Making Waves: Wendy Alsup and Practical Theology for Women

The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair, and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater. Lord of the Rings link 

800px-Gap_vu_de_ceuse-2
Gap-A Town in France-Wikicommons
 

Taking Sides

Yesterday I had a conversation with a dear Christian sister. She expressed concern that it appears that I outright reject people who believe in Young Earth Creationism. About a week ago, our "guy behind the curtain" told us that we had published our 1,000 post! What is perfectly apparent to us may get lost in the mounds of our opinions. There is no question that I do not support YEC, believing the science to be weak. However, I believe that proponents are committed Christians who take the Word of God seriously and, for that, I commend them.

In this post, A Tip of the Hat to a Young Earth Scientist and the Biologos President, I lauded a youth earth creationist who has agreed to submit his work to scientific peer review. In this post, TWW Applauds SEBTS and Biologos: Attempting a Creation War Detente, we gave huzzahs to both sides of this debate for being willing to talk it out politely with one another.

We have also been told that we are anti-Calvinism, and in a particularly notable post, accused of supporting Calvinism link.  We call attention to Wade Burleson who does the weekly sermon on E Church. He subscribes to Reformed theology and I have been known to quote Roger Olson, an Arminianist, on  regular basis.

Then there is the big debate on gender roles. Although I do not subscribe to either egalitarianism or complementarianism, believing that both terms are limiting, we have been "accused" of being egalitarians or feminists. Since both of us stayed home with our children and carried out what appears to be a more traditional roles in our marriages, this is a bit amusing to us. So, today, I want to feature a complementarian that I truly enjoy and respect. Both Deb and I believe that we can all get along together, in spite of our differences. In fact, the best role model of doing so is found in The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Today, I read the following comment on Trevin Wax's blog link.

Just yesterday, I was leading a group Bible study and we were discussing church unity. We used The Fellowship of the Ring as an illustration. This strange band of characters (dwarves, elves, hobbits, a wizard, humans) were very different, and yet they were united in a mission that brought them together (get the ring to Mordor to be destroyed). Their understanding of the seriousness of the situation necessarily focused their attention so that their individual differences were secondary. The dwarf and elf even got to liking each other as they were side by side in battle! 

Wendy Alsup and Practical Theology for Women.

​Wendy is a self-described Reformed complementarian who has been featured at The Gospel Coalition (TGC) blog. Wendy is the former Deacon in charge of Women's Theology and Training  at Mark Driscoll's church. She quietly left that church (there must be a story in there but I digress) and runs a blog called Practical Theology for Women link. Wendy is a smart, thoughtful woman who looks at complementarianism through a different set of lenses. In so doing, she is getting some pushback from some of the members of TGC like Kevin DeYoung link and Thabiti Anyabwile link.

The critique was aimed at a recent post called A New Wave of Complementarianism link. And it truly is a new way of looking at the issue. Wendy navigates the tricky waters between complmentarianism and egalitarianism while still holding on to her complementarian beliefs. (Wendy, while you are at it, could you get them to choose a shorter word to describe it?)

There's a new wave of complementarianism stirring. It's not made up of true egalitarians, though those in this new movement respect many egalitarian concerns. Too often in the past, egalitarians and feminists were made out to be the bad guys with a complete disregard for the very real issues that concern those who hold feminist and/or egalitarian views. This new wave is also not the same as old school complementarianism, which rose up in the 1970's in reaction to 2nd wave feminism. That type of complementarian view was founded upon Susan Foh's interpretation of Genesis 3:16 as a desire among women after the fall to control their husbands. It is often linked with patriarchy.

Genesis 3:16 NIV-Bible Gateway link

To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
     ​with painful labor you will give birth to children. 
Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.” 

She reports that she has heard from many women who, while adhering to a high view of Scripture, church history and the historical creeds, disagree strongly with Foh's interpretation of Genesis 3:16.

Strong disagreement with Foh's interpretation of Genesis 3:16 that the woman's desire for her husband will be a desire to control him. This new wave of complementarian believers notes that Foh's interpretation of Genesis 3:16 has no history in the Church. Before 1970, no Church father/theologian had suggested her interpretation of Genesis 3:16. Instead, this new wave embraces Genesis 3:16 as reflecting an inordinate longing by the woman for the man, an idolatrous longing that is often the root of very bad choices on the woman's part.  The answer to which is greater dependence on God, not the man, which then frees the woman to help the man as God originally intended. 

I urge you to read the rest of the post which highlights the following points:

  • Recognition of some positive aspects of feminism
  • Acknowledgement that marriage and family are not the end points for all women
  • Appreciation for complementary views of gender, submission and respect.
  • Support for female deacons

The Texts of Terror

In another post, Wendy Alsup tackles what I believe to be one of the most difficult aspects of the faith. Rachel Held Evans refers to them as the "texts of terror." While Held Evans acknowledges these texts, she has not explored the possible answers to some of them in an in-depth fashion.

Years ago, when I went through my crisis of faith, I challenged myself to begin to deal with the tough stuff in the Bible. I had a working theory. If I found certain texts in the Bible to be difficult to understand, brighter men and women than myself had also experienced similar feelings. But, many of them had been able to resolve the conflicts in a way that satisfied them. 

Wendy Alsup tackled a few of these "terror texts" in the Old Testament in a post Some Things You Should Know About Women and the Old Testament link.

For example, she looks at the oft debated Judges 19 chapter which deals with a  Levite man who cut up his concubine after she had been raped and left for dead by strangers in a city. 

Wow, this one is a horrible, horrible story. Which is the entire point. This chapter opens with the words, “In those days, Israel had no king.” That's the point of the entire book of Judges. They had no king, and the very last words of the book of Judges is that this lack of a king resulted in everyone doing what was right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25). 

Wendy makes the point that even when the people got kings, the kings failed them. Note how many kings are listed in the Old Testament under the statement "They did evil in the sight of the Lord." Wendy lets us know that these difficulties expose a need in all of us.

They all needed a perfect King who would give the perfect standard of righteousness. They needed King Jesus.

I was pleased to see how she dealt with Leviticus 15. This chapter includes the rules for dealing with a woman's menstrual period. I have often thought that one must look at the commands through the eyes of a people who lived under a theocracy. In other words, God was in charge of the workings of His people. He was the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, etc. So, for example, shellfish were not allowed to be consumed because they are bottom feeders. This made them dangerous for consumption in a culture in which animals and humans used the rivers as dumping grounds for waste products.

Here is what she had to say about Leviticus 15.

 Frankly, I'm very thankful for the sanitary advances we've made for both men and women discharging bodily fluid (which is a weird way to say it, but that's how this chapter refers to it). They didn't have latex gloves or those little protective pads that retirement homes sometimes use to cover beds or chairs. And they certainly didn't have Always, Tampax, or anything even remotely equivalent. Plus, they didn't live in homes with secure doorways to protect them from animals following the scent of blood. It was in everyone's best interest, male and female, to have clear guidelines on what could and could not be done during the time of a woman's cycle so that the remainder of the month was not full of the types of diseases and consequences that would come in that harsh environment if blood or other types of discharges were not wisely handled. And remember, this chapter includes SIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS FOR MEN.

So, to our complementarian readers, chalk this post up as a positive in the complementarian column. And please visit Wendy's blog. She is an excellent teacher for both men and women (even though she says the blog is for women).

Lydia's Corner: 1 Samuel 29:1-31:13  John 11:55-12:19  Psalm 118:1-18 Proverbs 15:24-26

Comments

Making Waves: Wendy Alsup and Practical Theology for Women — 164 Comments

  1. What I would say to strict complementarians or those who are flirting with patriarchalism is: “Just let people live normal lives and STOP trying to impose alien structures/hierarchies on them! These create dysfunction.”

  2. I have found that as comps ignore Ephesians 5:21 to further an agenda of submission on the part of the wife only, so too when Gen. 3:16 is removed from its context, it leads to an erroneous focus on the husband and wife relationship.

    The words God is speaking in verses 3:14-22 are prophetic. He is conveying the adverse, negative conditions that will exist upon leaving the garden. While they are adverse and negative, most have been overcome with time. For example, men do not have to be farmers by tilling the ground; but are free to pursue careers in the area of their choice. They do not have to endure sweat as they toil, but can work today in an air-conditioned environment. They don’t have to allow thorns and thistles to grow, but can utilize Round-Up, mulch, or other weed-control products. And men don’t have to eat plants alone anymore; meat is a common addition to the meal today.

    Eve’s turning to Adam will result in him dominating her. This as the other prophetic words, is a negative, adverse condition that will prevail outside of the garden. But just as the other adverse conditions have been overcome/resolved, this one must be as well.

    I see no commands in Genesis 3, but rather prophetic words that convey very sad conditions the human beings with a sinful nature would encounter after leaving the garden.

    If comps are going to make Gen. 3:16 a command (rather than an adverse condition) then consistency in interpretation necessitates all men must engage in toiling the soil, sweating as they till the ground, eating only plants, and allowing thorns and thistles to grow.

    Comps have lifted verse 16 from its context and the result is that it is the last negative, adverse condition to be overcome as the others have been.

  3. Sorry about all the bolds….I neglected to close it after the word “prophetic.” 🙁

  4. I did always find the desire for husband = usurpation thing to be a little odd. I’m glad to see that some comps are now starting to question it. Quite frankly, I’m glad I discovered Alsup, because she gives me hope that not every current major comp figure (male or female) is a borderline or closet patriarchalist. And I hope she gets more widely read, because for reasons I’ll never be able to fathom, the current comp masses in evangelicalism are eating up the patriarchal crap like candy.

    Here is my current take on the comp-egal debate. There are the wacky extremes on both the left (i.e., calling God “She”) and the right (i.e., Vision Forum). And then in the middle there is what I’ve come to call The Zone of Common Sense, which probably looks a lot like the “functional egalitarianism” Russ Moore decries. “Right-leaning” functional egalitarianism in marriage, to me, = something along the lines of the husband technically being “in charge” but rarely or never actually resorting to “pulling rank.” And in church, to me it basically means that women can do almost anything and everything except preach from the pulpit on Sunday morning.

    In other words…behavior is more important than technical doctrinal points. I know lots of comp couples with perfectly normal functioning marriages who don’t repress their daughters, etc. I’ve also noticed that dysfunction/weirdness seems to be proportional to how often a given comp wife uses the words “head” and “submit” in everyday conversation…

  5. @ Victorious:

    “I have found that as comps ignore Ephesians 5:21 to further an agenda of submission on the part of the wife only”

    A speaker I heard this week (Voddie Baucham) claimed that 5:21 meant, not submit to one another generally, but submit to the authorities God has placed in your life. He based this on the fact that 1) 5:21 is at the end of a paragraph and 2) the wife-husband, master-slave, and parent-children commands are three applications of 5:21 and therefore 5:21 is not general to all believers. My thoughts:

    1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought there weren’t paragraphs in the original Greek;
    2. I don’t necessarily disagree that the relationships following 5:21 are applications of that command, but I don’t think they’re the only applications. And there are plenty of other verses where Christians are told to serve one another to incline me to think that marriage is either outright mutually submissive or “functionally egalitarian.” (I’m also not quite convinced that “authority” is the best lens to interpret marriage through anyway.)

  6. Dee – Not sure how staying home to raise your kids means that someone can’t be a feminist. They’re not diametrically opposed, after all! (Though I agree that in many peoples’ minds, they are viewed that way.)

  7. Hester,

    A speaker I heard this week (Voddie Baucham) claimed that 5:21 meant, not submit to one another generally, but submit to the authorities God has placed in your life.

    Ephesians 5 lists a “string of participles” for believers:

    – making the most of time
    – addressing one another with psalms, hymns, spiritual songs
    – singing
    – making melody
    – giving thanks
    – submitting to one another

    No mention of authority; only “one anothering.” 🙂

  8. I read somewhere a while back that Susan Foh was mentored by Grudem. I cannot find a bio on her.

  9. Hester wrote:

    I did always find the desire for husband = usurpation thing to be a little odd. I’m glad to see that some comps are now starting to question it.

    The problem is that once they go down that road, comp doctrine will fall like a house of cards when people start thinking it through. Comp is predicated upon hierarchy before the fall. Without that, it has no legs to stand. So, good start! Mutuality is what scripture teaches with all it’s “one anothers”.

  10. @ Hester:

    I think many of these men who are so enthralled with authority and a structure of hierarchy in family life and church structures should have joined the army, navy, or marines instead of inflicting their ideas upon the Church.

  11. Sergius: I looked at your whole blog and laughed until I cried. Please post more. The Frank Turk post really sent me over the edge with tears of laughter. We need more.

  12. I am having a hard time following her flow of thinking on Judges. God was angry that Israel wanted a king. He was their king. But He gave them what they asked for. Not that they needed an earthly king to make them behave but because they asked for one. I think Judges is making a historical point.

  13. Liz wrote:

    The Frank Turk post really sent me over the edge with tears of laughter. We need more.

    The Frank Turk was brill. Simply brill.

  14. Bridget wrote:

    @ Hester:

    I think many of these men who are so enthralled with authority and a structure of hierarchy in family life and church structures should have joined the army, navy, or marines instead of inflicting their ideas upon the Church.

    heehee…but in the military they might find themselves in a position of having to submit and obey. In fact, the chain of command so loved by the comps definitely resembles the military than a loving, mutual relationship between two intelligent adults.

  15. The obsession with “authority” is very Gothardian. I believe that Bill Gothard is an influence on the complementarian movement which ordinary complementarians are unaware of. Paige and Dorothy Patterson are friends and associates of Gothard, and have surely been influence by his ideas. I’m sure that they are not the only founders of Complementarianism that have read Gothard.

    http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2011/04/authority/

    http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/07/famous-fundies-bill-gothard-2/

  16. Interesting timing that the ‘women thing’ topic is so often being discussed here and there on the net. Y’all may be interested in the article just posted on my http://www.ChurchExiters.com website. It is entitled: “Women in the Church and the Silence Issue.”

    I was at a conference recently and heard a presentation by Dr. Waldemar Kowalski. It made sense to ask for his permission to put his paper in a reader-friendly format so that many others could read it. He makes a good case. See what you think. Enjoy!

  17. Congrats Ladies for your 1,000th post!! Is that a fact? Who’da thought?!!

    And they just keep going and going and going. 🙂 All the best as you keep heralding the truth and exposing the darkness!!

  18. Bridget wrote:

    That “authority” issue is forever being thrown in or appealed to where it is not found in the scripture.

    Also (from Matthew 20):

    Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

  19. @ Bridget:

    Funny thing about that… my dad was in the military for many decades, my Mom said she believed in the male is head of house stuff, but their marriage was pretty equal. My Mom’s wishes sometimes trumped what my dad thought was best.

  20. @Barb Orlowski

    Just had a quick read through of that article — very, very interesting. I have never heard that interpretation before (and believe me, I have read a LOT on the subject) and it makes so much sense — absolute consistency with the context of the text! Thank you, this is a gift.

  21. @ Victorious:

    Yes, he didn’t extend his “one another” = “given authority” principle to the part of the passage about worship/singing. How interesting. : ) He claims there’s a three-tier “telescoping” structure in the passage which I think is where he gets his specific twist on it. I can see where he gets the idea, but I’m still not sure it’s as “lethal” to egals as he thinks it is.

  22. @ Bridget:

    The military question is always interesting. All these guys (at least at Vision Forum, not sure about CBMW) glorify the military, but almost none of them having ever been in it and they consistently say stuff that indicates they have no idea how military family life really works. For instance, Doug Phillips said a dad whose job takes him away from home too much cannot be a “faithful father,” but then out of the other side of his mouth he praises the Marines at Iwo Jima up one side and down the other. Except those Marines weren’t with their families. So which is it?

  23. Barb Orlowski wrote:

    Hey, I finally got a Canadian flag beside my name when I posted. Wow! I’m impressed. Probably Thanks goes to ‘the guy behind the curtain’!

    Congrats Barb!!!

  24. Hester, I did once come across the term “militarists in mufti” for people who glorify things military without having been in the forces themselves.

  25. I just went and read through Wendy’s blog. There is a bit of cognitive dissonance in her thinking for this new “comp” and this comment of hers sort of solidified it for me:

    “EMSoliDeoGloria, I don’t like the term hierarchy, but D. A. Carson has convinced me on his exposition of the word submit in Ephesians 5 that it is not a truly two way street. He points out that all in the Body of Christ are called to defer to one another and serve one another, but there is a specificity to the word used for submit in Eph. 5 that clearly implies hierarchy. D. A. Carson has a compelling session on this topic that I loved and found helpful and encouraging. I’ll see if I can find the link. ”

    There is a strain out there that does have problems with comp teaching but they cannot let go of hierarchy and I think it has to do with they have been so brainwashed into believing. Especially that if you think the sexes are equal in marriage and The Body you are one short walk away from no gender distinctions. They have made the physical into the spiritual.

    There is also the need to be accepted by certain groups, one has to be careful if they want to remain in good standing. Since Wendy is reformed, I would encourage her to take a look at Roger Nicole on this subject instead of DA Carson.

    When you start getting into some of these guys exegesis it gets downright scary how they can take a 1st century metaphor and turn it into strict living roles for the 21st century so that when the penis is around, it is to be submitted to. That is what it boils down to because they have made the physical a spiritual rule.

  26. I just wanted to add that I am delighted that comp women are rethinking this doctrine. It truly has become untenable in application. It had increasingly become a Talmudic exercise. Just one example would be Piper spending years tying heavy burdens around women’s neck from giving directions to men to reading the scriptures aloud in church. It was only a matter of time before educated women would say “enough”. For Driscoll, Wendy’s former boss, the gender focus seemed to be about submission in all things sexual ignoring 1 Corin 7 altogether.

    Comp in all it’s many variations had become so man centered as to become sinister.

  27. Couldn’t resist:

    Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

    He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

    He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

    Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

  28. @ Daisy:
    @ Hester:

    Thinking about the military viewpoint again, I had another thought that goes along with what Daisy said. Military wives are nothing like the picture painted by “militarists in mufti” (from Kolya). Military wives do “everything” while their husbands are away serving. They run the household, care for the children, give birth, many work an outside job, and they all worry if they’ll ever see their husband again. They do all of this without their spouse around. Military wives are nothing like the mufti’s wives.

  29. @ Fendrel:

    Really? I understand the silly around the denom issue, but wrapping funny around the issue of suicide just doesn’t fly for me. It’s just not a laughing matter. Have you ever almost, or actually lost someone to suicide, Fendrel? BTW I generally get a lot out of reading your posts.

  30. This is a refreshing take on the C/E debate. Personally I’ve begun to view this debate through the lens of reconciliation. Just as we are reconciled to the Father through Christ, we should all be reconciled to each other (age, race, gender, etc). This is no easy task because these issues run deep. We are 50+ years past the civil rights movement but true racial reconciliation is still in its infancy (thankful for groups like Intervarsity who make it a priority.)

    So in regards to gender, my rub with complementarianism is that although the adherents have concocted a theological framework for their view, I fail to see how it addresses reconciling the hostility between men and women through Christ. Quite the opposite, it perpetuates it. I liken complementarian gender roles to two siblings who, unable to get along, put a line of duct tape down the middle of their room and attempt to get along by staying on their side of the line. Not to mention all the blaming that goes on (men don’t participate because the church is “feminized,” etc)

    So just like race can’t be dealt with by just being “color blind,” gender can’t be addressed by just declaring men and women equal and getting on with it. I hope to see more people embracing the middle ground here!

  31. Bridget wrote:

    @ Fendrel:

    Really? I understand the silly around the denom issue, but wrapping funny around the issue of suicide just doesn’t fly for me. It’s just not a laughing matter. Have you ever almost, or actually lost someone to suicide, Fendrel? BTW I generally get a lot out of reading your posts.

    It’s a fairly common joke: http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/09/taxonomy/

  32. This is certainly not to disagree with the goal of getting along, but the Fellowship did fall apart. Boromir nearly killed Frodo, and so the hobbits had to go off on their own.

    But the friendship of Legolas and Gimli is indeed encouraging.

  33. @ Victorious:

    Just like men have had these negative conditions lifted from them, so to have they been lifted from women. We no longer have to endure pain in childbirth or death from its complications. A myopic view of the world is more than I can tolerate.

    As an aside, we declined to become full members of our current church, because this was in Declaration of Faith and Covenant:

    15. Family Relationship-we believe that God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. We believe that men and women are spiritually equal in position befor God but that God has ordained distinct and separate spiritual functions for men and women in the home and church. Men are to be the leaders in the home and church and accordingly only eligible for licensure and ordination by the church.

    I find the pastor does not in fact adhere strictly to these bylaws, and he has said before he would be open to women as elders, I could not in good conscience sign or support a document that states this. Obviously, I know of no one IRL that agrees with me. In light of the events of the past week (the three kidnapped girls being found and Elizabeth Smart’s statements, I need to stand firm for the full declaration that women are fully made in the image of God and therefore are equal in every way. I see any form of hierarchy as dangerous to women. Why do we need hierarchy if we are a family?

  34. @ Hester:
    . . . the current comp masses in evangelicalism are eating up the patriarchal crap like candy.

    I’ve been thinking about why this is so lately. If one listens to the rhetoric of complemantarian pastors, their view just so happens to be the “biblical” view; their view “takes the Bible seriously.” Many listening must be thinking, “Well, I want to be biblical. I take the Bible seriously.”

    Honestly, it’s ridiculous. I’m utterly amazed at how much the Bible affirms the views of these pastors. (I’m rolling my hermeneutical eyes.) Must conservative complementarian pastors be reminded of the late Southern Baptist egalitarian Roger Nicole — a man who held to biblical inerrancy, took the Bible very seriously, and still maintained his egalitarian views?

  35. I think it bears repeating from the previous long thread on YEC. Not all people of faith believe the same things, especially when it comes to gender questions in the church. Many, on both sides of the aisle will insist on neatly boxed categories in which they own the labels. Hard core feminists will look down their noses at women who want nothing more than home and children, and those who hold to ixtian patriarchy will insist that plumbing received at birth is the sole arbiter of valid vocation in the church or in life. Alsup’s article has demonstrated admirably that women do not have to be jammed into an oaken pigeon holes owned by polarized extremists.

  36. William Birch wrote:

    I’ve been thinking about why this is so lately. If one listens to the rhetoric of complemantarian pastors, their view just so happens to be the “biblical” view; their view “takes the Bible seriously.” Many listening must be thinking, “Well, I want to be biblical. I take the Bible seriously.”

    Wouldn’t be the first time someone claimed Cosmic-Level Authority (God, Bible, Koran, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Nature, etc) to justify their pet idea or project. And coincidentally raise its importance to literally Cosmic Level.

  37. I won’t use the word complementarian when speaking of patriarchy. I believe there is true equalitarian complementarian thought taught in the Bible. I believe that gender roles throughout history have served some noble functions as long as folks are free to ditch them when necessary.

    For example: many of us were loyal SBC folks living in the far flung hinterlands in the 50’s and 60’s. Now generally, many of us did think and do think children fare best with a stable family consisting of a mom and a dad and the kiddoes. And given that dads cannot gestate or lactate, most of the time it would probably work quite well for dad to earn the living and mom to make the home. Most of the time. And we were quite content to have the preachers be males because they had the freedom from gestation and lactation plus were simply safer travelling alone in our wild environments. So far so good.

    BUT–lots of men were not pounding on our doors to face the dangers we lived with and be our pastors. And some single women were quite willing to do so. We called them “home missionaries” back then and let them do those more dangerous low paying jobs. Today we’d all get tossed from the SBC for doing so.

    Time came when we started questioning why the gals could only function in those less desirable low paying places. Why couldn’t they pastor larger more urban churches?

    Of course they could. So we had to have a patriarchal resurgence.

    But some of us still believe that in general, children fare better with a mom and a dad and that generally speaking moms bodily functions may make it better for dad to earn the living. That doesn’t make us in league with the patriarchy at all, AS LONG AS we can still acknowledge that like with Deborah and Jael, what may be true IN GENERAL is not always the best IN SPECIFIC.

    General gender roles healthy? Yes, as they help society function smoothly. One size always fits all and nobody dare step out of them? Not on your tintype!

  38. @Lynne T
    Thanks, Lynne, and you are welcome. It was in God’s providence that I first heard Rosemary’s paper with some others about women in ministry in the church and on the mission field. R. is Mrs. Kowalski. She said that Waldemar was going to present in another session later–to which I found myself there and ‘sitting next to him’. I was able to ask him further questions, get to know him, and ask permission to use his presentation in an article for an online audience.

    I, too, felt that this interpretation/presentation was a gift and that others should be exposed to his take on this passage. It is simple, clear, and makes sense in light of the context of this book in the NT. Waldemar was willing to allow me to create a reader-friendly version–and now it is available for people to read, ponder, and to share with others.

  39. VelvetVoice wrote:

    Just like men have had these negative conditions lifted from them, so to have they been lifted from women. We no longer have to endure pain in childbirth or death from its complications. A myopic view of the world is more than I can tolerate.

    I believe pain is an incorrect interpretation in Gen. 3 regarding childbirth. The Hebrew word used for Eve is the same word used for Adam in the prophetic words spoken to each. It reflects either sorrow or toil for both. The KJV reads “pain” for both Eve’s bearing offspring and Adam’s “pain” in eating from the ground which makes no sense. But bearing offspring outside of the garden would cause Eve “sorrow” in bringing them forth into a sinful world as a result of their sin. And eating the fruit of the ground in “sorrow” for Adam makes more sense than eating in pain. Again, same Hebrew word for both so consistency requires the same interpretation imo.

    H6093

    From H6087; worrisomeness, that is, labor or pain: – sorrow, toil.

  40. @ Anon 1 & William Birch:

    Could either of you provide me some links for Roger Nicole? I’ve heard the name but never gotten an opportunity to read him.

  41. Victorious wrote:

    I believe pain is an incorrect interpretation in Gen. 3 regarding childbirth. The Hebrew word used for Eve is the same word used for Adam in the prophetic words spoken to each. It reflects either sorrow or toil for both.

    I think Calvin Miller once wrote in a poem “Every womb empties into a grave”; that might also be an echo.

    Actually, use of painkillers for childbirth faced an uphill climb, justified by this chapter-and-verse. Anecdotes from the Middle Ages claim women got nailed for Witchcraft for using painkillers during birth, as this was in Direct Defiance of God’s Word. The Church of England cited this chapter-and-verse when the 19th Century introduced anesthesia and more effective pain medication; Queen Victoria had to put her foot down, use anesthesia/painkillers in one of her labors, and publicize the fact before things relented.

  42. @ Bridget:

    Yes, very true, when the husband gets sent overseas, the wife has to take over all his tasks, plus hers.

    That was true of my mom when my dad get sent on tours of duty overseas during the Vietnam conflict, where he would be gone for a year or longer at a time.

    I think the military has changed a bit since my dad retired, and certainly from WW1/WW2 days, where a guy had to stay overseas until the war was won (which could take years) but today, military personnel are permitted return home for a couple of weeks on a vacation of sorts before shipping them back. (I don’t think they did that in my father’s time in the miiltary.)

    But anyway – sometimes military couples spend a lot of time apart. Sometimes women serve, but it’s usually men, and their wives have to take over both roles when the husband leaves.

    Deb and Dee did an older post on here where the gender complementarians still don’t care about that sort of thing- there was a story about a wife whose husband got brain damage or something, was physically disabled, and although the wife became the functioning head of the couple because the husband literally could do nothing, the comps continued to pretend the husband was the leader and the wife was submitting.

    Even though the lady in the story had taken over all the stereotypical “male/ leader” roles because she had to, the comps insisted she was still an example of a submissive wife.

  43. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Actually, use of painkillers for childbirth faced an uphill climb, justified by this chapter-and-verse. Anecdotes from the Middle Ages claim women got nailed for Witchcraft for using painkillers during birth, as this was in Direct Defiance of God’s Word. The Church of England cited this chapter-and-verse when the 19th Century introduced anesthesia and more effective pain medication; Queen Victoria had to put her foot down, use anesthesia/painkillers in one of her labors, and publicize the fact before things relented.

    Thanks for this info HUG. Some history I was aware of, other not. If we choose to interpret the word as pain, then Adam must also have physical pain in his career. 🙂 Or both toil in their respective warnings facing them outside the garden.

    Regardless, this confirms that it is one of the prophetic words of God that has been overcome as has the “eating plants”, “eating bread by the sweat of his
    face” and “thorns and thistles” growing. Now the last adverse condition to overcome is the elimination of the desire of men to rule over women.

  44. @ Bridget:

    I used to have depression and a suicidal bent (both run in both sides of my family, too – I also have three online friends who think about suicide, 2 of whom have been hospitalized for making an attempt or thinking about doing so this past year), but I used the same joke on an older thread here to make a point.

    The joke is not intended to make light of suicide or people with suicidal ideation, but to point out how some believers are so narrow-minded and judgmental about what other believers think about doctrine and their willingness to exclude any one who does not agree with them 100% on all doctrine 100% of the time, that it’s ridiculous.

    That’s how I took the joke, not as an attack on people with suicidal tendencies. 🙂

  45. Correction/clarification 🙂

    Now the last adverse condition to overcome is the desire of men to rule over women.

  46. Fendrel, Nicholas, Daisy –

    I understand the premise of the joke. I just don’t find it humerous. I appreciate you responding, Fendrel. I hope you and Daisy are able to give comfort to those who have been affected by suicide. I guess the “funniness” of the joke is in the eye of the beholder.

  47. Daisy wrote:

    Driscoll is one of the speakers at
    The 2013 “Act Like Men” Conference
    I think the gender complementarian theme song for these sorts of events should be:
    “Walk Like A Man” (by Frankie Valli And The Four Seasons)

    Well, there’s also the musical number in the SpongeBob Squarepants movie where SpongeBob & Squidward march across a monster-infested ocean bottom wearing fake mustaches:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_4X1dgV0Dw

    Or this old standby for “Driscoll’s Theme” (which even has a “Masculine Love” angle):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08

  48. Victorious wrote:

    Regardless, this confirms that it is one of the prophetic words of God that has been overcome as has the “eating plants”, “eating bread by the sweat of his
    face” and “thorns and thistles” growing. Now the last adverse condition to overcome is the elimination of the desire of men to rule over women.

    Well, the “eating plants” verse (and little or no mention of meat until after the story of Noah) was used by several 19th Century groups to claim that Vegetarianism was God’s Plan.

  49. Victorious wrote:

    Thanks for this info HUG. Some history I was aware of, other not.

    Most of it was stuff I picked up through osmosis as a kid (being a natural-talent speedreader does that to you). Little thing to consider regarding Uppity Women:

    Queen Victoria. Head of State/Head of Government of that century’s Number-One SUPERPOWER. And official head of the Church of England.

    “Walk wide of the Widow at Windsor,
    For half of Creation she owns…”
    http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/widow_at_windsor.html

  50. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Well, the “eating plants” verse (and little or no mention of meat until after the story of Noah) was used by several 19th Century groups to claim that Vegetarianism was God’s Plan.

    Yes…Begs the question that if those words in Gen. 3 are “commands,” did God rescind His own command? And doesn’t it confirm that His words were never meant to be forever commands at all, but rather prophetic in nature?

    So isn’t it strange that some continue to see a husband’s rule over his wife and a command?

  51. Hester,

    Nicole wrote some stuff for the Priscilla Papers but not sure it is online. He recently died at 95! He was a Calvinist and an expert of Calvinism.

    It is so weird that some of the Founder Calvinist of the SBC promote his Calvin writings as do TGC but are mum about his egalitarianism.

    wiki listed these:

    Christians for Biblical Equality: Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality.” Contributor. Minneapolis: Christians for Biblical Equality, 1989.

    “Hermeneutics and the gender debate” in Discovering biblical equality: complementarity without hierarchy. Edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. InterVarsity Press, 2005. ISBN 0-8308-2834

  52. @ Daisy:
    I posted this on the other thread, but want to repeat it here. There is a huge difference between acting like a man and being a man. I hope the “manly” neo-Calvies understand that some day real soon.

    I think I’m inspired to write a post about “manliness” — manliness within the context of Jacob, the “mama’s boy” chosen of God to be in the Davidic line (Gen. 25:27b), and the “manly man’s man” Esau, the godless apostate (Gen. 25:27a; Heb. 12:16). Now, which would did God approve of, again?

  53. @ William Birch:

    Didn’t Jacob also prefer to stay close to home – wasn’t he more of a farmer/ gardener, and the other guy liked hunting? Hunting, I suppose, was considered more macho in that culture / time period than growing crops.

    It’s strange how gender complementarians waffle or still remain unclear on their understanding of manliness (or femininity) and gender roles, and they sometimes contradict themselves in these areas, despite being consumed by these issues.

    Concerning manliness, some of them might hold King David up as an example of manliness of sorts because he was a military leader who killed men. But, the guy also protected lambs, wrote poetry and played a harp (was a musician).

    OTOH, while some of the comp preachers might consider musicianship a tad “girly” some of them will turn around and use rock and roll in their churches.

    I don’t know if Perry Noble is a comp, but I read he had had church open an Easter service using the song “Highway to Hell.”

    Also, a lot of gender complementarians (including the women complementarians), seem to view cooking as a feminine task (since they believe women should stay at home and cook and clean) – but, spend any time watching Food Network, and it one can see many, many male chefs.

  54. Victorious wrote:

    So isn’t it strange that some continue to see a husband’s rule over his wife and a command?

    Victorious, it’s amazing what you see when you personally benefit from seeing it that way.

  55. Thanks, Anon1 for that helpful link to the article on Grudem’s logical errors. And Julie Anne, if you’re reading this, you need to click on that link and read the comment thread — you’ll never guess who showed up on that thread and what question he asked.

    SMG

  56. @ Daisy:
    Alexander the Great was a man of war as well, but was fond of the male species, I am told. One is forced to wonder about such overcompensating men like Driscoll. Men (and women for that matter) who are secure in their identity don’t feel a need to assert (and over-assert) it.

  57. Daisy wrote:

    It’s strange how gender complementarians waffle or still remain unclear on their understanding of manliness (or femininity) and gender roles, and they sometimes contradict themselves in these areas, despite being consumed by these issues.

    A couple years ago, I co-wrote an SF novella with an alien culture (man-sized, elf-slim upright foxies) that had a rigid idea of gender roles yet wasn’t “comp” in the sense mentioned here. They had distinct traditional roles for male & female but without hierarchy between them. For instance, soldiering and police work were masculine, but medicine was feminine. Law worked both ways, depending on the legal specialty — prosecutors were traditionally male, but defense attorneys were traditionally female. This even extended to their major organized religion, which had both male and female clergy (traditionally married couples, co-ordained) — female clergy officiated alone with sacraments involving birth, male clergy with death (to the point female clergy would be secluded behind screens), and both officiated together at all others in-between.

    Concerning manliness, some of them might hold King David up as an example of manliness of sorts because he was a military leader who killed men. But, the guy also protected lambs, wrote poetry and played a harp (was a musician).

    In other words, King David had a bit more depth than these guys would give him credit for.

    OTOH, while some of the comp preachers might consider musicianship a tad “girly” some of them will turn around and use rock and roll in their churches.

    I don’t know if Perry Noble is a comp, but I read he had had church open an Easter service using the song “Highway to Hell.”

    Note that “Highway to Hell” is hard rock/heavy metal. Loud, harsh, aggressive, Hypermasculine in the psych sense.

  58. Sergius Martin-George wrote:

    Thanks, Anon1 for that helpful link to the article on Grudem’s logical errors. And Julie Anne, if you’re reading this, you need to click on that link and read the comment thread — you’ll never guess who showed up on that thread and what question he asked.

    Oh yes! Great point. Perfect place for Julie Anne to share her non feminist, homeschooling mom of a brood bonafides!

    One wag is asking if there is such a thing as a conservative egalitarian as if that is impossible. That is what the brainwashing of years of Grudem/Piper can do to guys.

  59. Occam’s Razor (Bertrand Russell edition) alert.

    (sigh) I’ve not been able to follow the discussion as much as I’d like but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, errr…I did read Alsup and then Anyabwile’s response to her. Both are tossing around delicious word salads. I strongly believe especially in Anyabwile’s case that he don’t wanna say what he really thinks.

    Seriously: Complementarians, egalitarians, mutualists, New School Comps, Old School Comps, patriarchists, hierarchists, etc., just answer this simple question:

    When a Christian husband and wife disagree on a course of action (whether high stakes or low stakes), is it the opinion of both parties that the wife yield based on their mutual understanding of the Bible?

    Because if you answer “yes” to that, there’s a nuclear option in the relationship and if only one gender’s finger can ever be on the button, then everything else is secondary in that discussion. You can carve out all the areas of autonomy in “peacetime” you want but in DEFCON mode, what is there to discuss? If you answer “no,” there is always a Biblical option for either gender to yield in a given situation.

    I don’t get why those convicted of either position can’t just lay it out that way when in dialogue with others. One can discuss fine-tuning either position, but if in the final analysis gender trumps all in your Christian worldview, any fine-tuning, no matter how articulate, misses the point.

  60. Feminism is certainly a curious word that must be defined in order to understand what exactly a person is talking about. So what are the roots of early feminism? That is a huge topic. I find the roots of feminism fascinating in light of the heritage of Christian women who blazed a trail for others to follow!

    Some historians assert that feminism found its roots among evangelical revivals. Looking at Wesley and Finney, for example, there was room made for women in ministry. Frontier life required that men and women work alongside each other in order to survive. Note the founders of the Salvation Army, women in the Holiness and Pentecostal Movements. Women combined social concern, about slavery and the harm of liquor in the family, with a call to personal ministry.

    Dale Coulter in the Pneuma Journal suggests that “From the outset the first wave of feminism was bound up with the cause of abolition and fueled by Holiness preaching. … Newly founded institutions such as Oberlin College where abolitionism and women’s rights were fused with Holiness rhetoric, became a seedbed for such activity. Oberlin was the first college to admit women.”

    “For many nineteenth-century Holiness women, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) became a place to express their theology and their support of women’s issues. The WCTU was more than an organization opposed to alcohol consumption; its actions covered a broad range of issues, including support for the ordination of women.”

    Historians talk about feminism’s second and third waves. This is a whole other discussion. The complexities in cultural movement abound. It is important to grasp the historical background as well as to be able to define ‘feminism’ in a more precise way.

  61. Have any of the the TGC imb.. I mean fellas weighed in about the Cleveland kidnappings or Elizabeth Smart yet?

  62. ConfusedButHopeful wrote:

    Because if you answer “yes” to that, there’s a nuclear option in the relationship and if only one gender’s finger can ever be on the button, then everything else is secondary in that discussion. You can carve out all the areas of autonomy in “peacetime” you want but in DEFCON mode, what is there to discuss? If you answer “no,” there is always a Biblical option for either gender to yield in a given situation.

    .
    Another good reason to remain single, or refuse to remarry if widowed or divorced!

  63. linda wrote:

    That doesn’t make us in league with the patriarchy at all, AS LONG AS we can still acknowledge that like with Deborah and Jael, what may be true IN GENERAL is not always the best IN SPECIFIC.
    General gender roles healthy? Yes, as they help society function smoothly. One size always fits all and nobody dare step out of them? Not on your tintype!

    It says a lot when those with more traditional views allow for exceptions and individual differences. To me, that’s just pragmatic (also compassionate).

  64. @ Sergius Martin-George:
    Apparently Julie Anne is not the only one seeking a definition from Burke as in the comment thread “Matt” also said Burke needs to define the term:

    You know, if Denny’s mom or wife voted in an election she could classify as a “feminist”. So he needs to define the term for us.

  65. Nicholas wrote:

    The obsession with “authority” is very Gothardian. I believe that Bill Gothard is an influence on the complementarian movement which ordinary complementarians are unaware of. Paige and Dorothy Patterson are friends and associates of Gothard, and have surely been influence by his ideas.

    .
    Do you know the Pattersons? I do, and I guarantee you Dorothy wears the pants. I could tell you a very good story that at least six high ranking So. Baptist leaders or influencers could corroborate.
    .
    Dee, am I really anonymous?

  66. William Birch wrote:

    There is a huge difference between acting like a man and being a man. I hope the “manly” neo-Calvies understand that some day real soon.

    It’s one of the reasons I’ve always believed men should be even more offended than women by what Driscoll teaches. “Real men” are arrogant jerks, chauvinists, and bullies? My father is a mild-mannered accountant, he tries to get along with all kinds of people, and he’s willing to risk being taken advantage sometimes if it means he can help those in need. He’s always there for his family and his church, and everyone in his community knows he is a man who can be trusted. He doesn’t watch mixed martial arts, he doesn’t demean women, he doesn’t push anyone around, and he doesn’t consider himself superior to anyone.

    He’s 100 times the man Mark Driscoll is.

  67. Anon 1 wrote:

    Oh yes! Great point. Perfect place for Julie Anne to share her non feminist, homeschooling mom of a brood bonafides!

    Oh boy – gotta find the link and check that out. I need a little pick-me-up about now. Thanks!

  68. Anon 2 wrote:

    Do you know the Pattersons? I do, and I guarantee you Dorothy wears the pants. I could tell you a very good story that at least six high ranking So. Baptist leaders or influencers could corroborate.

    Hyacinth Bucket wears the pants, too.

    In my mega industrial complex days, I was constantly amazed with how many comp speaking couples where the wife wore the pants…..back stage. Then the big act started on stage. Comp seminars were a cash cow.

  69. Anon 2 wrote:

    Nicholas wrote:

    The obsession with “authority” is very Gothardian. I believe that Bill Gothard is an influence on the complementarian movement which ordinary complementarians are unaware of. Paige and Dorothy Patterson are friends and associates of Gothard, and have surely been influence by his ideas.

    .
    Do you know the Pattersons? I do, and I guarantee you Dorothy wears the pants. I could tell you a very good story that at least six high ranking So. Baptist leaders or influencers could corroborate.
    .
    Dee, am I really anonymous?

    Even if that is so, they are friends and promoters of Gothard: http://www.regonline.com/builder/site/tab2.aspx?EventID=1137209

  70. Nicholas, I don’t doubt that the Pattersons promote Gothard. My point was simply that the Dorothy Patterson is no timid quiet doormat. She’s got the firepower in the family and she doesn’t hesitate to use it, and she’ll do it in front of others.

  71. dee wrote:

    Nicholas wrote:

    How Patterson treats sexual abuse victims:

    We have written extensively on the Gilyard incident.

    Soory. I was just trying to show the Gothard influence.

  72. Nick, from your link. This says it all:

    In a 2007 lecture at the CBMW-sponsored Different By Design Conference, (Russell) Moore said the gender issue is not a matter of “intramural debate” but rather “spiritual warfare.”

    “When you come to the issue of gender roles, you are dealing with the gospel,” he claimed. “What we have to understand is the gospel itself is patriarchal. It has to do with the fatherhood of God.”

    In dealing with issues of male headship, Moore said, “So often we have acted as though there are more important issues, such as open theism, and so sometimes we will join hands and link arms with those that are with us on the doctrine of God: they just disagree with us on male headship.”

    “Open theism is not worse than evangelical feminism,” Moore said. “Open theism is simply another way of saying evangelical feminism. We have to understand that what is happening in all of these debates that we have going on is indeed a slippery slope.”

    The Gospel is patriarchal? Talk about redefining salvation. There are warnings about guys like Moore in scripture. This is no small issue. These guys speak of another Jesus and a different “Good News” for women.

  73. Nicholas wrote:

    Then she is a hypocrite for telling other women to do otherwise.

    You may be right. I wonder what she would say about that. I actually got a kick out of Dorothy Patterson once I figured out the truth. She’s as savvy and resourceful and confident as some of the top executives I know.

    She’ll contradict and interrupt and shout at her husband, Paige, in front of important people. She doesn’t hide it.

    I remember walking away with a big smile on my face, trying to suppress the laughter. If you go to her website and look at the middle column, it’s obvious that the definition of complementarianism is pretty nebulous — no real statement, except that she’s “first and foremost a homemaker.” Well, she runs a massive empire from that home! No mention of submission or silence or hanging back. And no mention that her Ph.D. is an earned degree in theology (I believe).

  74. @ lilyrosemary:

    Driscoll does present a very narrow view of what constitutes masculinity, contra the Bible, where God acknowledges men vary in personality:

    Deuteronomy 28:54

    Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children…

    Yes, that is saying that some men will lack compassion in an upcoming siege, but the thing it says is that God sees that some men are usually compassionate and sensitive to start with – and He doesn’t seem to mind or condemn it.

    It’s a given in that passage that God acknowledges some men as being more compassionate or sensitive than others, and that’s not portrayed as bad or good, but just as it is.

  75. Anon 1 wrote:

    One wag is asking if there is such a thing as a conservative egalitarian as if that is impossible

    I am one, so yes, it’s possible.

    I don’t share some views that secular feminists do and disagree with them on their disapproval of motherhood and being married.

    If a woman chooses to marry and/or have children and/or stay at home (not have a career), I think that’s fine. Your typical liberal feminist has a problem with a woman who is a stay at home mom, and one without an outside career is considered even worse.

    I don’t support abortion across the board (most secular feminists do).

    I don’t think men and women are identical (most secular feminists are uncomfortable admitting this, and seem to want to believe men and women are 100% alike).

    I don’t support pr0n (many secular feminists do – they think it’s liberating for women to run around with lots of men, view dirty movies, etc. Some secular feminists share my views on this one, but they seem to be out-numbered who think pr0n is good for women).

  76. @ Anon 1:

    Yes there is such a thing as a conservative egal (I think I can probably be classified as one), I just wrote a post to you about it, but it’s sitting in moderation. 🙂

  77. @ Nicholas:

    I saw one of her lectures (in video format on the web) and she said some of those groups have no place for unmarried Christians. They only recognize married people.

    That is one big clue that there is something wrong when any church or group of Christians place too, too much importance on marriage and baby-making: it excludes un-marrieds, infertile couples, etc.

    Jesus Christ did not make the biological family unit the center of His church, but see all the churches, both main stream and aberrant, the go against this.

  78. Anon 1 wrote:

    1) “When you come to the issue of gender roles, you are dealing with the gospel,” he claimed. “What we have to understand is the gospel itself is patriarchal. It has to do with the fatherhood of God.”
    In dealing with issues of male headship, Moore said,

    2)“Open theism is not worse than evangelical feminism,” Moore said. “Open theism is simply another way of saying evangelical feminism. We have to understand that what is happening in all of these debates that we have going on is indeed a slippery slope.”

    1.) What?? I don’t see what one has to do with the other.

    2.) I reject complementarianism, but I also reject open theism. So what is he doing equating the two?

  79. @ Daisy:

    People are following their gurus.

    A single read through the New Testament shows that it is not given to all to be married or raise children. What we have in quiverfull, VF, CBMW, et al is the opposite extreme of mandatory celibacy. It is no less legalistic.

  80. Anon 2 wrote:

    She’ll contradict and interrupt and shout at her husband, Paige, in front of important people. She doesn’t hide it.

    Tee hee, Mark Driscoll would not approve. At all (link).

  81. Dave A A wrote:

    I love how one reason she wears rhem is “Dr Patterson” (isn’t SHE also Dr Patterson?) only lets her go to the hairdresser once a week.
    Did you kicked out of her home, class, or church?

    .
    Ha, Dave. I’ll bet you a nickle she just loves hats. The woman I observed has probably never submitted in her life. She’s way too independent.

    It’s easy for her to be blithe and breezy and have spiritual pride on this issue if everything goes your way. I pity the many seminary and pastors’ wives who are being abused by their husbands. It’s an epidemic according to a professor friend of mine who teaches at one the largest So. Baptist seminaries.

  82. “Well, she runs a massive empire from that home!”

    Pecan Manor. Well. not really HER home but the SWBTS Prez house she remodled as a manse. There used to be a blogger that worked for Patterson that even showed receipts for things like China she bought for it. And receipts for Patterson’s taxadermy bills for decorating his office and home. Paid for by Baptists, of course. My favorite was the expensive tombstone for their dog.

  83. @ Anon 1:

    “My favorite was the expensive tombstone for their dog.”

    After all that stuff referenced on the other thread about Al Mohler tutting over pets’ medical bills? It’s okay to pay for your dog’s tombstone, but not the expensive surgery which would prevent them from dying in the first place?

  84. Also, I go to the hairdresser, like, once every two months to get my hair cut when it gets too long. (But then again, because I’m an evil rebellious feminazi, I keep it short so it doesn’t need all that unnecessary attention.) Patterson’s statement above seems to imply that if her husband would “let” her, she would go to the hairdresser more than once a week. ?!?!?!?!?!

  85. This story from a British paper about the guy who kidnapped three young ladies and held them captive for 10 years details how thoroughly he controlled his wife in the past, and it has shades of biblical gender complementarianism, IMO.

    I’m sure most devout Christian guys who identify as complementarian would be horrified by what this guy did to these women and would never do this or agree with it, but, again IMO, I think their views can lead to this sort of thing, and there are some -the Quiverfull types or Reconstructionists- who are already there.

    EXCLUSIVE: How Cleveland ‘kidnapper’ told his wife what to eat, how to wear her skirts, even ordered her into a cardboard box and eventually he ‘killed her’
    .

  86. @ Hester: Every other place where the words translated “one another” appear in the New Testament, they mean “one another.” That is, “each one of you to each other one of you.” Not “some of you to some others of you.” So I do think “submit to one another” means exactly that. Paul then does go into the necessity of submission within the structure of first-century Ephesian society– but in each case treats the ones under authority as free moral agents (which was a radical notion at that time), and in each case gives instructions to the ones holding systemic authority that they should act in service, not rulership.

  87. @ Daisy: I believe you’re right about the disgust most Christian men would feel at this story.

    Perhaps we should distinguish more explicitly between complementarianism (that men are equal in value but, in some broad sense, different in role) and patriarchy (that men and women remain equal in some metaphysical form of “value”, even though women are lesser in capability and role). There are many forms of complementarianism; I’m consider myself complementarian, for instance, though I don’t believe any role or office is closed/open to a person solely on grounds of gender.

    Oh, and btw, you need to be a bit careful about letting the Daily Mail shape your opinions. Just saying… 😉

  88. P.S. A rather unfortunate omission in the above post – I meant to define complementarianism as the belief that men and women are equal in value but, in some broad sense, different in role…

  89. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    The same stories about this guy who kidnapped have been published in more mainstream, reputable American papers.

    I believe men and women are “complementary” to one another, but I can’t agree with the movement that bills itself “biblical gender complementarianismm” which goes beyond that to say there is a hierarchy, women cannot or should not be permitted to speak in church, be preachers, teach, the emphasis placed upon a wife submitting to her spouse, that kind of thing.

  90. @ Daisy:
    Agreed; I think we’re barking up much the same hymn-page here.

    The key is probably the suffix -archy. Rule by anybody (except, I suppose, anarchy) implies rule over somebody, so you can’t have patriarchy without a hierarchy, with women at the bottom.

    Re the Daily Mail thing – I certainly don’t dispute the facts of the kidnapping, which are indeed reported in many independent and reputable media. Obviously, if the Daily Mail says that the world is round and that two and two make four, they’d be right (though they may just’ve got lucky). There’s an old joke about the British tabloids that goes something like this:
    Some commentators recently accused the tabloids of fascism. Other commentators were reluctant to believe the tabloids would lean that far to the left.

  91. @ Nick:

    I’m not sure most of us Americans are aware that the Daily Mail is a tabloid. I wasn’t until you said it just now. (Over here tabloids usually have cover stories about Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama’s secret lovechild, so they’re pretty easy to spot.) Unless “tabloid” means something different on that side of the pond.

  92. @ Nick:

    As others have said, the terms “complementarian” and “egalitarian” really aren’t the best one for the different positions in this debate… “Complementarian” means that men and women complement each other, which egalitarians believe; and “egalitarian” means that men and women are equal, which complementarians believe (at least in reference to their spiritual standing). I do think the distinction between complementarianism and patriarchy needs to be made, however, because 1) I think the patriarchs themselves have made it, and 2) it’s very clear that patriarchs actually do believe men “rule” their wives.

  93. @ Wordgazer:

    That was my gut feeling about it too. Just because Paul goes on to talk about specific instances of submission in society doesn’t mean he didn’t have a broader scope in mind in 5:21, esp. in light of statements indicating “rulers” should not act like rulers. You’d think “be as he who serves” (= act like a servant = basically submit) coming out of the mouth of Jesus Himself would be clear enough…

    I’m starting to think these folks have tied “submit” so closely to “obey orders” and “do what I’m told” that their heads explode every time it’s applied to somebody “in charge.”

  94. The term “tabloid” is a historical one in the UK, referring originally to the physical size of the newspaper. Up until a generation ago, the “quality” newspapers were all broadsheets – that is, A1 sized when unopened – whereas newspapers containing pictures of topless models, aggressively pushing one or another party-political line, engaging in sensationalist reporting or majoring on sex scandals and celebrity gossip were generally tabloid in format – that is, A3 sized when unopened and generally fitting easily on a table.

    In practice, newspapers have shrunk physically in recent years; The Times is now printed in tabloid format, for instance, as is The Independent. Thus, the word “tabloid”, though still used to describe a certain kind of publication, is historically but not literally accurate in the UK.

    Nothing to do with the thread topic, but I hope that was informative..!

  95. @ Daisy:

    I know a homeschool dad who told his wife to return a new skirt because she already had too many in that style. She did. (Though to be honest she was a bit of mystery – she was apparently voted “most domestic” in her class in high school and didn’t like feminism, but was a domineering bully if you disagreed with her and said some things that indicated she believed men were clueless creatures who couldn’t iron their own laundry, poor dears. The above discussion about “who wears the pants” definitely applies here, from what I saw.)

  96. Anon 1 wrote:

    (Russell) Moore said the gender issue is not a matter of “intramural debate” but rather “spiritual warfare.”
    “When you come to the issue of gender roles, you are dealing with the gospel,” he claimed. “What we have to understand is the gospel itself is patriarchal. It has to do with the fatherhood of God.”

    Remarkable that something like “the 4 spiritual laws” (a compact gospel message) could have been written without one reference to the fatherhood of God. As for carrying the fatherhood of God role over into other relationships, here Jesus speaks on fatherhood:
    “Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.
    Mat 23:9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.
    Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.”

    Apparently, He was not big on hierarchy/ patriarchy stuff – even fathers should be brothers under one Father God, not masters. That one text is enough to say what Jesus thinks of patriarchy.

    Hint: It is not the same as Moore thinks.

    On my blog, I give another reason why I disagree with Moore on patriarchy:http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/why-you-cannot-get-patriarchy-from-abraham-isaac-and-jacob/

  97. Hester wrote:

    @ Nick:
    As others have said, the terms “complementarian” and “egalitarian” really aren’t the best one for the different positions in this debate… “Complementarian” means that men and women complement each other, which egalitarians believe; and “egalitarian” means that men and women are equal, which complementarians believe (at least in reference to their spiritual standing).

    This. The word “complementarian” is misleading because it assumes if you don’t accept that title then you must not believe men and women complement each other. But the C/E debate isn’t about whether men and women are complementary, it’s about HOW they are complementary. Comps say that the complementary nature of men and women can be defined with a hard line and involves a hierarchy of leadership and submission, most egalitarians simply believe that the complementary nature of men and women is more nebulous and without hierarchy.

    Denny Burk made a snarky comment about calling all egalitarians feminists. The problem is I have never met an egalitarian who believed that men and women were the same or that gender was entirely a social construct (his seemingly pet definition of feminism). On the other hand, Owen Strachan chair of the CBMW – you know those folks who claim they invented the word complementarianism – is on record saying patriarchy and complementarianism are the same thing.

  98. Kristin wrote:
    But the C/E debate isn’t about whether men and women are complementary, it’s about HOW they are complementary. Comps say that the complementary nature of men and women can be defined with a hard line and involves a hierarchy of leadership and submission, most egalitarians simply believe that the complementary nature of men and women is more nebulous and without hierarchy.
    Very important distinction. Well put, Kristin.

  99. @ Hester and Kristin
    Agreed. Again, when leaders, who claim that comp. is the [only] way to go biblically, etc. and if you don’t you are not orthodox, that creates huge problems.

    Further, the comp. term is used by certain people, but when you get below the surface, into their theological beliefs and practices, that is when this definition slides into patriarchy. It doesn’t seem like a level playing field. So I think what we are observing is ‘who’ uses this term and ‘what’ this term means to them and ‘why’. Comments?

  100. @ Sergius:

    Good article by Williams, who I’d never heard of before. I especially liked this:

    “If a boy hates to play sports, he is not less manly. A boy can love fashion, enjoy the piano, love to cook, and wear pink. He is still a man; he is still manly.”

    Add to this the fact that tailors, weavers, hatters and all sorts of other clothes-related professions used to be predominately male, and most painters, composers, and artists have been historically male. Also it takes a lot of muscle tone to be a ballet dancer! – so much for “girly men.” Glad to hear comps finally starting to point out how culture-based most of this stuff is, and that it isn’t a dictum from the mouth of God that men must like trucks, guns and sports.

  101. @ Kristin:

    I think also a lot of people get confused on the gender-as-social-construct thing (which I admittedly haven’t studied very much) because when feminists and others say that gender roles are a social construct (men work outside the home, girls like pink, etc.), they don’t necessarily mean that gender itself is a social construct. In other words, when a feminist criticizes the fact that the girls’ toy aisle is all tea sets and dolls while the boys’ toy aisle is all trucks and superheroes, they might not be attacking gender differences, but arbitrary, societally imposed gender expectations. But then again, some people seem to think those are the same thing…

  102. Addendum @ Kristin:

    And then of course you have the added complication of the difference between “gender” and “sex,” which most laymen not in gender studies use interchangeably.

  103. @ Retha:

    If we say that the gospel itself is about gender, aren’t we coming pretty close to saying that God is male (as opposed to having what we think of as masculine characteristics)?

  104. I would love to hear some of these well-known male YRR complementarians speak honestly and frankly about their own personal issues, and how such things factor into hot-button discussions like this.*

    As the spouse of a professional psychologist, I find it absurd that the male Calvinista crowd can talk about these things all day without even broaching the subject of their own personal experiences and “baggage.” Abusive father? Passive father? Domineering mother? Manipulative grandma? No father? No mother? Perhaps a first (or second, or third) girlfriend who specialized in breaking hearts? Sometimes I read statements by well-known figures (Piper, Driscoll) and I see little comments that they let slip, and I think, “Holy moly! Get that man some therapy!”

    In a discussion like this (male-female relationships, authority, submission, etc.), there is obviously going to be A HUGE personal element that is brought to the table by all sides. I wish we could all be more open and honest about this elephant in the room.**

    *(It could just be that this is being discussed and I am simply unaware – if anyone knows of such a resource (interview, article, etc.), please point me in the right direction!)

    **(This, of course, requires a certain amount of emotional intelligence and personal insight, so perhaps some individuals are incapable of addressing such issues)

  105. Hester wrote:

    I think also a lot of people get confused on the gender-as-social-construct thing (which I admittedly haven’t studied very much) because when feminists and others say that gender roles are a social construct (men work outside the home, girls like pink, etc.), they don’t necessarily mean that gender itself is a social construct.

    Great observation. I think propping up typical, non-extreme comp doctrine with “gender essence” is a bit of a farce. Plenty of single women function autonomously as their own “head of household,” it’s only when they are married that gender roles become an issue. Think back to WWII when women stepped up to work in factories, etc because the men were away at war. Piper takes issue with women being drill sergeants but probably not mothers reprimanding their children. Women can’t teach men, but they can teach young, impressionable minds. Folks like Burke, Piper, etc can appeal to gender “essence” all they want, but let’s be honest, the discussion isn’t really about women being authoritative or assertive, it’s not about establishing universal standards of manly and lady-like, it’s really about men maintaining a RELATIVE position of authority over women.

  106. @ Mr.H:
    You raise so many good points. To me, it is laughable that what are clearly relational issues are being raised to this level of believe-or-be-damned theology. If all our souls truly depend what the likes of Driscoll and Piper believe about women, then bring on the weeping and gnashing of teeth, because we’re all doomed.

  107. @ Mr. H:

    “Sometimes I read statements by well-known figures (Piper, Driscoll) and I see little comments that they let slip, and I think, ‘Holy moly! Get that man some therapy!'”

    This makes me think of Piper’s “muscular women at the gym” tangent.

  108. @ Mr.H:

    and I see little comments that they let slip, and I think, “Holy moly! Get that man some therapy!”

    I agree. I sometimes get the impression with some of the more strident gender complementarians that their gender views are less informed by the Bible and more by personal hangups with women.

    Or, maybe some of them were picked last in 7th grade for gym basketball.

    All of which is pretty funny, because they like to insist that any one who rejects complementarianism has been brainwashed by secular feminism.

    There are just a few of them, such as Piper and Driscoll, that I get the impression it’s not the Bible that drives them when it comes to gender, but something else is going on.

  109. @Kristin

    “…the discussion isn’t really about women being authoritative or assertive, it’s not about establishing universal standards of manly and lady-like, it’s really about men maintaining a RELATIVE position of authority over women.”

    BINGO! Exactly. Right on. Correct! Getting to the core issue–this goes to the top.

    It is the ‘heart’ of the matter that blows me away.

  110. @ Daisy:

    so, let me get this straight:

    just as complementarianism/patriarchy can be permission for women to stay in a comfort zone of not exercising or even developing things like assertiveness, confrontation skills, negotiating, leading skills, it is also permission for men to live out their jr. high fantasies of rejection revenge.

    And push it through the court of public opinion by calling it “beautiful”. (insider talk that only the spiritually elite are allowed to use because only they really know).

  111. It most certainly IS about about masculine hang ups, fantasy, entitlement, and over all male favoring expectations. It has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with broken men who need to be fixed. These men make the mistake of thinking that God thinks like they do and approves their wicked doctrines.

    Psalm 50:16 But to the wicked God says,
    “What right have you to tell of My statutes
    And to take My covenant in your mouth?
    17 “For you hate discipline,
    And you cast My words behind you.
    18 “When you see a thief, you [g]are pleased with him,
    And [h]you associate with adulterers.
    19 “You [i]let your mouth loose in evil
    And your tongue frames deceit.
    20 “You sit and speak against your brother;
    You slander your own mother’s son.
    21 “These things you have done and I kept silence;
    You thought that I was just like you;
    I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes.

    These are the things going on among these men.

    Jack Schaap – adultery
    SGM – covering for the thieves who have stolen the innocence of Children
    Mark Driscoll – Rejecting discipline
    Patriarchy and hard (totalitarian) comp and John Piper’s view of abuse in marriage – framing deceitful ways to divide the word to make it say what they want while ignoring the weightier matters of mercy, righteousness, and justice.

    It bears repeating. These men need therapy. They are not qualified to minister to others as long as they are this broken.

  112. These men need therapy. They are not qualified to minister to others as long as they are this broken.

    Yes; agreed!

  113. @ elastigirl:

    “permission for men to live out their jr. high fantasies of rejection revenge”
    *************

    or, perhaps permission to right jr. high personal disempowerment by suddenly and magically being granted “greater than” power (m > f). As well as “equal to” power (m = m).

    With the added bonus of a free & clear conscience of this power grab because the advertising is packaged in goodness and godliness, with celebrity endorsements who purport the ultimate alpha male endorsement of god himself. (kind of like marketing a chocolate cake recipe by calling it “Elvis’ Favorite Chocolate Cake”, because, you know, I’m sure he liked chocolate.)

  114. @ Mara:

    The funny -and really, sad- thing about men wanting to control women is that they only think they will be happy if they domineer women.

    Most of them, when they are able to control a woman, still feel empty and miserable, and it doesn’t bring them satisfaction. Some men admitted this to therapists in books I read that touched on some of these subjects.

    I read one case study where a young lady let her older boyfriend dictate her fashion, hair style, he got her breast enlargements… and he was still not happy with her. (I can’t remember, but he either dumped her, or she got so unhappy she dumped him.)

    Another male patient admitted he found a perverted glee seeing how far he could control a woman, to see how much crud and nonsense a woman would put up with rather than break up with him, but after years of this, he said he’s lonely.

    He realized he wants an equal partner, someone who won’t tolerate his bullying or aggression, someone who will stand up to him, disagree.

    There was a Sci Fi movie that touched on these topics, Cherry 2000.

    It’s been a long time since I’ve watched it. It’s a futuristic movie where men buy female robot companions who are totally subservient, domestic, and submissive.

    When his robot breaks, one guy hires a female tracker to find the one specific model to replace his broken one. Despite the fact he bickers with the female tracker in the movie, and she has a mind of her own, he eventually falls in love with her and doesn’t want the robot.

    He gets a real relationship with a human woman, complete with all the disagreements and arguments, and prefers it to the “Stepford Robot” relationship.

  115. @ Daisy:
    That’s interesting.
    I’ll have to check out the SF movie.
    I’ve not seen the movie “Weird Science” but from what I have heart it is about the growth of adolescent boys from trying to create the perfect fantasy girl (by science???) to actually have real relationships with real girls. Only they are adolescence and that’s normal part of their growth (okay the movie is not normal, it exaggerates and makes a lot of fun, etc). These grown men who are trying to create perfect women through the pressure of their screwed up doctrine have never grown up in spirit or soul, only their bodies. And by the power of their doctrine, they have become stupid adolescence brained man/boys with the authority of grown men unable to even govern themselves, let alone anybody else. It’s a shame.

  116. @ Mara:

    I’ve not seen the ‘Weird Science’ movie from start to finish, but have seen parts of it when it is shown in repeats on cable, and was familiar with the premise.

    Any way, I do think a lot of the gender complementarian expositors have warped views about women and relationships.

    Some of them, gender complementarianism is really about control, it’s not about honoring the Bible, and they may think controlling women will make them happy (or fix society), but it won’t.