warfare instead of around God, see: *Spiritual Power and Missions: Raising the Issues* edited by Edward Rommen and published by Evangelical Missiological Society in 1995.

    http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Power-Missions-Evangelical-Missiological/dp/0878083774/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229573664&sr=8-1

    In case interested in some details, I also posted about this topic at:

    http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/strategic-level-prayer-and-spiritual-mapping-2008/

    … and have a tutorial page on “theodicy.”

    http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/tutorial-14/

    Brad

  160. @ Arce 1:06:

    Regarding my typo – thanks for the correction. It was just a typo not a mistaken identity. 🙂

  161. Part of the problem, I think, is the magical effect the letters after ones’ name seem to have on many people. I’m not against education, but we need to encourage all believers to read the scripture and ask the Holy Spirit for wisdom and help. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, required a degree for a believer to follow Jesus. It almost seems like seminary is a place to learn orthodoxy, but offers little instruction in much else (hopefully Greek and Hebrew). I’m not convinced that seminary is the place to help someone learn to love and care for people. -Bridget

    Like I say: Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up and go to seminary.

  162. @ Hester

    Whatever happened to the good ol’ “until death do us part” in the wedding ceremony??!

    Didn’t Jesus challenge the Pharisees about their ‘faithfulness’ to their marriage partner?

    As the preacher said this last Sunday, faithfulness covers way more than just sexual faithfulness in marriage. Faithfulness is one of the character attributes of the Godhead. Now that’s something from the Godhead that does apply to marriage. 🙂

  163. Barb O. –

    Do you think some are pushing for “acceptable Christians” to be those who embrace the complementarian lifestyle? I would call that “another” Gospel. For goodness sake, Mary K. herself states that it is a made up word. I think it’s a concept that has now been turned into something similar to what circumcision was in Galatians :). If a couple believes that the man needs to be “head” and this is how they should live their life before God, then wonderful (unless it includes abuse). If another couple believes in mutuality without a top man, then wonderful. Why do some think that we all have to work out our married lives in a similar fashion, especially when it is not dictated as such in scripture? It just seems that complementarians are continually communicating that they are right and want others to believe that their way is THE way. It is really making a great divide . . . to the point that you must have separate churches for separate personal convictions.

  164. @ Searching:

    “Something that would be called ‘shameless indoctrination’ in any other religion is affectionately referred to as ‘training’ or ‘hiding God’s Word in our children’s hearts.'”

    Except the Westminster Catechism isn’t God’s Word. It’s the Puritans’ word. Whenever I asked them about this they said, “Well, but it’s an accurate summation of God’s Word” (as if this made it almost the same thing). All while they insisted that they really WEREN’T treating the catechism the same as the Bible, and ragged on Catholics for putting church tradition/papal writings on the same level with Scripture. One of the elders actually started a sentence once with “The more I study the Westminster Standards…” Facepalm. I really hope he was studying the Bible as regularly as he studied Westminster.

  165. Searching, I almost left the faith a couple of months ago. I was ready to just be done with it. I’m still a member of a presby church, but we are exploring other options. Unfortunately, I’d rather just not be a part of a church at all.

  166. Wendy –

    The combination of “love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as yourself, and able to teach” seem hard to come by.

  167. No More Perfect –

    Romans –
    31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
    32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
    33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
    34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died-more than that, who was raised-who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
    35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?
    36 As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
    37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
    38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,
    39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

  168. The combination of “love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as yourself, and able to teach” seem hard to come by. -Bridget

    Yes, it does seem hard to come by. Because of our fairly wide circle of friends and acquaintances, I have numerous pastors and pastors’ wives on my facebook. I’ve noticed for a long time that they can be the most judgmental, scripture-twisting, and sometimes outright hateful folks on my facebook. In a few instances, I actually had to block their posts in my news feeds. I just can’t look it all the time. It is so disheartening.

  169. That’s a mighty big sword for this lady to battle with as she calls out “wakey wakey” to the angels she sees so they can do battle. God needs her to wake up the angels. — Diane

    That’s either a HUGE German-style Zweihander or it’s the world’s biggest Atheme. Considering the way she uses it, I’d say the latter.

    And didn’t a certain Tatted Todd also see “ANGELS! ANGELS! ANGELS!”? (One of the YouTube comments was “I’d ask her if her angel was named Moroni.” I’d ask her if she woke the angels and spoke to them whether her or they were in a properly-warded Summoning Circle.)

    It is dangerous ground because it acts like God is blocked and the Holy Spirit is locked out UNTIL sufficient prayer has happened, or the “ruling spirits” of a region have been defeated, or enough Christians are praying for a specific issue or place. That puts rules on God that He never, ever reveals in Scripture as being legitimate.

    As in “UNTIL the proper Magickal Working is done, the proper incantations are recited, the proper Wards are set, the proper spells are cast”?

    Because isn’t a mortal commanding and “putting rules on” spiritual beings/forces the very definition of Sorcery and Magick with a “K”?

  170. @Hester
    “One of the elders actually started a sentence once with “The more I study the Westminster Standards…” Facepalm. I really hope he was studying the Bible as regularly as he studied Westminster.”

    Facepalm, indeed. One year for our adult Sunday School class, we studied the Westminster Catechism, point by point. The Bible was never involved with our study. Much was made of the Puritan’s faith, nothing mentioned of their failings (Salem witch trials, for example..). They were held up as Paragons of Righteousness, and unfortunately I have learned that they were less than stellar in actual Christ-likeness.

    “I almost left the faith a couple of months ago. I was ready to just be done with it. I’m still a member of a presby church, but we are exploring other options. Unfortunately, I’d rather just not be a part of a church at all.”

    NMP, I attend an evangelical church, not regularly by any means.. and I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable there. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the church or the people; I am in the midst of a wasteland, spiritually, and the sermons don’t really address what I am grappling with. My faith is the size of a mustard seed at times, at other times, it’s disappeared entirely. I find myself praying “Lord, help my unbelief” more and more often.

  171. Searching,

    I’ve found God-Jesus-Holy Spirit to be simply as available as air while not part of a church.

    I think previously I had let church be the main God event, assuming he was somehow localized there.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

  172. Elastigirl,

    “I think previously I had let church be the main God event, assuming he was somehow localized there. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

    Such a great comment.

    Searching,

    I’m sorry for what you’re going through. What you’ve shared resonates with me. I get it.

  173. I heard a pastor with some real science background preach a sermon-lecture on God and his whereabouts. People ask if there is a place where God is; the answer is that there is no where where God is not (except possibly hell, but I am not sure it is a place). The universe and everything physically present, including humans, consist of atoms. Most of the space occupied by an atom is in the orbital space of the electrons, which are tiny, and at any time 99.99 percent of that orbital space is empty, so there is an almost infinite space within atoms for God to be, if he needed a physical place to be.

    But God is spirit, so he needs no physical space to be, and he is at least co-extensive with the universe or universes and the undefined space beyond the universe.

    By the way, I terribly dislike the “God is watching us from a distance” song. He is watching us from within and without; when we think that God is not where we are, that is our failure of faith and understanding, not a lack of his presence.

  174. Elastigirl, I agree. I actually feel closest to God when I am studying his creation. I find myself worshipping God despite myself… I can’t think of another, more succinct way to say it.

    Wendy, thank you. I’m not sure if I’m sorry for what I’m going through, though.. I prefer to be here, where I am now spiritually, than to go back to where I was before.

    Arce, I’ve read something similar to what you are saying, and I think it is fascinating. I am no physicist, so I can only read something like that and think “Wow!” without having much commentary. 😉

  175. RE: Barb Orlowski on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 06:28 PM,

    You wrote:
    “…Think about the two natures, the old nature and the new nature. Check out Romans 6. Every person was born into this world with an old nature = having a wicked heart…”

    Jeremiah 17:9 has long been helicoptered out of context as a proof verse (along with others) for the doctrine of total depravity and that humans inherit nothing of the divine. What’s often ignored is the very next verse which states that the Almighty searches the heart to see what’s there, which in turn suggests that verse 9 says nothing whatsoever about the default state of the human heart.

  176. @ Searching:

    “One year for our adult Sunday School class, we studied the Westminster Catechism, point by point. The Bible was never involved with our study.”

    Oh yeah, they did that too. That same elder who made the comment about studying the Westminster Standards would have been happy to start at the beginning of the catechism, work his way through, then go back and start over and never do ANYTHING else in adult Sunday School. In their defense, they did finally move a little – they started discussing John Piper and Tim Keller books instead…

    They were also REALLY big on family worship. Another person who left that church was told by an elder that their children shouldn’t “need” the church for instruction, because they should be getting the required religious education at home (that was one of the first red flags that led to me leaving). Also, when we first started going there, the pastor seriously proposed to my dad, several times, that he get another job because his current one required too much travel and took him away from his family too much.

  177. @Hester,

    You and I come from very similar backgrounds, eerily similar in fact. If we weren’t in different countries, I would begin to suspect we attended the same church.

    Our church outright cancelled Sunday school for the kids, the elders declared that it was better and more ‘biblical’ for the children to sit with their parents to receive instruction. Poor kids were just bored most of the time.

    Wives working outside the home were frowned upon, and the men were encouraged to start their own businesses in order to be able to spend as much. time. as. possible. with their families.

    I’m all for children spending time with their parents, and vice versa, but really? Every waking moment? It seems excessive, and obsessive, to me.

  178. People who cite the fact that in the olden days children received their education at home usually (IMO) miss out the fact that little education was needed to work on the land, which is what most of the population did. But in fact the Reformers (so I’m told) were hot on education, and even in the late Middle Ages schools were springing up, not to mention universities (even Charlemagne promoted those, in the 9th century). I assume aspiring students couldn’t learn Greek, Latin or philosophy and theology from their parents, even if the latter had some education.

    I think it perfectly natural and healthy myself for children to mix with their own age group – natural bonds always bring them back to their parents. I’m not an evolutionary reductionist, but to a certain degree I think we see it in the young of some other mammals who play with one another (think of kittens or fox cubs) as a sort of learning process prior to the serious business of adult life. Isn’t the peer group thing of adolescence part of the process of growing into adulthood and learning to deal with one’s peers?

  179. People who are so big on home schooling also miss that boys learned from rabbi’s from a very young age, and that the majority of Jesus’ disciples were probably teenagers.

    And that Samuel went to boarding school after a promise made by his mother.

  180. Sophie & Kolya

    I’m still disturbed by watching that documentary – and how you were still no wiser at the end as to the reasons for his religious fervour. Both the men featured seemed to be lacking home father figures.

    Did you watch the 4-part series “The Frankincense Trail?” I loved it, particularly the last episode where a Palestinian man proudly declares, “Jesus was a Palestinian!” This is the Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Etg6p2IuE I notice that the men throughout the middle east shake her right hand, even the Wahhabis.

  181. @ Searching:

    Sounds like you were in a bona fide FIC (Family Integrated Church) church. The elders at my church swore up and down that they weren’t FIC. They actually weren’t – they did still have a Sunday School – but it was pretty obvious they had FIC sympathies that I’m not sure they even knew they had. They also really didn’t like it when they were warned about current theological trends; they much preferred to just stay in the “safe” bubble of their church and talk about their Reformed stuff (’cause as long as they’re Reformed, they’re safe, right?).

    You may have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but what denomination was/is your church? Mine was PCA. I wasn’t raised Lutheran, but about three years ago I thought I was Calvinist and decided to become Presbyterian. You see how long I (didn’t) last because now, I’m going to the Lutheran church again. I figured Lutheran and Reformed weren’t that different. Boy was I wrong.

  182. @ Kolya:

    I was homeschooled for my entire education and have never attended a public school of any kind. That said, homeschoolers frequently overstate their case. A lot. I’m personally of the opinion that to call any practice before 1960 “homeschooling” is disingenuous, because the term has political implications that just didn’t apply before then. And yes, the Reformers were big on education, but what homeschoolers tend to forget is that their beliefs always resulted in the formation of schools outside the home, because 16th-century parents were usually illiterate and in any case, had too many children and too little time to do it themselves. There’s quotes on education from Luther that say as much. And yes, the children certainly had to go elsewhere for Greek and Latin, thus why the Puritans established schools to teach those things (i.e., the Boston Latin School).

    As for kids interacting or not interacting with adults – I think the goal should be to have a kid who can interact with people of ALL ages. I haven’t seen that outcome very often from the public school, but I’ve also seen homeschooling fail in that area. So it’s no guarantee either way. I’ve met plenty of kids who couldn’t interact well with adults, let alone their parents. And when kids get the attitude that all adults are stupid simply because they are members of the older generation, I think a line has been crossed. I personally think being herded into a building with a few hundred other people my own age sounds pretty unpleasant, but I was homeschooled.

    @ Searching:

    Typo: I WAS raised Lutheran.

  183. @Hester,

    I was raised Reformed Baptist, our church was affiliated with SGM.

    Your comment

    “They also really didn’t like it when they were warned about current theological trends; they much preferred to just stay in the “safe” bubble of their church and talk about their Reformed stuff (’cause as long as they’re Reformed, they’re safe, right?).”

    is spot on… Anything and everything that had even the flavour of ‘Reformed’ was given the stamp of approval, even crazies like the Dougs Phillips & Wilson or Geoff Botkin were held up as esteemed members of the faith.

    Our church was wannabe FIC, they didn’t have Sunday school but there was a nursery for the wee babies and toddlers. Not everyone took advantage of that, so there was inevitably a lot of scolding going on after church because some poor 3 year old couldn’t sit still for 2 1/2 hours.

    “Typo: I WAS raised Lutheran.”

    I’m being drawn more and more to Lutheran doctrine. I’ve been reading different Lutheran bloggers and their perspectives are resonating with me.

  184. Searching

    TWW Axiom #20

    If  your church pushes: Wilson, Phillips, Ezzo, Pearl, Botkin-leave quickly. Do not even bother to shut the door. Flee as quickly as Joseph did when Potipher’s daughter approached him.  To quote the robot from Lost in Space (a gospel show) “Danger, Will Robinson, danger.”

  185. @ Searching & others:

    “…I can’t even count how many times I was told “the heart is deceitful and terribly wicked”, and that we should not trust our hearts…”

    That you inherit nothing of the divine, but only wickedness, is a lie from the father of lies. He hates you with hatred cruel because you were made a little lower than him and yet crowned with glory and honor.

  186. Muff

    “That you inherit nothing of the divine, but only wickedness, is a lie from the father of lies. He hates you with hatred cruel because you were made a little lower than him and yet crowned with glory and honor.”

    And you call yourself a heretic? Darn that’s good.

  187. Searching, NMP, Hester,

    When I read about your experiences in the Reformed church – and leaving it – I feel like I’m looking in a mirror. Very helpful to me as I process. Wish I had time to write more right now – you all have so many amazing things to say.

  188. Kassian’s “Sex in the Shadowlands” is the current post on the CBMW blog. Who is reading this ridiculous stuff?

    It’s definitely ANOTHER GOSPEL…

  189. “Kassian continues in the mindset of the psychotherapist, saying that the woman “needs healing of her pain before she is able to respond to truth.” – Carol Tharp MD

    As a psychiatric nurse practitioner, I have a question for Mary Kassian. “How do you think people are healed from their deep heart wounds that cause their pain if they are unable to respond to truth until they are healed?” I agree that people are not healed by reasoning with them, quoting Bible verses to them, or any other activity that engages their intellect with truth. It is the place of wounding, their heart, that must be touched. They need an encounter with God, who is The Truth. But I also believe God uses other people in the process. We are wounded in community (i.e., by people) and we are healed in community. To marginalize someone until she is healed (which communicates she has to be cleaned up before she is accepted, a gospel of works) is counter-productive. I see my place in the counseling process as helping to set the person up for an encounter with God. As we develop a therapeutic relationship that proves to be safe, he or she can begin to learn to trust, to be vulnerable, and to express their anger – even against God. But someone with a deep heart wound needs God’s intimate healing touch on their wound, whenever and however He does that.

  190. Liz –

    I totally agree! And what are you ultimately showing this person as you build a trusting relationship with them? — LOVE. Love is not shown when you point to scripture, explain your interpretation of that scripture, and say,
    “If you would just get with God’s program you will get over it.” That is just “works” as you said.

  191. Deb –

    Mary K. has not continued the series yet either. She has not posted in 10 days. I thought she was at the midpoint and had 2 more articles on the subject?

  192. Bridget,

    So true! As the saying goes, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

  193. Mary Kassian is at it again with her interlocking puzzle pieces. Her point may be that God-glorifying sex is a jaw-droppingly beautiful puzzle to which words like “authority” and “submission” can only point, and we probably can’t figure out. She’s planning on yet another post to try and explain it to us dummies, though. Thanks, Mary.

    I’d like to say more, but words fail me. Husbands “are” authority. Wives “are” submission. Sex is the place where complementarity and mutuality kiss. Men are “givers” and women are “receivers”. Mercifully, she hasn’t yet taken up the topic of piercer and piercee.

  194. Mary now plans 2 more posts to explain this to the Wimmen Folks. But in this post she clarifies that there’s no difference at all between what complementarian couples should actually DO in the bedroom, and what less-complementary couples might do. A very Piperesque article with lots of flowery language, which wives could not practically apply on any level.

  195. Don’t know if I can read any more that. It is starting to feel like self-inflicted torture 🙁

  196. I read that. I also noticed comments weren’t allowed. So I sent her a message about how her posts pretty much ignore the issue of single people, and how her line at the end about how a woman is never more ‘womanly’ nor a man more ‘manly’ can be incredibly hurtful.
    I didn’t write this in my message, but I also thought the blue and pink jigsaw puzzle pieces was an incredibly tacky image.

  197. There is no point in posting to this woman (Kassian, whom I have never heard of before). Praying for those who come under her spell is good. Ms. Kassian will not be convinced, and the women won’t listen.

    I have been looking for good Christian blogs since my LAbri list went pretty well extinct. I started with BJU, from there it went to disaffected alumni, “fundies”; and I found words I did not know: complementarian, sotierology, etc. It’s been a lot of fun but I can see that there seems to be a sort of war psychology among the fundies and the super reformed.

    I am so glad to have found the WW (my dad went to Wartburg), and Chaplain Mike. Know any others? My sister went through a painful divorce and thought that we should found a service consulting with women who were getting a divorce, as she had learned so much. We both laughed and decided it would work, probably, since the women wouldn’t listen, lol. The kind of women who listen and think for themselves, rely on the Spirit, don’t go to those churches, and many of the others are simply trying to please their man. I know that’s a generalization. Thanks WW

  198. Hanni,

    Thanks for your comment, and we’re so glad you have found us. 

    In April 2009 (one month after we started TWW), Mary Kassian spoke at a women’s conference in our community.  Dee and I didn’t know anything about her at the time.   Three years later, we now know her agenda in addressing women. 

    The True Woman Conference is coming up next month, and I will be once again discussing Kassian and her cohorts. 

  199. Hanni – you will find that there are more and more women willing to no longer just listen and do without first searching the scriptures. I am one of them. As soon as I am able, I will be looking to study the ancient languages the Bible was written in, so that I no longer need to rely on scholars to translate what they think the Bible says. (Which, incidentally, I find is ironically almost the exact situation as the Roman Catholic poor class, who relied solely on the clergy to read the Bible in Latin for them)

    http://www.theruthlessmonk.com is another blog written by a woman and I really love her posts.

  200. I know y’all “don’t like” Kassian’s post about sex and I can understand how a single person could hear the last bit hurtfully, but I agreed with a lot of her post. Even this part that sounds so shocking, I think she may be seeing the same thing I see:

    “authority and submission [is not]something a husband and wife “do” [but] …the essence of who they “are” as male and female.

    This is what I think Paul means when he states “wives are subject to their husbands in everything” Eph 5:24. There is no “vice versa” for husbands. IOW wives are vulnerable in everything. Their husbands have a lot of power. If a husband nourishes, cherishes, loves–> he creates an atmosphere where wife can flourish. So Paul hammers husband LOVE repeatedly. Husband has a lot of power. Wife is vulnerable. Description, not prescription.

  201. “If a husband nourishes, cherishes, loves–> he creates an atmosphere where wife can flourish. So Paul hammers husband LOVE repeatedly. Husband has a lot of power. Wife is vulnerable. Description, not prescription.”

    I see where you are coming form, but I disagree. Women have quite a lot of power as well. Perhaps not physically in most cases, but I have seen my husband when I “nourish, cherish and love” him and when I do not “nourish, cherish, and love him.” It is like he is a different man.

    The verses that deal with how a husband is to love his wife and a wife is to respect her husband is used in many unfortunate ways as well. Books have been written on how a husband “needs” respect and a wife “needs” love. Perhaps I am an anomaly, but I crave respect from my husband. And my husband craves my love. In fact, he once told me that when he feels like I don’t love him, it upsets him intensely. In our marriage, we look at the whole love and respect thing as interchangeable. I don’t need love more than him because I am female and he doesn’t need respect from me more because he is male.

    Our men are affected and vulnerable to us more than anyone seems willing to admit.

  202. Since we are launching back into a discussion about Mary Kassian’s series on sex, I thought you might like to know that she recently posted Necessities for God-Glorifying Sex on her blog (also featured on the CBMW blog ).

    And don’t even think about commenting on these posts on Kassian’s ‘Girls Gone Wise’ website because comments have been TURNED OFF. Yeah, it’s a real turn off, but you are welcome to comment here. 🙂

  203. No more Perfect,

    I expect you and I basically agree. Husbands are vulnerable too (see Eph 5:21- we are all vulnerable to one another. See also 1 Cor 12) but Paul singles out wives as vulnerable IN EVERYTHING (Eph 5:24). My experience is that my husband is far more vulnerable to workplace disappointments than he has ever been in our relationship. He derives his sense of significance and identity from work while for many years I was “just” a wife and mother.

    I’m with you on wanting respect and I disliked that book for many reasons, but it sure did launch me into studying his proof text and coming to vastly different conclusions than he.

    Another unilateral. Only husbands are directed to “leave and cleave”, IMO, being cleaved/attached/glued involves vulnerability to being hurt/torn. And it is an irresistible work of God, not something the man musters up himself.

  204. Charis –

    Do you think that Paul was writing to an absolute fact of the 1st century wife when be says, “wives are subject to their husbands in everything” Eph 5:24? Is it possible that he was addressing a cultural truth of that time and seeing it was not going to change anytime soon, he hammered home how men SHOULD treat their wives? Does that statement mean that wives should still be in that state today?

    BTW – I’m all for mutual love and respect 🙂 which can be lived out in a multitude of combinations depending on the couple. My husband may be loving me and his family if he stays out of the finances. I may be loving my husband by letting him cook the meals. The gifts God has given are not exclusive to sexes. Jesus was male. He would be a great example to men, and women, of how we should treat each other.

  205. Deb –

    I checked her site out last night. Why cann’t the filks who teach the complementatian perspective interact with people? Do they just want to be mini dictators? I have very little respect for people who want to publish their views on blogs but don’t want any comments. This is one reason I enjoy reading and commenting at TWW. Thanks to you and Dee for walking a different road 🙂

  206. Charis – I am pretty sure, as well, that we agree on quite a lot. I am guessing, however, that our disagreement on this comes down to the fact that I don’t believe the fact that Paul states women to be “subject in everything” to say that it means that women are, inherently, vulnerable in everything.

    Also, I believe this passage is descriptive to the time, not prescriptive for all time, which I believe may also be an important factor in our disagreement.

    Thank you for clarifying to me what you meant! I appreciate the calm dialogue and disagreement people can have on this blog. It is rarely found elsewhere.

  207. Bridget,

    Though I respect the merits of the “cultural” argument, I think that wives being subject to their husbands in everything is a universal phenomenon- in every culture and time. I see Paul’s statement in Eph 5:24 as an echo of Gen 3:16. He is stating the facts of life on this planet.

    Do women still have pain in childbirth?
    Are there still sweat and thorns to deal with?
    Do wives still desire their husbands and husbands rule?

    My answer would be “yes”, “yes”, and “yes”. We have mitigated some of the consequences with science (eg weed killer and epidurals), but we are not free of them.

  208. Maybe TMI but since we are discussing MK’s analysis of sex I was thinking about sex recently.

    My husband has to maintain tight control over himself in order for the act to last long enough for me to adequately “lose control”. I would hesitate to describe this in terms of “authority and submission” but there is definitely a gender difference.

  209. Charis:
    Do women still have pain in childbirth?
    Are there still sweat and thorns to deal with?
    Do wives still desire their husbands and husbands rule?

    I hope you’ll agree that all the repercussions prophesisied by God are negative, adverse conditions. Women are free of pain in childbirth as a result of medicine. (btw, the correct word is “sorrow” not pain as in physical) Men no longer “have to” work by “sweat” rather than in an air-conditioned environment. Thanks to Round-Up, we have control over undesirable weeds that choke the life from plants and vegetables and men no longer eat just plants and vegetation, but are free to include meat in their diets.

    These are not conditions that are “prescribed” but rather “described” and a picture of life outside the perfect environment of the garden.

  210. Or, as this quote from a post on Biblical Personhood says, “Note that God did not say he should rule, only that he would. Reading that as a command is like reading that Satan (the snake) should bite the heel of the couple’s children Gen. 3:15), and to read that God would be pleased with Satan for doing so.”

  211. Charis –

    You said:
    “Though I respect the merits of the “cultural” argument, I think that wives being subject to their husbands in everything is a universal phenomenon- in every culture and time. I see Paul’s statement in Eph 5:24 as an echo of Gen 3:16. He is stating the facts of life on this planet.”

    Does this mean you see this as a result of sin (the fall) or as the intentions of God? (I’m not sure what you mean by this.) I do not feel that I am subject to my husband in all things now, nor did I ever feel that way.

    These may be the facts of life on this planet (not ALL people experience those things though?) but that does not mean they are God’s original intention. God “proclaimed” that Eve would experience pain in childbirth after the Fall. I don’t believe that pain in childbirth was the intention of God when he created Eve.

  212. As a side: The same Hebrew word “toil/sorrow” that Adam will have in verse 17 is the same “toil/sorrow” Eve will have in verse 16. Pain is really not an accurate interpretation imo. Both will experience “toil/sorrow.”

    And also of interest, even though God told Adam he will return to dust, the same evidently applies to Eve, doesn’t it? We all return to dust.

  213. Bridget,
    I don’t believe the consequences of the fall are “punishment”. I think they are redemptive. (see Romans 8:20-23). Gen 3 nowhere says that God “cursed” the man or the woman. Based on my analysis of Gen 3:16 (increased pregnancy, double mention of pregnancy/chilbirth)I even wonder if female fertility AND sex drive increased!!?? If so, this was a BLESSING from God, a way of mitigating for the loss of immortality and a consolation for the first couple in the midst of the loss of garden intimacy.

    And though you don’t think you are subject to your husband in everything, if he was verbally abusive and/or an addict, I think you would find that it sucked the life out of you/wilted you and affected every area of your life. I think men compartmentalize better and they can zone out on distress at home and pour themselves into work or their hobbies. So while they are vulnerable, it is not to the same degree as women IMO and IME with my own husband. He could snore away every night when our marriage was a shambles. I was the one who suffered sleepless nights and painful days.

  214. I hope you’ll agree that all the repercussions prophesisied by God are negative, adverse conditions. -Victorious

    Nope, don’t agree. I believe the consequences of the fall include blessings and redemptive aspects. I agree with Don Johnson: Genesis 3:16 Analyzed by Don Johnson

    No More Perfect, I don’t think Gen 3:16 is a “command” any more than sweat and thorns is a “command”. They are descriptive of how life is going to be, not prescriptive.

  215. There’s certainly room for a difference of perspective, but the only blessing I see in the Genesis passage is the promise of a Redeemer. The verses in question mention adverse, negative conditions and have all been overcome with the exception of verse 16. Also conspicuously absent is a command or directive for Adam (or any man) to rule over his wife.

  216. The first couple had just lost immortality and God says “I will greatly multiply thy conception; and thy desire shall be to thy husband”

    God has just provided for the propagation of humanity. I feel blessed that He loved us enough to do that.

    But I respect that people have different opinions/interpretations.

  217. ….and thy desire shall be to thy husband”

    My KJV notes that the words “shall be” are not in the original. The addition does make it seem like a command, but without them, the original wording implies more of a prophetic warning or picture of yet another adverse condition.

  218. Charis – I, too, agree that 3:16 is not a command. Where we differ is that God tells Eve that from now on her husband will now want to rule over her and dominate her instead of living with her in peace.

  219. In fact, the word “desire” is really a misnomer according to Katherine Bushnell, a Hebrew scholar. She maps the word to the Talmud. If you’re interested, you can see it here: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/chart_of_teshuqa.htm

    Her book, “God’s Word to Women” is very beneficial in eliminating much of the biased wording used by some translators.

  220. Charis –

    I have no doubt that you experienced all those things in your marriage. I am sad for that, though I can see how God turned (is turning) it for good. I can see how many women married, and not married, have experienced the same things. But I’m sure that what you, as a woman, have also experienced, men have experienced as well. There are men who lay awake at night as you do (as I have). I don’t think abuse, or worry or anxiety, or compartmentalizing is as gender specific as we tend to think. Women and men have the ability to choose if they will stay in an abusive relationship or not, unless they are physically forced to stay. I want to tred gently here because I can see how difficult it is to leave an emotionally or physically abusive relationaship, but I also don’t want women (or men) to believe that they are helpless, or that God intended them to stay in such a place. Didn’t Jesus come to redeem and set captives free?

    The biggest loss we had after the Fall was the loss of intimacy with God. I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were hiding from each other. They were hiding, embarrassed, and afraid to stand in front of God. Their biggest need was to be restored to God. The Fall would also reek havoc on their relationship with each other, but God started a process of restoration (fulfilled in Christ) after he shared the consequences of their choice to take what God had told them not to take. If there were no consequences, then why would God need to restore anything?

  221. Bridget said “There are men who lay awake at night as you do (as I have).”

    This is my husband. He lays awake all the time with worries. I am the one sleeping peacefully. Each person is so different, which is why stereotypes don’t work. I compartmentalize better than my husband. Does this mean I am more masculine and he is less masculine? No. It just is how God made us and thankfully, we don’t need to worry because we don’t believe in gender stereotypes.