Only VF Ministries, closed, the store with all of the girl and boy toys and patriarchal books for dads and homemaking books for moms is still open for business. They tweeted today their shipping special today. http://www.visionforum.com

Doug’s Blog which was formerly at the site has been replaced with Vision Forum blog.

Book store still open….in the end it’s always about the money.

“While we believe as strongly as ever in the message of the ministry to the Christian family, we are grieved to find it necessary to make this decision.”

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

@ Mr. H:

Is this an indication that there is more to the situation than mere “emotional adultery?”

Ya think? Plus the film festival had already run into financial trouble.

We believe this to be the best option for the healing of all involved and the only course of action under the circumstances.

What kind of deep s*** did Doug step in that this was not only the best, but the ONLY option?

There’s gotta be a lot more to that resignation letter than meets the eye.

Saw this on Julie Anne’s blog: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/11/infidelity-scandal-just-shuttered-major-biblical-patriarchy-organization/71484/

I would not be surprised to learn that some financial shenanigans were uncovered in the 10 days since Doug stepped down as head of Vision Forum Ministries. It’s not unheard of to bring in an accountant to audit the books when there’s a major change in management like this. Perhaps something was found that was out of order. Who knows?

I’m thinking that Phillips and his family will have to move out of their home as it’s apparently owned by the ministry, unless, of course, he were to buy it from the ministry. But given the cold way in which he’s referred to in this announcement, I’d say the chances of that happening are slim and none.

If you are interested in checking out the Form 990s from the beginning of Vision Forum Ministries in 2001, you’ll find a full list of links to the PDFs here:

http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Form990&EIN=742984736&Year=2004&Cobrandid=0

And, if you are interested in their overview report on GuideStar, it is here;

http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/74-2984736/vision-forum-ministries.aspx

There are some additional summary details there of help.

Brad, were you taking cuts?

Julie Anne wrote:

Brad, were you taking cuts?

moi? oh mon dieu, non …

@ Julie Anne:
@ brad/futuristguy:
You two are hilarious! 🙂
Thank you for making this info available.

@ Julie Anne:

Great comments regarding “what did they know and when did they know it?”

doubtful wrote:

Is it me, or does it strike anyone as odd that Doug Phillips was both President and Treasurer?

Most boards have two different people filling these roles, not one, for obvious reasons.

Yup. That doesn’t necessarily mean there were problems, but it did strike me as odd, and unwise. Secretary/treasurer is more understandable for relatively small boards, but the way it was seems way too much power/responsibility all in one person’s dual positions.

@ RB:

RB, I always figured that Vision Forum, Inc. used elder Phillips’ political mailing lists. I could be wrong.

FYI Howard Phillips died earlier this year.

@ doubtful & brad:

Doug Phillips was both President and Treasurer

Is this legal for 501c3’s? I know they have very specific rules sometimes because my handbell choir is a non-profit and our director’s husband is VERY strict about having his ducks in a row.

They’re also not supposed to be involved in political stuff. Pretty sure VFM only got around that with a technicality.

Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

I’m thinking that Phillips and his family will have to move out of their home as it’s apparently owned by the ministry, unless, of course, he were to buy it from the ministry. But given the cold way in which he’s referred to in this announcement, I’d say the chances of that happening are slim and none.

I am thinking that the IRS would be very interested in this information. Just sayin’.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Secretary/treasurer is more understandable for relatively small boards, but the way it was seems way too much power/responsibility all in one person’s dual positions.

Ok, check this out:

1.President AND treasurer at VF Mininistries
2. Owner of Vision Forum
3. Founded San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival
4. Founded NCFIC and was on board until recently
5. Was pastor at Boerne Christian Assembly (one of two teaching elders until he allegedly stepped down or was forced out in February)
6. Patriarch of his home.

Ok, that was just off the top of my head. Has Phillips ever been “under” anyone? Wait a minute – – he did work for HSLDA as an attorney, and interestingly, I recently saw a public comment by Mike Farris (head of HSLDA) about Phillips which surprised me:

“Phillips was NOT the architect of the HR 6 fight in 1994. He was a foot soldier. I know he has been telling this story for years but it is just another example of his tendency to exaggerate his role in everything.”

Maybe things didn’t work out so well for him being “under” Farris at HSLDA?
The pattern we see here is that Phillips is a man who is very used to being in control of everything.

https://www.facebook.com/HomeschoolersAnonymous/posts/599779190078201?comment_id=86637724&offset=0&total_comments=31

@ dee:

Have you seen any information referring the age of the woman? Is there any indication this may involve a minor? Failure to report abuse? The Jack Schaap story comes to mind. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/jack-schaap-sentenced-ind_n_2918139.html

@ Ken:
Ken, I rarely comment here although I read a lot.

I struggle with the idea of complementarianism because I associate it with what you describe in your post. I wonder how many similar men there are to you who don’t get the airplay so to speak that the more extreme people such as VF get, and what effect it would have if a more moderate view was expressed more.

Thank you for sharing this. It makes me more hopeful.

TW wrote:

I applaud Vision Forum for closing down their operation. IMO they are doing the right thing. Too bad guys like C.J. Mahaney don’t have the wisdom (or humility) to step down from his “ministry.” The desire for the praise of men must be strong.

I agree, TW. I believe this was the right, responsible action for the board to take. From their one-paragraph statement about the closure, it appears the Vision Form Ministries board members are aware of far more of the story than is the public (as of yet, at least). But even we could surmise there was more. All it took was parsing how exquisitely vague Doug Phillips worded his careful resignation statement.

Also, there is no way to separate a person from his/her message, despite how some try to remove a person’s alleged sins from the mission or message of his/her organization. I am thankful for the board taking this decisive action. It makes sense for them to lead by shuttering Vision Forum Ministries. Mr. Phillips’ mess is now his message, and there would likely be no way for VFM to disentangle itself from the person and persona of its founder. If VFM were to continue, whether with or without a “repentant / rehabilitated / restored” Mr. Phillips as its head, would the board ever be able to overcome the unease caused by the depth of his contradictory behavior to his and VFM’s stated beliefs?

dee wrote:

@ brad/futuristguy:
You are amazing! I was bragging on you the other day to my pastor and sent him a link to your post on our blog!

That’s kind of you, Dee. I wish I could be participating more in the ongoing research and commenting for spiritual abuse survivors, but I’ve had to step back this year due to lagging health while also trying to complete the editing of a long-term curriculum writing project. Who knows … maybe next year I’ll be back …

Anyway, I listed those various links and tips about research on non-profits because I’ve used that kind of information periodically – not just to check on organizations gone bad, but to evaluate some that were doing well and looking at why that was so. There’s a lot one can find out just by rummaging around with the right keys to open the doors to data …

Well, I see it’s nearly 8 AM here on the West coast. Obviously time for another cuppa coffee, so, I take my leave to go write item descriptions for another day of eBaying!

Would the woman/women be safer if her name was made public? I almost think she would be. Initially it would be very difficult. But in the long run I think she might get more help from those outside the VF circles if people know who she is. I would think there would be a list of people a mile long who would be willing to assist her in getting the help she needs physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.

Let’s put it this way. If she is anonymous to the world and kept in the VF circles, she will not get the help she needs. I’m sure we can all see that. Her only hope would be to somehow find the strength to walk away. But walk where? Who would she trust if this is all she knows?

@ Ken:
Anyone viewing my and my husband’s “roles” would probably assume our relationship is more of a complementary one. It works for us. However, he is neither enforcing any “dominion” over me, nor am I merely “submitting” to his dictates. We simply do our best to serve one another and our children in love.

I wish I could find the comment on Julie Anne’s blog where “Kristen,” who I believe also goes by the name “Wordgazer(?)” explained it to me. An egalitarian would say “if he wants to lead, and she wants to follow, then that’s fine if that’s what works for them.” A complementarian says “Your marriage is out of the will of God if he does not lead and she does not follow.” One view allows for the very unique personalities comprising any marriage relationship. The other forces a dogma onto every marriage relationship.

@ Rafiki:

Misogynist Toys-R-Us

BTW this made my morning. 😉

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

I wish I could find the comment on Julie Anne’s blog where “Kristen,” who I believe also goes by the name “Wordgazer(?)” explained it to me.

BTDT, I just searched. is this the quote? She was responding to you.

From Wordgazer (Kristen)

This, as I understand it, is one difference between egalitarianism and complementarianism. Egalitarianism says, “No one has a biblical mandate to lead, so each couple should do what works best for themselves. If he’s a natural leader and she likes following, by all means, let him lead!” Whereas complementarianism says, “He has a biblical mandate to lead, so if he doesn’t lead and she doesn’t follow, they’re out of God’s will.” Thus complementarianism in all its forms imposes a hierarchy, no matter how “soft,” on every marriage, no matter how well or poorly an individual couple fits into that box.

@ Julie Anne:
Thank you, Julie Anne! I love the way Kristen worded it.

Julie Anne wrote:

Has Phillips ever been “under” anyone? Wait a minute – – he did work for HSLDA as an attorney, and interestingly, I recently saw a public comment by Mike Farris (head of HSLDA) about Phillips which surprised me:
“Phillips was NOT the architect of the HR 6 fight in 1994. He was a foot soldier. I know he has been telling this story for years but it is just another example of his tendency to exaggerate his role in everything.”
Maybe things didn’t work out so well for him being “under” Farris at HSLDA?

Julie Anne, can you cite the comment you posted from Farris?

For a guy like Farris to call out Doug Phillips Esq. publicly is a real eye-opener.

@ Hester:

🙂

Patti wrote:

@ Sallie @ A Woman’s Freedom in Christ:
I am an egalitarian and I suppose I can agree with that premise but only to a certain point. If the follower is giving up their intellect to the leader because that’s the ‘easier’ solution I think they will have God to answer for that. I have so many complementarian friends who don’t want to hear the evidence for egalitarianism because they tell me that they don’t want to be the decision maker, they like the idea that their husband is held more accountable then they are.
So I guess what I am saying is that an all out egalitarian does actually have some dogma of their own.

The scenario here of “wanting the man to be held more accountable” is a cop out that says something about the woman. Not a good thing.

@ Rafiki:

Does Doug Phillips, Esq. sell a little play set with the Elsie dolls that includes a nice antebellum settee on which you can prop your Elsie doll so she can pretend shave the Elsie’s Daddy doll?

Don’t forget Daddy’s 30-something friend who calls Elsie pretty when she’s 6yo and whom Elsie later marries. That would have been an incredibly large age gap even in the 1870s, despite what everyone claims. Pervy.

Rafiki, yes, I heard that. However, the Neo-Confeds who supported him so, live on. I’m not saying all, but some of them can be found in Christian Reconstructionism and the Patriarchy movement. And that tie wouldn’t be disturbing to me except that many self identified Neo-Confeds also identify with White Supremacy.

I see the teaching moment here about hyper authoritarianism in the churches and am praying for all involved and for the truth to be known, but I think this is a multi-layered group as far as social pathology goes. Does anyone know the ratio of the people of color to whites in this movement? Are the congregations all in whites only areas of the South, because the black population is very high in the South. There are other racial groups represented as well, and much of the South has come such a long way towards racial tolerance.

RB wrote:

but I think this is a multi-layered group as far as social pathology goes.

Agreed 100% RB. It’s not a really far stretch to go from VF’s neo-Confederate and H. Phillips’ Constitution Party manifestos straight to white supremacy. Heck, it’s no stretch at all.

Hester – double ugh ugh ugh regarding Elsie “catching the eye” of Dad’s BFF. Make me want to throw up.

Patti wrote:

I have so many complementarian friends who don’t want to hear the evidence for egalitarianism because they tell me that they don’t want to be the decision maker, they like the idea that their husband is held more accountable then they are.

Uhmmm….Sometimes people say one thing but mean another. Here is the south we do that “y’all come” thing and it does not mean exactly that, exactly. sort of. That statement that the husband would be “more accountable” would play well in some settings. It sounds very meek and submissive and spiritual, and like somebody who is about to quote some bible verse (with interpretation of course). Other statements, like “I don’t want to go back to work and he does not want to help out at home” sound less spiritual. Or, “We and our children don’t fit in anywhere, and so I homeschool and have to stay home to do that but that doesn’t sound very spiritual so I combine comp with homeschool and I look super virtuous in the process.” Or “We are having trouble sometimes (wink-wink) and this little game is such a help.” Or, “My mother-in-law is such a (deleted) and she raised him that way and she still tries to poison his mind against me, and this is a small price to pay.” Or, “He likes it that way, and I like my Mercedes and my clothes and I like his income. Nothing’s perfect.” Or, “Basically I have not had a thought in my head since middle school, but I try to hide it. If I had to start thinking now it would be tragic.”

People have their reasons, but it may not be evident in what they say.

And there are the comps who were raised that way, who are comfortable and functional that way, and who are good-hearted people and who should not be harassed by other people.

May I say, that some hyper-egals play word games too. But that is another topic.

Perhaps there’s more than one young woman. And maybe if there is, more will have the courage to break the silence and have the courage to see themselves as victims of abuse by clergy, and not participants in an affair. More and more, I hear from young women who were manipulated by pastors in positions of authority. This is also sexual abuse, harassment, etc., of vulnerable adults, preyed upon under the guise of spirituality, counseling, and care.

@ Rafiki:
Yes. What’s funny are comments like Kyra Gelyastanova: “It appears everyone wishes to distance themselves from Phillips, at the moment.”

The fact that his buddies are throwing Phillips under the bus speaks volumes as to how serious his “emotional” affair was.

@ An Attorney:

Yep. Rubs me wrong too.

@ Lucy Pevensie:

Lots of pain behind that writing, Lucy – it’s very powerful indeed:

“But that day Jesus stood against Privilege. That day he stood for the woman, for the one who broke the Almighty Law, for the one who needed a safe place.

Yet you, you who spit John 8 in our faces, you demand silence.

You demand a quick and sudden forgiveness. You want to put Doug Phillips in the place of the woman. Doug Phillips, the one who was standing there all along calling the woman a Feminist and a Liberal and a Female Blogger, the one who built an industry and an empire around Casting the First Stone.

And you want us to imagine the woman was the Pharisee. That the woman, nursing her wounds from being dragged to Jesus by her hair, has no right to speak. That, unless she remains silent, you will drag her right back before Jesus and repeat the Pharisees’ lines.

Perhaps you don’t get the irony here, but if there is a metaphor here, it is that we who are calling Phillips out are the ones who have spent our lives being dragged by our hair before Jesus. Being dragged by you. We don’t have stones to throw because you’ve held them our entire life.

We never said we were without sin because, oh don’t you worry, you made sure we knew that.”

Praise Jesus!

@ Hester:
Thanks also to BTDT, Nancy and justatheory for your responses.

With Eph 5 in mind, I think there is something God has joined together that man must not put asunder. There is the submission of the wife as a subset of mutual submission. It’s submit and respect, not obey. Children are to obey, and a man who thinks it’s his job to get his wife to obey him is treating her like a child.

Then there is the husband loving the wife as Christ loved the church. A laying down his life for her. Sacrifice and providing for. The corresponding duty of a husband is NOT to exercise authority over his wife, though you could be forgiven for thinking this from men who can’t get their eyes off the word ‘submit’. The love of the husband should be a liberating thing for his wife, just as Christ saves = liberates the church. Love never enslaves, the idea of dominate is absent here in my mind.

The submission and love enjoined on the couple removes a specific aspect of their personal autonomy in equal measure, so even in Eph 5 there is an element of egalitarianism!

The wife’s concern should be working out what submission means, and the hubby should concentrate on just what loving her means in practice. No sermon on this should ever deal with one without the other.

The marriage relationship should reflect in some way Christ and the church. I also think there is an element of dealing with the effects of the fall here. This kind of marriage doesn’t come to us naturally, and it is no coincidence imo that this follows the command to ‘go on being filled with the Spirit’.

The egalitarian passages in the bible, starting at the beginning with Gen 1, ought to be the death knell of superior/inferior as a way of describing the sexes. We are obligated to believe these passages as well as the submit/love ones.

Both the UK and US as secular societies are ever more in rebellion against God on the whole issue of gender, seen in denigrating responsible fatherhood and treating motherhood as a second best option.

I couldn’t agree more with the need to exercise common sense on this issue, preferably with fellow Christians whose feet are planted firmly on the gound. I also agree that marriage is teamwork. The ‘complement’ element means the sexes are not the same, are not interchangeable, but that the whole in a way is greater than the sum of its parts. It’s wrong to see this solely or even mainly in terms of authority and submission.

Finally, the people I have heard teach this in the UK were very keen on emphasising the biblical checks and balances on this issue which ought to take some of the worry about it away. Clearly what is happening with the abused doormat wife is a gross distortion of what the NT has to say, but it’s extent is something new to me. It’s the very last thing an unbelieving world needs to see.

@ Evie:
Indeed, and their fur isn’t white either (it’s transparent – like the ice crystals that make up snow).

dee wrote:

Mr.H wrote:

I’m especially heartbroken for the young lady involved.

I am as well. By the way, you are perceptive that this was a young lady.

Do old guys in power go for anything else than As Young As Possible? How else can the Big Dog convince himself he’s still Young, Virile, and full of Precious Bodily Fluids?
“I DESERVE BETTER!!!!!” — Steve Taylor, “Cash Cow”

Now, since said young woman’s identity is still unknown, I propose we refer to her by an pseudonym. Not “Jane Doe”, but one much more appropriate to the situation: “Ofdoug.”

Ken wrote:

I also think there is an element of dealing with the effects of the fall here.

The Fall, and how God’s pronouncement in Gen. 3 is interpreted, is the key difference between complementarianisms & biblical egalitarians. It all starts there. Ones interpretation there becomes the paradigm through which we interprets Paul (i.e. most of the NT), and the things he said concerning women that have become so debatable. In fact, it shapes one paradigm in understanding the whole of the new covenant, in my view. If you say then, for example, that you take a “traditional view” of Paul’s passages, what you mean is that you believe God was establishing a new order as a consequence of the Fall in Genesis 3. If, however, you see the Fall causing a complete disruption in the relationship between men and women (not to mention between us and God and the environment) and the work of Christ overturning the effects of the Fall, then you would envision no such thing as Paul implementing an everlasting hierarchy of any kind between men and women within the priesthood of all believers.

This kind of marriage doesn’t come to us naturally, and it is no coincidence imo that this follows the command to ‘go on being filled with the Spirit’.

I think one of the characteristic marks of a believer is to want to be like Christ; to be willing to serve, give, honor and to submit to one another within the framework of a team. His lordship over the church is never exercised as that of a boss, but rather as a servant provider of Life, and since we all share His life and look to him, it’s wrong for any of us to establish a sense of lordship over another believer.

It seems to me that while you may profess to be complementarian, you’re fundamentally an Egalitarian. If you’re anything like I was, the sticking point was Gen. 3. Once I got that worked out (coupled with Galatians 3:28) it caused such a paradigm shift that my ‘complementarian’ worldview, which had been all I was taught, crumbled because there was nothing solid for it to stand on. And I believe wholeheartedly in the Bible as the inerrant and inspired Word of God.

The ‘complement’ element means the sexes are not the same, are not interchangeable, but that the whole in a way is greater than the sum of its parts.

Oops, I meant to comment on the last sentence at the end of my post which I intended to put in blockquote because Ken wrote this and not me:

The ‘complement’ element means the sexes are not the same, are not interchangeable, but that the whole in a way is greater than the sum of its parts.

I’ve got to run so I only have time to add that we don’t marry a “gender” we marry a person. Gender is very much a part of who we (they) are, but if we divide ourselves into male/female roles, then I think we end of learning to relate to one another on the basis of our gifts and strengths which, spiritually speaking, know no gender bounds.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Cool! (or very, very cold :-P) lol

Ken wrote:

@ Hester:
Thanks also to BTDT, Nancy and justatheory for your responses.
With Eph 5 in mind, I think there is something God has joined together that man must not put asunder. There is the submission of the wife as a subset of mutual submission. It’s submit and respect, not obey. Children are to obey, and a man who thinks it’s his job to get his wife to obey him is treating her like a child.
Then there is the husband loving the wife as Christ loved the church. A laying down his life for her. Sacrifice and providing for. The corresponding duty of a husband is NOT to exercise authority over his wife, though you could be forgiven for thinking this from men who can’t get their eyes off the word ‘submit’. The love of the husband should be a liberating thing for his wife, just as Christ saves = liberates the church. Love never enslaves, the idea of dominate is absent here in my mind.
The submission and love enjoined on the couple removes a specific aspect of their personal autonomy in equal measure, so even in Eph 5 there is an element of egalitarianism!
The wife’s concern should be working out what submission means, and the hubby should concentrate on just what loving her means in practice. No sermon on this should ever deal with one without the other.
The marriage relationship should reflect in some way Christ and the church. I also think there is an element of dealing with the effects of the fall here. This kind of marriage doesn’t come to us naturally, and it is no coincidence imo that this follows the command to ‘go on being filled with the Spirit’.
The egalitarian passages in the bible, starting at the beginning with Gen 1, ought to be the death knell of superior/inferior as a way of describing the sexes. We are obligated to believe these passages as well as the submit/love ones.
Both the UK and US as secular societies are ever more in rebellion against God on the whole issue of gender, seen in denigrating responsible fatherhood and treating motherhood as a second best option.
I couldn’t agree more with the need to exercise common sense on this issue, preferably with fellow Christians whose feet are planted firmly on the gound. I also agree that marriage is teamwork. The ‘complement’ element means the sexes are not the same, are not interchangeable, but that the whole in a way is greater than the sum of its parts. It’s wrong to see this solely or even mainly in terms of authority and submission.
Finally, the people I have heard teach this in the UK were very keen on emphasizing the biblical checks and balances on this issue which ought to take some of the worry about it away. Clearly what is happening with the abused doormat wife is a gross distortion of what the NT has to say, but it’s extent is something new to me. It’s the very last thing an unbelieving world needs to see.

Perfectly said… THANK YOU, Ken !

Nick, I have no idea what this means lol “In other news, I successfully on-sited a 6c problem at the local climbing wall last night. I think that’s around 5.11 in US dollars” but I’m happy for you nonetheless!! Congrats. Now you can buy me a latte 😀

Bridget wrote:

two simple words that are straight forward and mean exactly what they say . . .

The fallacy of the cherry-picked data. When you take such a small number of words out of the context they were written in, then of course their meaning nearly always changes. The writer may as well have dismantled a compass and stuck the needle up his rear end to prove that his duodenum is the magnetic north pole.

Sorry, but that sort of thing makes me angry.

“There is the submission of the wife as a subset of mutual submission. It’s submit and respect, not obey. Children are to obey, and a man who thinks it’s his job to get his wife to obey him is treating her like a child.”

A subset? Are you saying verse 21 does not apply to believing husbands? And we have the problem of transferring something wrote to the formerly pagan believers in the 1st Century to those living in post enlightenment 21st Century. Are you aware of the laws concerning wives, children and slaves in the Greco Roman world? What Paul wrote there was a step up for wives. Not to mention most marriages were arranged and many young women married off young to an older man. You have to factor in the historical context when mapping this stuff to today.

@ Dave A A:

For real! I think when patriarchy (a consequence of the Fall) takes hold, women end up being perceived as commodities similiar to how slaves got used and treated as sub-human (it only took seven generations from Adam to Lamech for polygamy to set in). So no surprise to me that that VFM would attempt to recreate a southern plantation type of “charm” complete with the idea of servants(women) and owners(men), and honor ‘heroes’ that supported the Confederacy. So, I too, wouldn’t be surprised if his affair reflects those values and it is discovered that the female was someone he ‘mastered.’

And yes, Brown’s use of the word “girl” caught my eye. I got the impression he intended for that to stand out.

Dave A A wrote:

I watched another video after the Father/Daughter one — Meet Heroes and Villains From The History of America.
http://vimeo.com/70585320
Fascinating! I rewatched it 3 times! I counted about 25 heroes and only one villain. Of the heroes, about 16 were supporters of the Confederacy.

Doubtless they had “Marse Robert” Lee.

Did they also have “Ol’ Bedford” Forrest?

@ Evie:

Rock-climbing grades… I suppose you might liken 6c (in the French system that for some reason has taken hold in the UK indoor climbing scene) to running a 5-minute mile – faster than the average person could do it, though not even close to world class. “On-sited” should have read “on-sighted” – can’t believe I made that typo – which means to climb a route at the first attempt without prior knowledge of the sequence of moves etc. That is, on sight.

In other news, I have a sore finger this evening. Ironically, it’s my mouse-clicking finger and the problem is not caused by hauling 170 pounds of cake-loving 45-year-old up a climbing wall, but by playing a trial version of Bejewelled 3.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Doubtless they had “Marse Robert” Lee.
Did they also have “Ol’ Bedford” Forrest?

Not Lee himself, but the wife of his second cousin. I must confess ignorance, until now, about “Ol Bedford”. They had William Forrest, who’d be either his father, brother, or son. First Grand Wizard of the good Ol’ KKK, I see. And may or may not have known about his troops committing the massacre at Ft Pillow!

Dave A A wrote:

They had William Forrest, who’d be either his father, brother, or son. First Grand Wizard of the good Ol’ KKK, I see. And may or may not have known about his troops committing the massacre at Ft Pillow!

That’s “Ol’ Bedford”. Nathan Bedford Forrest, probably the most aggressive cavalry commander the South had. Started the war as a buck private, ended it as a general. Fort Pillow is the big black stain on his military career. First Imperial Wizard of the First Klan (after Lee kicked the organizers out when they originally made him the offer), probably because it got pitched to him as a Resistance movement against Federal occupation; he quit the position when the Klan got too violent for him (and found Southern blacks an easier target than Federal occupation forces).

I’ve seen photographs of the man. Something about his eyes; such intensity they burn right through you. This is NOT a man to cross.

Leila wrote:

A man with lots of testosterone is in a position to start a dynamic ministry that speaks to thousands, that fills conference halls, and that rivets people to their seats.

wow… just wow.

worship testosterone much, dougie?
many of us already knew you did.
it’s just amazing to see how blatant that worship can get.
testosterone in the foundation a dynamic ministry. not the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
I’m riveted. But not in the way dougie wants me to be.

@ Bridget:

messed up . . . the quote is from “Conclusion” to “blesses fruit.”

This was something else from Doug Wilson’s article:

“The Bible does give a father and husband true authority in his family. But it also gives the elders of the church true authority over that family (Heb. 13:7,17).”

Really — how does this work when your husband and/or your father is ALSO your elder?!?!?

Where is Ephesians 5:21 in all of this?

Whoa! How to make a perpetrator look like a victim! 🙁

Calling Phillips’ victim “Delilah” only seems consistent with Wilson’s previous actions in dealing with scandal:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/fall/neo-confederates

http://newwest.net/main/article/two_child_molestation_scandals_break_over_moscows_christ_church/

@ Julie Anne:
@ dee:
@ JeffT:

I’m thinking all that testosterone is causing the bubbles to be off plumb 🙂

@ Leila:

Interesting, Doug Wilson uses Samson as an example. Well I believe that the only reason Samson was too blind to see what Delilah was up to was because he had already strayed so far from God. Just read Samson’s bio before he ever met her.

‘A man with lots of testosterone is in a position to start a dynamic ministry…’
I thought such a man was more likely to start a fight.

Interesting – I’ve just been moderated. I assume it was my use of the word “cortisol”.

Out of interest, though, is this the first reference to “cortisol” on TWW?

Here is a blog post of a family that was blessed by visionforum: http://inashoe.com/2013/11/30-days-of-thanks-day-13-vision-forum/

Like I have said before…..wal-mart workers have their sin too…..they keep in business and sell Christian material.

laura wrote:

I notice that vision forum is very patriotic in nature. Thus it is difficult to claim that it is fully a Christian Ministry of any sort.

http://www.bubblews.com/news/1548305-christian-martyrs-on-the-united-states-a-religiously-free-nation

Above is an article about “IN GOD WE DON’T TRUST” a review so to speak. It speaks about the lack of actual Christian Character found in the founding fathers of the US.

They were not trying to found a theocracy so I am a bit confused as to what some groups deem as “Christian” character.

Just the opposite. In fact, I suspect they had the Puritans, Calvin, and Cromwell much in mind at the time when crafting the Bill or Rights. (Thank you Patrick Henry for insisting) I do often wonder if the same people think, say, the Puritan leaders had “Christian Character” when they were burning what they deemed as heretics/witches or wiping out tribes that refused to sell their land?

Perhaps a good debate on what constitutes “Christian character” is in order. For that time, declaring all “men” as created equal was seriously radical. Once that idea was fought for and accepted it was only a matter of time, some wars and hard work to make it so for women and different races. The concept itself is “Christian”. That is the sort of “Christian” character I appreciate. Valuing people.

But lets face it, lots of money in rewriting history. When it is actually quite nuanced and messy.

Thank God for those Deists!

@ Dave A A & HUG:

You do realize that Doug Phillips’ son Joshua was photographed in front of the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest in Memphis, TN with a big grin on his face, right?

@ Leila:

…does Doug Wilson actually read what he writes? Before he posts it?

I swear, everything he writes is just…incomprehensible. And bizarre. And he just keeps getting worse.

Hester wrote:

@ Leila:
…does Doug Wilson actually read what he writes? Before he posts it?
I swear, everything he writes is just…incomprehensible. And bizarre. And he just keeps getting worse.

He’s always been that way. What boggles my mind is his groupies. My kids went to a classical Christian school modeled after his methods (I wrote a guest post here on it a couple years ago) and let me tell you, Doug Wilson was treated like our Beloved Leader in North Korea. He is an extremely intelligent man. He’s an extremely talented writer. And he is one of the meanest individuals I have ever encountered in my life. If only he used those talents to build up instead of tear down.

Anon 1 wrote:

You have to factor in the historical context when mapping this stuff to today

Agreed! I find it interesting and important to notice that in Ephesians 5 Paul speaks first to those most vulnerable to abuse; women, slaves, and children. He recognizes the position they find themselves in and encourages them to receive from those who have historically had the power to abuse and did so. Husbands tossed their wives out for little or no valid reasons. Slave owners abused their slaves and neglected to treat them as they would want to be treated. Children were sold by their parents and many were offered to “strange gods.”

Paul is in no way establishing nor maintaining a system of hierarchy that would perpetuate the abuses recorded throughout history as well as scripture. Rather he speaks to those who were in a position of power and radically changes their behavior; husbands love your wives; fathers don’t provoke your children; and to slave owners treat them as brothers (Philemon).

It’s pretty clear what the intent of Paul’s words were to me at least. It’s totally contrary to the rest of scripture to interpret Paul’s words as any other than restrictions on abuse so widespread throughout scripture.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
And self control is a fruit of the Spirit. A large quantity of testosterone is not necessary to start a dynamic ministry. Loving Jesus and listening to His Spirit are more important.

Bridget wrote:

Well, then Wilson is acting just like Adam with his analogy to Sampson and Delilah; blaming the woman and God for allowing the woman to be near Phillips.
It doesn’t seem to dawn on any of them that “they” have taught women to be quiet, submissive, and obedient to their fathers and father figures . . . to the point of possibly not knowing appropriate boundaries to keep themselves and others safe.

Exactly!

Totally off topic but harking back to age of earth debate that pops up on occasion. Here is some light relief:
http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/cartoon-gallery/cartoon-how-an-asteroid-wiped-out-the-dinosaurs/

@ Estelle:
How true!

@ dee:

The age would appear to be after the age of consent

I guess that’s one tiny bright spot, then…

@ dee:

Perhaps the world “complete” is the disqualifier?

Must be. Because as I said above, it’s obvious that the relationship was harmonious before and definitely non-harmonious after. So I’m not sure how even a hardcore comp could deny that the Fall was disruptive to male-female relationships. Also, if the first half of Eve’s part of the curse in Genesis 3:16 (pain in childbirth) is a description of the consequences, it’s hard to see how the second half wouldn’t be. And we’ve taken great pains to at least try and undo all the other parts of the curse (thus Roundup and epidurals). So why is patriarchy the exception? Not trying to be obnoxious here, I think this is a legitimate question.

@ Hester:
Strength to you, Hester.

Hester, wow. Don’t, er, well, didn’t, (since Mormons believe in progressive revelation, and the doctrine about Lamanites doesn’t go over too well anymore), teach the same thing, that people of color could potentially change to become white skinned with enough good works? Almost sounds like reincarnation.

Having looked at Doug Wilson’s blog, he does make some important qualifications:

‘No human authority in this sinful world is absolute,…

But the sure and certain limits on a man’s authority in the home are not a basis for saying that his authority there is non-existent.

There is a kind of male conceit that does not know how to submit [to elders], and a number of these people have embraced the word patriarchy.

Men are not automatically a blessing. They are called to be a blessing. When they refuse, or when they turn away, the effects are devastating.’

I’ve enjoyed his blog, inasmuch as it can provoke me to think, though I don’t always agree with what he says (pity you feel you have to say that these days). Even hinting that the woman involved here might have been the initiator was unwise unless he has credible evidence of this.

I’ve been ‘listening’ and appreciate that abuse has been going on in families subscribing Phillips’ ideas, but this of itself doesn’t mean we can be free to get the red pen out and start deleting scriptures that may have been misused by sinful men.

Ken wrote:

but this of itself doesn’t mean we can be free to get the red pen out and start deleting scriptures that may have been misused by sinful men.

Well that’s a stretch. It’s not about deleting scripture although thank you for showing your hand. It’s about hermeneutics. Complementarianisms go bungee jumping with scripture, going as far as to find the basis for their (your) belief in the heretical eternal subordination of the Son!! Hello? Anyone home? Get your red pen and scratch that out for starters before you accuse Biblical Egalitarians of insubordination!!

@ Evie:
Have got to go, but I’m not accusing anyone of anything! I think you are rather jumping to conclusions.

@ Nancy:

Nancy, I’m sorry to come back to this but all day yesterday I kept trying to think of word games that I might use. I say I because I think some might label me a hyper egalitarian. Actually, I’m not really sure what a hyper egalitarian is. I might be considered soft only because I attend a church that does believe in women and men equal in ministry but not in marriage. The only reason I do not attend one more egalitarian is for lack of one in our area that I would agree to the same amount of other important issues.
I may be hyper because I do consider the comp teaching to be error and not a choice. Anyway, if you could give me a couple of examples of word games that hyper egals say I would sincerely appreciate it because I would like to know if I am doing that. Thanks.

Julie Anne wrote:

Currently laying on my back at my physical therapist room with then tens machine going. I’m here because of the multitude of big babies I bore and this comment has absolutely cracked me up.

Sorry to hear you have back pain. My husband suffers from it and we purchased our own tens unit – got it through our chiropractor. It was about $100, and worth every penny.

dee wrote:

When a person has a high IQ but a low EQ, companies can hire them to invent their latest software but the will rarely let him out of the back room.

This cracked me up!! Hopefully they don’t allow them to write blogs on the company’s behalf either!

@ Leila:
Sorry to hear about the back pain. As a former back/neck patient, I know how painful it can be, and how the relief makes the PT seem like an angel.

Hester wrote:

he’s so talented that he can be deliberately obscure and then claim he was “misunderstood” and that his readers are morons

I this this is the game, Hester. He thinks it is anyway. It does more harm than good coming from someone who calls himself a ‘pastor’.

I followed the link to the Vision Forum Ministries site for Doug Phillips’ “Clarification on Resignation.”

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/news_and_reports/clarification_on_resignation.aspx

I appreciate the detail there. His original resignation was too vague, especially coming from one who is trained as a lawyer, a profession which requires close attention to details. The original statement seemed to me to contain the seeds of plausible deniability.

It is therefore understandable that Mr. Phillips’ own words spawned a significant amount of recent internet speculation about the actual seriousness of his offense(s); and the appropriateness of severity in the resignation/dissolution, given his lack of clarity about the offense(s). I believe it was necessary to know at least the amount of official detail that has now been posted in order to quell that aspect of the controversies that Mr. Phillips caused.

Still, I would take some exception to this portion of his clarification statement:

“[…] The local church, not the Internet, is the proper forum for overseeing the details of a man’s repentance, but I just want to be clear for the sake of peace within the Body of Christ, that the tragic events we are experiencing, including the closing of Vision Forum Ministries are my fault, and that I am sincere that I should not be in leadership, but must spend this season of my life quietly walking a path of proven repentance. …”

My discernment radar went off upon reading that. It has me wondering if there is a hidden agenda here.

First, since his affair self-admittedly occurred over a number of years, Mr. Phillips’ current local church may NOT in truth be the best place for overseeing him in a period of repentance. Since his underlying attitudes and his overt or covert action escaped the notice of local church leaders and congregants for such a period of time (otherwise, would he not have confessed and been dealt with years ago?), how then will members of that local body overcome their own blind spots to those well-worn patterns of Mr. Phillips’ avoidance? There must be some sickness in the system, not just in his sins. I’m not sure all that seemingly needs to be addressed for the health of the church itself plus Mr. Phillips can happen at the same time.

Second, repentance and rehabilitation are not the same as restoration to ministry. While this may indeed be a season “to spend … quietly walking a path of proven repentance,” any consideration of potential restoration to public ministry in the Body of Christ does indeed draw in far more than the Phillips’ family and their local church. If Mr. Phillips is ever even possibly to hold a role of public ministry again, I would contend that the rehabilitation process must clearly be biblical, relevant, sufficient, *and public enough* to overcome his current DISqualification from service in a public arena. And that could indeed draw in internet oversight of him. Shouldn’t those who would be in public roles of service accept public forms of accountability by those they suggest they are serving? In the digital era of immediate access, the internet IS one such tool.

Truthfully, however, given the years of Mr. Phillips’ sinful actions and apparent simultaneous deceitful avoidance of oversight and accountability, I have significant doubts as to the possibility of his being established in the future as a man worthy of trust from the Body of Christ, nor in the public eye of politics or society as a healthy representative of Christianity.

And while that may seem harsh, actually, I don’t believe so. No one is owed a position of public ministry or influence; sometimes it cannot be re-earned once trust is as shattered as he seems to have done in this situation. Isn’t the dissolution of the non-profit he started substantial evidence of the severity of the situation? I do wish Mr. Phillips well on his pathway ahead, and I also truly hope that he isn’t considering how a path of repentance leads to automatic restoration. To me, that would show that a rehabilitation period needs to be far longer than imagined.

“Please pray for the Phillips family, the Board, and the men who have made up the staff of Vision Forum Ministries. ” – words from DP’s clarification.

Still no ”please pray for the woman I was involved with” ! :*(

Dave A A wrote:

Didn’t realize that– never knew anything about Joshua until a couple weeks ago and saw he was reporting on some “Hazardous Journey” or another. They really put everything right out in the open, didn’t they– even admiration for a KKK founder?

Actually, Nathan Bedford Forrest did not found the KKK. The actual founders cast around for some famous Confederate general to front for them as Imperial Wizard. They first went to Robert E Lee, but Lee threw them out on their butts. So they turned to “Ol’ Bedford” Forrest.

Forrest had a reputation as THE most aggressive cavalry commander of the war, always leading from the front, in harm’s way alongside his men. Hardcore as Patton and aggressive as Lemay, with a touch of the berserker. (I’ve seen photographs of the man, and was always drawn to his eyes. The sheer intensity of his gaze, like they were burning right through you. This is NOT a man to cross.) I think Forrest figured the KKK as some sort of resistance movement against Federal occupation of the South (or it got pitched to him that way) and came aboard. Some time later, he became disgusted with the Klan and resigned; some say it was because they went after Southern blacks as an easier target than Federal occupation troops; others because the Klan got too violent even for Forrest.

Estelle wrote:

‘A man with lots of testosterone is in a position to start a dynamic ministry…’
I thought such a man was more likely to start a fight.

Testosterone also stimulates the growth of prostate cancer.

Victorious wrote:

Whoa! How to make a perpetrator look like a victim!

On one of these threads, someone cited a book called “The Sociopath Next Door”, specifically a study showing that “making themselves look like a victim” is an almost certain mark of a sociopath. That a standard sociopath defense mechanism is to induce a “Pity Me” reaction in others, because then those others will let the sociopath get away with more.

And growing up with a probable sociopath (not violent, just manipulative) I have seen this “reality distortion field/mutant power to Induce Pity” in action.

@ Evie:

Erm, not sure how I offended you as I meant to say that I AGREED that the curse was disruptive. I believe I made a second comment to Dee to that effect in which I said that a plain reading, to me, seems to have patriarchy as an effect of the Fall. So no, not trying to play wordgames. I’m hardly a lapdog for comp and patriarchy as pretty much all of my previous comments here for the past year and a half will show.

Apropos to the misinformation of the patriarchy movement —

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m739hoQOQr1qj796go1_1280.png

Thank you, An Attorney

Leila – I happened to pick up a tens machine at a thrift store. It looked like it had never been used. Doesn’t really matter since you replace the pads anyway. I think I paid $2.50 for the thing. I am sure that the employees setting the price had no idea what it was. What a steal.

I don’t find it to be a fix, but it does loosen me up.

The word is used to describe God as the helper of David, which definitely does not imply subservience. So the word when applied to Eve may indicate her superiority as God is superior to David???!!!

Genesis 3 records prophetic words from God as to the negative/adverse conditions Adam & Eve will encounter upon leaving the garden. They are not commands…otherwise we would still be under a mandate to:

– allow thorns and thistles in our gardens

– prohibit life-saving devises and procedures

– men would still need to work in agriculture and sweat (no air conditioning jobs)

– eat only vegetation/plants (no meat)

– eliminate the use of medication during childbirth

No adverse conditions have all been overcome as a result of science and technology over the years. Only one negative condition prophesied has yet to be overcome…the oppression of women by men who choose to exercise power and control.

Those words by God were never commands but prophetic in nature.

Ken wrote:

@ Evie:
Have got to go, but I’m not accusing anyone of anything! I think you are rather jumping to conclusions.

You are assuming there is no other way around the subordination of women (in the family & the church) without deleting scripture, no? You certainly made it sound like the problems arising from a complementarian (or patriarchal) interpretation of Scripture are the result of application that’s distorted by sin. It’s not the interpretation that’s the problem, right? Because they’ve got that right. It’s that they’re too sinful in how they live it out. Maybe with a little tweaking they’ll get it right, hopefully, since it’s God’s will and all for the men, generally speaking, to be the ones in charge – but more like you are – a kind, benevolent ruler who takes the rights, thoughts, feelings and wishes of his subjects into consideration. Do I have that about right?

The problem is you base your position as a man in your family and in the church based upon a heretical belief in the existence of a hierarchy within the godhead. And so does Doug Phillips. It’s what their whole deal sits on: a false, heretical doctrine. That’s what the bad fruit stems from, naturally. You simply cannot produce God’s order based upon something that is not His order. You assume it’s His order in the way you have chosen to interpret scripture, assuming as you do that if anyone were to see it differently and, say, dismiss complementarianism altogether, they would have to “delete” verses from the Bible in order to reach that conclusion.

But again, I’m not the one standing here basing my convictions upon a belief that Jesus Christ is eternally subordinated to the Father. You don’t need to delete anything from the Bible to reach that conclusion, you just need to stretch the truth. But that’s hardly a place from which to suggest those who adopt a different view do so by rejecting certain verses, the very ones you’ve played silly putty with!

Good goin’, Evie! From Hebrews 2:9, ..”made for a little while lower than the angels”..but in the same verse, because of suffering death, is ..”crowned with glory and honor”. If there was ever a break in communion between Father, Son and Spirit, it could only have been for the brief moment when Jesus took our sins. Jesus was obedient on this earth, in order to face all of the temptations we do and yet not sin. How else could that sacrifice have been effective, and who else but God alone, could have not only resisted every temptation common to humanity, but also, have borne all the sins of all humanity, past, present and future to make the way for us?

Estelle wrote:

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Merci beaucoup, mon ami.

Pas du tout, mon amie. En effet, Lesley a acheté du salmon au marchet hier et nous le mangeons ce soir. Avec le sauce fromage et citron, naturellement.

@ Evie:
I was only speaking to the false allegation of some that the word indicates that Eve was created to be a subservient helper of Adam, based on the translation they choose for the word and the differential interpretation in Genesis versus Psalms.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Too right 🙁

Typo from above: *Adam’s being alone wasn’t good in the sense that he wasn’t complete or something. It wasn’t good because alone (the only person!) he couldn’t procreate and produce community – community that would ideally model the godhead – since God is a community, and that needed to be a major characteristic of the lives of those He made to specifically represent Him.

I have been busy of late and have not commented in quite a while. New baby, homeschooling, and a husband recently diagnosed with 4 herniated disks and the least severe form of spina bifida will do that to you. 😉

I just had to comment and give praise to God that I got out of this cult (and yes, I do believe VF is/was a cult) while I did. At the same time, I feel absolutely stupid and idiotic for ever believing this foolishness. I am grateful that I no longer have the tie to worshipping family. However, at this point, I have no desire to even open the Bible nor go to church because I do not know how to read Scripture with fresh eyes, eyes opened by the Holy Spirit instead of Phariseeism. Plus, I am honestly not quite sure how to reconcile the God of the Old Testament with Jesus in the New.

I would appreciate prayers for this. Also, I am sure prayers for any other people reminded that they too believed the VF/Patriarchy nonsense at one time and are trying to “recover” and figure out what they truly believe.

Evie wrote:

As an aside I want to add that the narrative in Genesis isn’t intended to leave anyone, man or woman, from feeling somehow incomplete without a spouse. Adam’s being alone wasn’t good was because he was incomplete. He was 100% the real deal, but he was lacking the other 100% the real deal in order to procreate. That was the problem in that unique situation. Singleness is viewed in the NT as an advantage for focused dedication, and never to be regarded as problematic, as though we need someone to complete us. Regardless of our marital status, we’re able to be joined to a community and we’ve certainly been united to God, the Perfect Community of Oneness so that we are never alone.

Good point, Evie. I quite agree with you.

Patti wrote:

@ No More Perfect:
Yes, I will be praying for you, I definitely understand the confusion. Any chance while your husband is down he could research the things that Evie is teaching. The only reason I can trust what she is saying is because I have done the research on my own. Just even the part about Adam being alone. When I started looking up the Greek words and finding out that there were other meanings to the words than what I was taught began to help a great deal. One of the meanings for alone used for Adam is one.

Hi, Patti! The prayers are very much appreciated.

Fortunately, my husband and I are both in agreement over what Evie is saying. He is still having to work full-time despite his back problems. (6 kids and a wife to feed and all that 😉 I have urged him to take some time off in order to heal, but he took a lot of time off when the baby was born and so feels the need to not take any more. Prayers for that, too, I guess.

Boy, I am just needy today, aren’t I?

@ No More Perfect:

Will be praying for you and your family. You have your hands quite full!

Remember that Jesus WAS/IS God in the flesh. When we see Jesus we have seen the Father. Jesus says he only does what the Father does. If you read the Gospel of John, I think you will find Jesus’ words to his disciples in the later half of the book especially comforting.

I can relate to your thoughts on the seemingly ‘two personalities’ of God between the Old and New Testament. I think there are many reasons why it is difficult for us to grasp, and maybe we don’t need to grasp it all in the ‘literal’ way that many of us have been taught. The Spirit will bring life as you knock.

RB wrote:

If there was ever a break in communion between Father, Son and Spirit, it could only have been for the brief moment when Jesus took our sins. Jesus was obedient on this earth, in order to face all of the temptations we do and yet not sin. How else could that sacrifice have been effective, and who else but God alone, could have not only resisted every temptation common to humanity, but also, have borne all the sins of all humanity, past, present and future to make the way for us?

Hi RB, exactimo! And therein lies the kicker regarding the ESS. Jesus humbled himself and took on the form of a servant, giving up his place temporary in order to fulfill the sacrfice required for our redemption. If he “humbled Himself” and took on “the form of a servant” it proves his subordination was never eternal in nature.

@ Estelle:
Sweet! Thanks 🙂

@ An Attorney:
I neglected to say thanks! 🙂

Also, I found it interesting how you said you’ve been essentially egalitarian from your reading of the bible. I can say the same thing, although all I was taught for many years was an interpretation of the bible through a complementarian worldview. I knew the Spirit of the Word within me, and I could observe in practice how it wasn’t working, but I lacked the knowledge by which to combat the error of complementarianism so I succumbed to it’s indoctrination, sadly. But, I’ve busted out and as you can see, I’m pretty passionate about the importance of this. I wasted a lot of time and talent being told as a woman I needed to focus my energies exclusively within the family and as a church meember, to play only a supportive, submissive role. And I think I more easily fell prey for the teachings of complementarianism because it was presented as containing the keys to marital bliss plus motherhood came naturally to me.

What’s your story? Did you avoid the trappings of complementarianism? If so, how did you manage to do that considering it’s grown to dominate the landscape of evangelical churches for decades!

@ Evie:
It looks like our last posts crossed in the ether. I was raised in a home of two ex-southerners who decided in about 1948 or so, that racism was sin, and determined to raise their children to be egalitarians on the race question. I became aware of the import of that at about age 10 or 11, and adopted it wholeheartedly. My Mom was a stay at home Mom early in my life due to health issues. But as she became healthy, and when she wanted something that Dad could not provide, she went and found a job. Bought a piano and music lessons for us kids, for example. Then when I was a teenager, my mom was active in church women’s work, and traveled several states teaching other women how to set up and be effective in chapters in their local church. Although my folks probably believed the complementarian line, their marriage was as egalitarian as one could possibly be. I read deeply in the Bible from age 10 or so and all the way through high school, and could not find support for anyone being less a child of God that another based on race or gender. So by the time I left for college, I was firmly into equality of races and genders, and an advocate for civil rights for all. It took me to age 31 or so before I came to believe in equal rights and privileges before the law for people with same gender preference.

BTW I did not become an attorney until after age 50.

@ Evie:

I was raised by a mother who adhered to a traditional view of the genders, that the husband is the head, in charge, the boss, that women should always be passive, quiet, and she felt it was wrong for women to be in positions of authority over men (even in non religious settings, such as politics).

Despite the fact I was raised to filter the Bible through a gender complmentarian lens, I saw too many verses and concepts in the Bible that taught the equality of women, that God is fine with women leading and having authority over men.

I sincerely tried to be a gender comp, since I had it pounded into my head by conservative Christian culture that rejecting it meant rejecting a literal view of the bible and embracing secular feminism, but the older I got, I came to see that the gender comp interpretation of the Bible was incorrect, so I then became an egalitarian.

Reading a few books and blogs by conservative Christians (who were gender egalitarians), when I was in my late 20s or early 30s, that gave alternative and just as sound interpretations of the two or three pet verses gender comps love to shout at women, that showed those verses could be properly understood in other ways that did not support male authority, further helped me to leave the gender comp view.

Even without those books/blogs, though, just from my own reading of the Bible it was clear to me that the Bible support full equality of women

Also, that the culture of Jesus’ day was already patriarchal and had men in charge of everything, was another clue for me that the gender comps of today are incorrect.

Jesus came to set things right, which included putting women back up into the position of equality and power God originally intended for them to have.

If all the New Testament is saying is that women are secondary to men, they may not teach or lead anyone or not men, then that is just “more of the same,” it’s just more ancient Jewish patriarchy, and so it made Jesus’ life and teachings irrlevant. I don’t think Jesus came to uphold all of the status quo of his culture.

Jesus came in part to challenge his culture and distorted religious teachings, and to correct them, where it/they had gone wrong in its understanding of God and people, in large measure.

Jesus said he came to set female captives free, not keep them tied up under the existing sexist/ traditional/ complementary rules/roles.

Ken wrote:

Yet there is a restriction on women’s ministry, it’s limited and specific, and we cannot enter into negotiations about it.

Ken:

Let me raise a couple of things. One is the interpretation of what Paul is saying in 1 Tim 2 and related passages. The second is dealing with the cultural of those passages.

How do you square your interpretation of 1 Tim with Paul’s description of Junia who, along with her husband, were “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom 16:7); Priscilla who, along with her husband Aquila, “explained the Way of God to [Apollos] more accurately” (Acts 18:26); and Phoebe, “a deacon of the church” (Rom 16:1), to name a few?

To interpret Paul in 1 Tim as establishing a universal and timeless prohibition on women in ministry seems to clearly contradict Paul’s own behavior.

On the cultural issue, why read 1 Tim as establishing a universal and timeless prohibition on women in ministry when we we don’t do the same with Paul’s acceptance of slavery, or his other commands about women in 1 Tim 2:9 prohibiting braided hair, expensive clothes, gold jewelry and pearls?

These are two of the issues that cause me to believe there is no Biblical prohibition on women in the ministry.

@ Ken:

“Yet there is a restriction on women’s ministry, it’s limited and specific, and we cannot enter into negotiations about it.”
++++++++++

Ken, I sure wish you’d qualify things like this with something like “as I see it”.

Dogmatism over debatable things can induce anything from a frown to disgust to nausea to panic attacks.

@ elastigirl:

let me say it this way: implying with casual ease that the God of the universe has given you abilities and has made you female thus you are prohibited from exercising them is enough to get a well-deserved punch in the nose.

elastigirl wrote:

…a frown to disgust to nausea to panic attacks.

I know you didn’t mean for that to be funny but it made me laugh nonetheless! 😀

@ Ken:
I have known many secular feminists and not one thinks that equality means sameness. I’m sure there are some around somewhere, though lol.

You write: “…the masculinasation of women” [means] no to having children, and yes to have a career instead. Those who do this don’t seem to me particularly happy.” Oh boy, you are a real hoot!

And you follow it with something about “not second class in the kingdom” and only “restriction on women’s ministry, it’s limited and specific”, and I know for sure you’re just making a big joke about masculine women.

And when you write that Paul obviously greatly valued the ministry of women and so do you, and a big fat tear rolls down my cheek for your magnanimous gesture of acceptance towards us little ladies while leaning down from way up there where St Paul is sitting.

But when you write something about not letting go that submission stuff because we owe God for forgiveness, it is such a non-sequitor that I’m back in stitches.

You’ve “role-d” me over, baby. Hahahahah

@ dee: You’re underselling yourself, Dee – how about that stint on the Navajo reservation, and your advanced degree, and…???

You’re hardly the type that people like Ken are referring to when they talk about “‘traditional’ women.”

Of course, to Ken’s mind, I am out on the farthest fringes of the galaxy, since I think that feminism and xtianity go together. Ha! 😉

Ken wrote:

The secular feminist view of equality meaning sameness is – from scripture and observation – simply not true, and in taking it on board, some evangelicals have strayed after Satan. Feminism in the UK is leading to the masculinasation of women – no to having children, yes to have a career instead. Those who do this don’t seem to me to be particularly happy

I have friends in the UK who would beg to differ with you on all of these point, very much including the characterization of them as “masculinized” and discontented/unhappy.

As for me personally, I’m in my mid-50s and have never married. Do I regret not having a spouse and kids? Well, in some ways, yes, but in other ways, not at all. Life is funny that way – it doesn’t necessarily work out the way we plan, and that’s not always a bad thing. Now that I’ve been free of the oppressive atmosphere of abusive churches for a bit over a decade, I no longer feel as if my identity is dependent on my marital status (or lack thereof). You know what? The air’s a *lot* fresher out here!

As for differences, I think that if you got 100 women in a room and 100 men in another, you’d find that there as many – if not far more – differences between individuals of the same gender as there are (or might be) between men and women. One of my major beefs with the comp mindset is that many in that camp tend to act as if men and women are two entirely different *species.* I’m *not* implying that you think that way, but it’s so discouraging to see what these folks say about both women *and* men. Their idea of gender roles turns into a straitjacket, and sadly, they make sure that it’s a “one size fits all” deal – except, of course, that it doesn’t.

For me what it all boils down to is what is right and what is the principle to live by. I’m sure that most people would think I’m a complementarian by the way my family has operated. I don’t care if the man makes all the income for the family and never does a domestic indoor chore. It does not mean he is the boss. It does not mean she is the boss any more than my brother’s business partner and he are the boss of each other although their roles in the company are very different. I have yet to personally meet a complementarian that will give respect and time to seriously looking into the mounds of evidence for egalitarianism. I thought I was alone until a few years ago when I went searching the Internet and I did not know so much work had gone on before me. I am grateful that God has revealed much evidence for many doctrinal conclusions after I have come to them on my own, of course I believe I have the Holy Spirit so not really on my own but you know what I mean. I thought people I knew would be as excited as I was for this good news for men and women. Egalitarianism actually places more responsibility on women than complementarianism does. I thought the men would be happy about that. I have no desire to be the boss, only equal. Why should I back down from my sure stand to feed that ego.
Now I am believing that most comps are simply afraid to look. They have seen many who have looked and have changed their minds. Other comps, the ones that are denying higher education, especially seminary training education I believe do know the truth and do not want the females that they think they own to find out. I mean why on earth would they not want the females to see how they have come to their conclusions.
P.S. I throw out no scripture. Taken in literary sense, even our poor translations in this area still say equality, not over/under hierarchy.

Thanks for the encouragement Attorney. Now that I have a bit of time I would also like to comment back to the Epesians 5 interpretations. I am wondering if anyone knows of a good article with the following interpretation. I see it like this: Paul is only using the culture of the day as an analogy of man/ woman and husband/ wife which taught that woman was below man. Before the church came into being through Christ, sinners were below God in holiness. But even Christ, who was and is the source for the church like the male was and still is in some cultures gave up himself in order to equalize her in the same holiness as He Himself enjoys, having no blemish or wrinkle. Since female comes from the very flesh of male she is so made of the exact same humanity so male should be treating female just like he treats himself. That to me means giving her the same autonomy that he enjoys. In that culture that Paul was addressing only the men had the means to set the women free like that, and not just set her free like… okay now.. go take care of yourself and see how that works out for’ya, but actually take the time to care for her, let her learn, clean up the damage done to her, until she is presentable as standing beside him, which speaks equality to me otherwise he would have said standing above or supporting from beneath. The way complementarians interpret these verses would make you think that Paul said that men should rule their women as God rules the universe.

@ Patti:
Even though the Bible never tells a man to lead a woman, I do believe that in this way I do interpret it as the man leading. Leading simply meant going first, man was already in the position in society that women should also have. A leader was simply someone who had gone before. The same goes for Hebrews 13 where church hierarchy interprets leader to mean boss. All of our translations make it sound that way too, but taken in context of chapters 11 and 12 along with the original words biasly translated into obey and submit to leaders it becomes clear that the leaders the writer was referring to were those who had proven their faith, some of antiquity and some who had been martyred, not some kid fresh out of a nine month pastor preschool just because he tells us that God has called him to be a leader.

An Attorney wrote:

My funny take on the Patriachalist interpretation is to go to the passage on head covering. It would suggest that a woman could speak in church if she threw a blanket over her husband, since her “head” would be “covered”.

LOL! Love it!

@ An Attorney:
Since you and I are discussing some Greek/Hebrew verbiage, I noticed you mentioned that Eve was made from a part of Adam. I know many translations say rib. I do not have a degree in these languages but what I have looked at, it seems to me that rib isn’t even that close. I think it just indicates side of Adam.
So I have pictured that Eve could have been made from a whole side of Adam, like the front side. I mean, it would make sense in light of how male and female ‘fit’ together in a ‘biblical way.’ Also if that could be
true, then why couldn’t she have been made the exact same in size and strength. Once the males began to dominate the females then they would have gradually picked the ones beginning to be slightly smaller and weaker than themselves until gradually most females are physically weaker than most males among each tribe of people. The first recorded case of male domination over female was when Lamech took two wives and threatened them with violence and death. I like to surmise that their complaint may have been the first case of polygamy.
Anyway, just musing, but it doesn’t sound any cornier to me than the complementation’s musings.

You can be as creative as they are! And you can use tradition, speculation, etc., in developing the ideas. But they cannot contradict the scripture in its earliest available form, b/c they claim the original autographs (which no one has!) were inerrant. So the earlier you go in the scripture, the less they can argue over the meanings!!! They are very much committed to the patriarchalist, divine right of kings, anti-female (King James was in an era when there were female pretenders to his throne) King James Version, and variants that keep the mis-translations and mis-interpretations of the KJV.

Ken, picking up on what you said about complete mutual submission not working, I disagree. Jesus himself said that he would do whatever we asked him in his name and that whoever loved him would obey his teaching John 14. He also often asked people what they wanted him to do for them. This seems like mutual submission to me; us to Jesus, as his followers, and he to us. ‘Mutual’ rules out selfish requests as the word indicates benefit to BOTH parties involved. This does not mean we get to boss him around nor are we forced to obey him against our will.

Ken, If you are going to sever Ephesians 5 vs 21 off and away from verse 22 then you are going to have to remove the words “be subject” from it because the words “be subject” do not exist in verse 22 alone.

So if you want the words “be subject” to be present in your proof texts then you MUST include the verse that contains the words “be subject” that verse 22 is referring back to. Those words only exist in vs 21.

I am sure that Paul wrote it this way on purpose especially for guys like you who want to cut off and ignore the mutual submission verse while beating women over the head with the verse that follows after it.

If you are going to quote the Bible, please do so like someone who truly respects it for what it is and wants to know what it is really saying. Stop quoting it like a guy who has something to gain by rearranging it for his own purposes.

@ Ken:
Ken, you are dealing with the aftermath of the KJV, which is a biased translation, not based on early Greek manuscript, authorized by a king who had issues, including the divine right of kings, women pretenders to the throne, a recalcitrant populace, etc. The authoritarianism in the NT letters, including Ephesians and 1 Timothy is not the most accurate understanding of the earliest manuscripts of those letters. A corollary problem is that many more modern translators, where there is a dispute regarding the proper way to translate the Greek words, including issues of gender, plural v. singular, which word a modifier actually modifies, etc., default to the choice most akin to the KJV. If you are going to argue that a verse is the litmus test for whether one believes the Bible or not, you need to get to the heart of what was being said by the writer to the people who were being addressed, and not what some translator thought 1600-1950 years later.

There are words added by translators that are not there in the Greek, and words in the Greek that mean something entirely different that those translations have. The best example of that is the understanding of “kephale” as head, meaning “boss”, rather than as “source”, that is, the place where food, light, sound, etc. enter the body. The boss concept is not contained in the Greek, neither linguistically nor culturally.

@ Ken: am also wondering who you have in mind when you talk about supposed deliberate suppression of “god-given urge(s)? not everyone is cut out to be a parent – far better to be aware of that and not have kids than to bow to pressure and have them due to the belief you promote. in that case, the kids end up suffering for it, and I’m hard-pressed to see any good in that scenario.

@ Ken: I’ve yet to meet a “secular feminist” who views having kids as “anathema.” you seem to be taking an extreme viewpoint and generalizing it in a way that doesn’t reflect reality.

further, if you want to cite Paul, what about his advice on celibacy? not to mention the fact that Jesus wasn’t married, either…

@ TedS.:

According to many. But in the circles most evangelicals, that sort of scholarship is looked down on as sin b/c it denies many of their doctrines and involves a critical, in-depth study of the languages and cultures, and it is so much easier to say “his is what the Bible (KJV, and progeny) says” while fleecing the flock and spending their money on cruises and conferences and mansions.

Ken wrote:

but my point above still stands.

btw, the point doesn’t stand. Sever of vs 21 and you completely gut vs 22 of it’s verb. It has no verb of it’s own. It must share. It cannot stand on it’s own and neither can your point.

An Attorney wrote:

it is so much easier to say “his is what the Bible (KJV, and progeny) says” while fleecing the flock and spending their money on cruises and conferences and mansions.

I understand your revulsion to these things. No one on TWW more sickened than I am by the corruption in the church. But you have not given any support to your argument, counsel, except your own opinions devoid of empirical evidence. There are some things in the scriptures, King James or whatever version you choose – perhaps NIV or ESV will suit your tastes (both are rejected by the KJV only crowd) – that make a lot of people uncomfortable. But they are in the text nonetheless. And we have to deal with it without trying to say that we do not understand the meaning and that the author wasn’t really saying what he did say.

An Attorney wrote:

almost all English translations default to the KJV

Sorry, but that is not true.

Ken wrote:

Similar with 1 Tim 2… These are the very words of God, we ought to be too scared of God to treat what they mean lightly. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom on tackling this.

The very words of God… well, some of the words of God, maybe, but that’s nothing. The Holy Spirit is the very Person of God, and he lives in his people. Jesus revealed the Father precisely so that we need not be scared of God. And this is no mere nicety to pacify the children in Sunday School while we’re waiting for them to grow up enough to handle proper academic theology.

The first disciples knew that uncircumcised Gentiles had no inheritance in Yahweh; they had the very words of God to prove it. Thus, when the Holy Spirit apparently violated the clear commands of scripture by falling on uncircumcised Gentiles just as he had on the 120 or so Jewish disciples at Pentecost, they were faced with an important test of the Covenant they were now part of. They passed: in due course they understood, and declared, that Jesus had cancelled the written code. Importantly, they lived by the Spirit instead of the letter. At the very least, they recognised God’s personal ownership of his words, and his prerogative to fulfil them as he chooses. So, they did not refuse baptism to those whom the Holy Spirit had so obviously accepted.

The reason I believe that “in Christ there is neither male nor female” is a key scriptural promise for today is not based on mere wishful thinking. It’s based on the fact that as I have proceeded along my walk with God, I have seen women both naturally gifted, and spiritually anointed, to teach, strategise, lead, and all the other things we might assume God had forbidden them from doing. And this anointing has been evidenced by fruit: a steadily increasing stream of love, joy, peace, faithfulness etc in those around them. So, I cannot refuse a place of service to those whom the Holy Spirit has so obviously fitted for it.

Ken wrote:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom on tackling this.

Thanks to Nick for bringing this part to my attention again.

Yep, the fear of the Lord IS the beginning of wisdom. It should be ever present whenever we are trying to discern whatever the Holy Writ is saying.

This is why it shocks me to no end when young guys, (and old guys and women of all ages…) come in, believing that they totally get every part of the mind of God and then presume to speak for Him. They make bold claims like “These are the very words of God!” which is code for, “I’m right, I’m in tight with God. You aren’t. Shut up and let me tell you what God says, means, intends… etc.”
Unintentionally, these folks who believe that they must enlighten the rest of us come very close to taking God’s name in vain saying, “Thus saith the Lord” when really their opinion of what God is saying makes up the bulk of what they say.

Ken, come here and argue with us. That’s fine. Try to persuade us with your beliefs and what you think it true. It is your right and you are free to do so.

But please be ever so careful about playing the “Thus saith the Lord” card. Every time you do, you run the risk of rushing in where angels fear to tread.

@ Ken:

“Men and women are indeed treated equally, but without obliterating distinctions amongst them.”
+++++++++++++++++

Hi, Ken.

I have a feeling discussion of this greater topic is pricklier than you expected.

I’d be interested to hear more about the perfect balance displayed in the NT, and how your understanding of the NT treats women equally to men. Honest questions.

@ Ken:

Trying to change the translation is a tacit acknowledgement that the thinking complementarian view is essentially correct.

I don’t know that anyone here is trying to change a translation. It appears that most want to simply understand what is meant from the original texts. I don’t view any translations as perfect. Some are better than others and ALL have a bent toward the translators own beliefs. For example, King James did support the version named in his honor.

I don’t know what you mean by word “thinking” in your quote above. I believe that men and women can and do complement one another in their giftings, especially as husbands and wives.

I’m wondering if you are aware the “complementarian view” that you think is “essentially correct” is one of the newer beliefs in the Christian world. The word “complementarian” was made up in the early 80s by a group that was intent on responding to “feminism.” This group believes/believed that feminism is a threat to God’s order and they aim/ed to correct the error. (I’m wondering how so many can adjust their thinking on slavery but not on women? For the most part, women at the time of biblical writings were just as much property as bond servants. Most of them had little choice as to who they would be married off to. There were some exceptions.) I’m thinking that Paul’s writings were revolutionary at that time, not restricting in any way.

For someone who seems concerned about translations and word usage, you seem to use the very modern and invented “complementarian” word with great ease.

In case you’re wondering, I have no desire to rule over anyone, including my husband. I don’t think that there are certain rules for me and different ones for my husband. I believe in mutual love and respect. I believe men and women, including husbands and wives, have different giftings that come from the same Spirit. These gifts can be used for God’s purposes, or not.

P.S. For all of you who use Twitter, add @wartwatch to your Following list – a fine example of Twitter at its best.

An Attorney wrote:

Converting Paul’s writing into rules is contra-biblical!

Exactly! One of my favorite Biblical insights comes from F.F. Bruce, himself a conservative scholar:

“I think Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew we were turning his letters into torah.”

An Attorney wrote:

Head = boss is post enlightenment thinking. Head = source is first century thinking. It is the way the first readers would have understood the term. Christ is the source of the church, it would not exist but for his acts in creating it. In the culture, husband is the source for the family, feeding, clothing, housing, legally owning all members of the household, effectively being the creator of the family

While I disagree with the “creator of the family” aspect of your post, I do agree with the meaning of head as source or origin. I think Paul conveyed the same meaning in his letter to the Colossians:

… and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. Col 2:19

and to the Corinthians:

For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 1Cor. 11:12

Ken wrote:

The answer to abuse is not non-use but right use.

EXACTLY! This goes with the abuse and misuse of scripture as well. I’m not non-using scripture. I was addressing it’s abuse and use to create hierarchies when really Ephesians 5 was tearing them down. If you had been paying attention to what I said, you would have seen that this is what I addressed.

Complementarianism abuses and misuses scripture and ignores the direct Words of God in the Gospels in order to prop up their aberrant doctrine.

There I said it.

For which of the apostles or prophets did a voice come out of a cloud saying, “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him!” (Mt 17, Mk 9, Lk 9)

Which one?

Paul?

Of course not!

That voice was for Jesus, and Jesus alone.
Stop making a certain interpretation of Paul’s words cancel out the Words of Jesus.
You MUST define the words of Paul through the foundation and bedrock of Jesus.

Matthew 7:24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

Complementarianism builds it’s foundation on the SAND of human tradition. That is why so many marriages FALL even though compism has been taught over and over and over and over. Compism doesn’t fix broken marriages. It just exacerbated the problems that already exist in them. I’ve seen it time and time again. You shall know them by their fruit.

Compism only works (for the most part) on already healthy marriages. But it’s the sick that need a physician. Ephesians 5 is not that physician. Sure, good things can be gained by meditating on this portion of scripture. But it is not the Healer.

The Healer is Jesus and His words to the individuals. The two greatest commandments, the golden rule, the Beatitudes, the scripture I mentioned above in Luke 22 that you so casually ignore and pretend doesn’t exist (cancel out) when it comes to marriage.

The problem is NOT with me not taking scripture seriously and honoring what is says. I do. And I did when I gave you another way to look at Ephesians 5. It’s just not the way YOU want to look at it so you determine that I’m wrong and not honoring scripture.

Some people complain that scripture contradicts itself. I hold that it doesn’t. It defines itself.
But Compism MAKES scripture contradict itself when it MAKES Ephesians 5 and 6 all about “God ordained” hierarchy rather than allowing it to be what it was, instruction to a system that was already steeped in hierarchy… instruction meant to turn people away from the hierarchies of worldly systems and turn toward a new and better way.

God is doing a new thing. The problem with men (and women) is that they don’t want the New Wine of Luke 22. They want the Old Wine and they have bastardized Ephesians 5 to make it support their preference for the Old Wine, just as some Southerners bastardized Ephesians 6 to support slavery back in the day.

@ Bridget:
Just quickly for you and numo’s post above yours. You keep ignoring what I have actually said. I’ve already said that both egalitarianism and complementarianism are not words found in scripture:

“The bible itself doesn’t use the word equality (or complementarian for that matter), so we need to define what we mean by these.”

Numo – I have said I don’t believe women are doormats so often that the doormat has worn a hole in it!

The issue of not listening and projecting stereotypes is one I will get back to in answer to Dee’s post. She has asked a question, and I think it only polite to answer it, but it will have to wait until later, coz I’ve got to go!

@ Ken: Just so you know, I was in some highly authoritarian churches where people (of both genders) were expected to be doormats for the so-called “leaders.”

That’s one of the things I had in mind when I wrote the comment a bit upthread to which you just replied.

I just went through a season of suffering that He allowed me to go through. My sweet daughter and I were suffering from a terrible rash that was debilitating and extremely painful. We went to countless specialist and spent thousands of $$ on treatments that never worked. As a mother is killed me to see her in such agony. I was in agony too so we would take comfort in knowing at least we had each other. My son and husband didn’t catch this horrible mess thankfully. But the treatments and lack of sleep bc of the pain had me exhausted. I couldn’t be the wife or mother that I wanted to be and thought that I needed to be to be worthy of love(earning love/works). We were isolated bc of it being contagious. It was awful and lonely. We missed special occasions and birthdays and church. We are both more social creatures so it was killing us lol. I had prayed, fasted and done everything the experts had told me to do and nothing but it getting worse happened. It bled and cracked and became inflamed. I got about 5 hrs sleep total for the week due to the intense pain. One day I had finally given up. I had enough! I had tried and tried and tried. I was desperate and feeling very dark feelings. I was having a huge identity crisis bc who I was wasn’t found in Christ but in what I could DO. I was being a semi loving but mostly stepford wife and mother although I didn’t think I was this way until it all got stripped away from me. I told my hubby that he should leave me bc I couldn’t be the woman he deserved and everyone would be better off without me. To which he drew me close to his side and said that he loved me better or worse he wasn’t going anywhere and neither was I. Tears began to flow but this time even his love wasn’t enough. I had made idols of my hubby and family that God was tearing down. I read through Job and Jeremiah and Psalms and Zephaniah and Zechariah. I began to understand more of God than before. But one day I was really in a very bad place bc things had gotten end very raw both physically and emotionally. God was peeling back the layers of deep seated pain until I got very real with God. I told my hubby to come home from work bc of how dark I was feeling and he couldn’t come right then bc he was stuck in a meeting. He would but it would take him some time. My best friend had just left her home and was out of cell service so she couldn’t run over either. It was just me and God and I threw the mother of all tantrums while apologizing for my temper. You see I didn’t understand love especially Gods love. I yelled at the top of my lungs I don’t understand love and it’s all I’ve ever wanted!!! I need you God!!! Why aren’t you listening and where are you???? I stared at my sign that said LOVE on my mantle. I gave my testimony to God about all the wonderful things He had done in my life and in the Bible. But how could I still not get it??? It all stemmed from the abuse I endured at the hands of my earthly father that was shaping my view of my Heavenly Father. My dad was in ministry and knew both Hebrew and Greek like the back of his hand. He was highly intelligent and well regarded. He was also a monster to live with and we suffered severely at his hand. He molested me as an infant and was heavily into porn. He also had an emotional affair with my moms best friend. He was physically abusive to my handicapped brothers. All of this would come out after I married my husband. I knew something was wrong with my relationship with him. I was never the daddy’s girl ever! I couldn’t stand him and I clung to my mom and her side of the family. He kept his secret from her bc had she known she would’ve left him in a heartbeat. He was extremely sneaky in his attacks. He was living a double life. After I married and he knew that I was sexually active bc I had waited until marriage. Well that sent him into a depraved state. He started acting out violently and my mom threw him out. I talked her into letting him return home but to live in the basement while he was getting treated by a Christian therapist at church. I was newly wed and stupid. During his counseling he stated that the real root of the problem was what he did to me. He has a photographic memory so he can and did relive it anytime he wanted. He confessed to all the various abuses. He was diagnosed as clinically depressed and was given treatment. My mom insisted on a neurological evaluation shortly after. She wanted a divorce and him out. He knew it and the day he was suppose to go he attempted to murder my mother and brothers. Gods grace kept them alive. The damage and fallout on my heart was tremendous as well as the spiritual abuse from others wanting reconciliation with the marriage and family. Apparently attempted murder and molestation plus emotional affair didn’t qualify as grounds for divorce for some Christians. Yep they were that delusional! So on top of betrayal their was more layers of betrayal bc to the church world my dad was an awesome bible teacher/leader. To which I say then you live with him and have fun with that! To say I needed healing was an understatement. Also due to this happening only months after our marriage it put a huge strain on us as a couple. It was 5 years of pure torment that God restored through the promise of our daughter. Our son was a blessing that inspired us to work on our marriage. Our daughter was the blessing of that hard work. She was the promise that God gave me. He broke through my fears bc my dad is free on an insanity plea. I was under such intense fear that it about killed me. God has protected me every step of the way. He didn’t allow my dad to kill them and he has kept us save ever since. He restored my Brokenness! I was in a very bad place with this rash bringing about old fears of being alone. The core of it was rejection, abuse and abandonment. I thought I had dealt with it and moved on bc thing seemed fine on the surface. But when my earning love through good works in my family and relationships was stripped away and all I had was plain ol me. I felt dejected. I had been used and abused by the one person who was never suppose to do that to me ever my own dad! It had carried instead into all my relationships. The longing to be worthy of pure love. I had a God size hole in my heart that I tried to fill up with people and things. Good people and things like family and good works but it wasn’t enough. I had made them into pretty idols justified through bad interpretations of scripture. The rash stripped it all away. That day it was time to wrestle just me and God! And wow He blessed me! He stepped in the middle of my messiness and shattered my sinful heart. The pride I held and idols that were so dear couldn’t compare to that moment. He spoke to my heart then showed me scripture in Rom 5 and it just washed away all my pain. I literally felt the weight and pain leave my body. It was done all the heartache washed away by trusting in His Word. God didn’t allow my hubby or best friend to come over bc they were the very idols that needed to but put in proper place in my heart. God was finally #1. I felt like I was born again for the very first time since I was a young child. I have the most amazing Father now my Heavenly Father. All the bible teachers, friends and family that I idolized couldn’t compare to the joy I now have in The Lord bc of His Grace alone. I ceased striving to earn it!! I understood that for so long my motivation was fear and now it’s pure love and adoration. That has impacted every relationship I have. Not only did He heal my emotional pain but he healed my body and my daughter as well. It was over! True relief had come from God. I was set free and Isaiah 61 was so real to me bc who the Son sets free is free indeed! I am redeemed and set free in His Grace alone through Trusting Faith in Christ Alone! I hope this encourages you on your journey. I didn’t mean to write a novel lol but I felt inspired to write to you. I want to encourage those who are broken to seek His face. When my daughter wants my attention she holds gently, in her sweet little hands, my face so she knows I have her attention. Hold onto Him. I promise with all of my being that He is a good and loving Father! Ps 27 speaks to this and has given me great comfort. There is plenty more I could say but I’ve already written a bunch. Be blessed and know that I’m praying for your healing and restoration. (Sorry for any typos bc I’m not the best speller plus auto correct has a mind of its own lol)

dee wrote:

Here is what it boils down to. No women as elders and pastors and the husband gets the tie breaking vote.

Yes, that’s where it’s at in essence. I don’t have a great system built on top of this, no long lists of rules. It works out at home that my main responsiblity is work outside the home, hers in it, with a great deal of sharing and whoever is best does it.

The balance of the NT is how it equally deals with the wife and the husband, never one in isolation. The problems with VF are not the result of false submisison teaching, rather unloving men.

Can I make this point: I’m a baptist. Fred Phelps is a baptist. Cue comments: Ken must be another one of those who goes to the funerals of gays spewing forth hatred. After all, they’re both baptists.
I’m a complementarian. Doug Phillips is complementarian. Cue comments that assume Ken must be a clone of Phillips. I’m not! If anyone learns anything from this thread, it ought to be to clarify exactly what someone means when they use jargon like ‘complementarian’. Not doing so easily leads to jumping to wrong conclusions (‘you must be one of those who …..’ when I don’t) .

There is clearly reservoir of anger over what is or is perceived to be going on in VF, but I’m not the right person to try to get to justify their teachings or attitudes. Being a glutton for punishment, I read Team Pyro on this, agreed largely with the theology, didn’t like the attitude which did give the impression of women being second class. However, I also don’t like the attitude of defiance this engenders in some egalitarianss a reaction.

Opinions on this divide in the UK, but I have never seen anything remotely like the US experience, with this taken to such an extreme. The British church disease is to be lukewarm instead.

@ elastigirl:

Hhmmm.

I think that my attitude that Ken would define as “defiance” is more of an anger at (some) men who have made the way of salvation next to impossible and who have muddied the waters so that they turn away a whole host of people who would normally rejoice at the salvation message of the gospel and drink freely the Living Water that Jesus offers.

(Some) men have made so many “add ons” to the gospel that it is no longer Living Water, but it has become bitter to the point that a lot of women (and men, I’m finding out) have to spit it out altogether. Sometimes those that have spit it out are able to search until they find the truth. Others have been so convinced by the water muddiers that their dirty version of the Living Water is the real thing, that they have turned their back on Christ, never to look back.

Yes, I’m very angry at those who shut the door of the Gospel because of their worship of certain secondary doctrines and raising them to the level of salvation, itself.
The message of the Cross is already a stumbling block. Why add things to it to so that those who can accept it end up stumbling on things of far less importance?

@ Ken: I have to wonder if mutual submission is just not on the table for you, even though it seems to be a major point for Paul – ?

An Attorney wrote:

I think Paul’s admonition to husband’s to love their spouse like Christ loved the church and died for it, is suggestive of a high degree of submission by the husband to the spouse, in the form of submersing his interests and continued life to her interests and continued life! Seems a lot like mutual submission to me.

Agreed! And anyone who can’t see laying down your very life for the one you love as an act of submission just plain doesn’t want to see it.

As an important and related point, there is no mention of authority relating to marriage other than that of 1 Cor. 7 in which both have equal authority over the other in the marriage bed.

elastigirl wrote:

i know you yourself don’t necessarily subscribe to these things

I appreciated that sentence, as it can get a bit wearing always being identified with those who have taken this to an extreme. Perhaps I should ditch the word complementarian in the same way I no longer call myself charismatic because of the lunatic element that is now largely the public face of charismaticism, though I have not actually changed my views to cessatiionist.

So you know where I am coming from, I have seen a reaction to the to ‘wives submit’ ranging from straightforward acceptance as it’s in the NT, problems as to what it might mean in practice, to outright defiant rejection. Churches I have been in and compromise on this tend also to compromise on other things as well, e.g. Christian sex ethics. It is this willingness to tamper with God’s word that is the major issue for me, rather than this particular aspect of it. You can almost despair of finding a church that puts the bible first and modern secular thinking last.

For all your collective attempts to persuade me that this is connected to mutual submission, I don’t think it is, it stands alone as does the husbands duty to love his wife, and the stated fact of his headship. You cannot have mutual headship.

As to attributes and roles I am complementarian, as to status and gifts I am egalitarian. Make of that what you will! 🙂

The biblical picture of submitted wife and loving husband is a letter written by the Spirit to the unbelieveing world, a demonstration of the relationship of Christ and the church. A rebellious and nagging wife and/or a bullying and controlling husband is the precise opposite of such a spiritual letter, and it is this that damages the church’s witness to the world because it tells them that the church and the world aren’t really very different.

@ Mara: “christian nations” also held large parts of the world in empires, where people had few rights and things were far from “democratic.” most African peoples were ruled by European conquerors until the mid-late 20th century.

supposed xtians were also responsible for Jim Crow laws, the Klan’s terrorizing and many lynchings, and the theft of Native American lands, culture – and lives.

am not trying to be argumentative, but to show that there are far too many examples of inhumanity by so-called “xtian nations” – so much so that I think we have to be careful about invoking moral superiority.

Mara wrote:

The church’s witness to the world is very different. It was Christian Nations that abolished slavery first, Not Islam or tribalistic.
It was Christian Nations that gave the vote to women first. Not Islam or nations ruled by other religions.

This is true. So Numo, do you refute this? I would qualify “Christian” nation as I am not so sure there is such a thing but came you name literal equality given in Islamic nations (which I can attest to) even during the Umayyad conquest of Hispania?

Numo, Anon 1

I was in a hurry to get out the door to work so I had to wrap up my comment quicker than I wanted to.

Whether a nation is Christian or not, or whether what they carried out is a true representation of “Christian” wasn’t really what I wanted to get into. So I probably shouldn’t have brought “Nations” into it.

So let me rephrase.

Both the Abolition movement and Women’s Suffrage had huge Christian representation, as Anon 1 mentioned.

It is my belief that the Christian influences in both of these had a great impact through the likes of Susan B. Anthony and Harriet Beecher Stowe.

It is also my belief that these things happened first. Then Gandhi came along. After him M. L. King Jr.

I’m open to people showing me where Islam or other major religions, or even minor or pagan ones gave rights to slaves and women before these influences. That is, as opposed to governments being overthrown to free slaves, etc.

@ An Attorney:
The idea that head can be replaced by source as a translation in Eph 5 and other places has very little support. Is God the source of Christ? Is Christ a created being? A willingness to change or abolish the doctine of the Trinity to accomodate a feminist/egalitarian view says to me that the person holding such a doctrine has made egalitarianism their religion and their God.

The idea of headship involving mysogeny if refuted by the fact that almost immediately after that statement the husband is the head of the wife Paul spells out the need for the husband to love his wife. There is no contradiction between the two. Even if you did translate head as source, both wives and the church are commanded to submit, there’s no getting away from it. Why try to? Mutuality doesn’t apply here either. What on earth is the problem with this text, it’s not rocket science to understand it!

@ Mara: No, I understood that, and your points about abolitionism, too. It’s just that one of the main reasons he developed non-violent resistance was: to get the British out of India and allow India to be self-governing. (Tied in with my earlier comment about some of the evils done in the name of colonialism.)

Nor do I want to downplay the fact that abolitionism began in countries that are at least nominally xtian – but the thing is, there was the British Empire and many people in the UK started feeling that slavery and similar forms of oppression *in their empire* was wrong. Same here in the US. Yes, xtianity had a lot to do with it, but you can look at arguments form the pro-slavery side and *they* found all sorts of justifications for it in the bible.

I wasn’t meaning to diss you or your comments; just to give another perspective. Guess I could have worded things a bit more clearly re. that – live and learn…

@ An Attorney:
‘Head’ as ‘source’ is as far as I know only used with reference to the source or mouth of a river (figuratively, the uppermost part of it, where it begins). The Greek usage in the OT and general usage reflected in lexionaries only supports the head as in ‘having authority’ sense.

The translation ‘source’ doesn’t beome very well supported just because egalitarians keep on repeating it.

This really is building an ediface in sand, reflecting what people want to see rather than what is actually there.

I do, however, agree with you completely that what the original audience would have understood is key to a correct understanding of today. (Genesis is a classic where this is necessary.)

I’m not sure there is much more to be said on this – I would have gladly said what I did in my original post, perhaps answered a question or two and left it at that! What I have learnt is that if VF does represent a reaction (extreme?) to changes in secular US culture, then it has arisen in a secular culture like the UK too that is in marked rebellion against God, one that is invading the church.

I can only say that in the UK I have rarely encountered such absolute resistance to Paul in churches I have been in – well not where they simultaneously claim to follow him as an apostle.

@ An Attorney:

The problem with Ken is that he doesn’t care what the best NT Greek scholars have to say. Nor is he in the least bit interested in any of the scriptures and contradict his pet doctrine.

His mind is made up.
Don’t confuse him with the facts or the Truth.

i) This is not a pet doctrine of mine. I haven’t given it much thought for quite a while (years).

ii) When I did help lead a church, we spent a lot of time reading around this in order to get it right. Neither disallowing what God permits, nor ignoring something he forbids.

iii) The decisive factor was what the NT writers have to say. Egalitarianism is a secular doctrine and the bible should not be made to fit it. Many posters here have appealed to everything but the NT text to support their position.

iv) The issue only became current in recent years because the Willow Creek type church we were in in Germany ignored Paul’s teaching on this. Willow Creek makes acceptance of egalitarianism a condition of membership. Our church didn’t do this as far as I know, but was not particularly tolerant of any other view. It’s indifference to the NT here was supplemented by indifference in other areas, this is a dangerous road to go down. There was a marked ignorance of pseudo-Christian mystical occultism promoted in some of the WC books.

v) I don’t think your mind should ever be so made up you cannot change it if good reason is given for doing so, even on this doctrine. The claim about the ‘best scholars’ is contradicted by the lexicons and grammarians. In particular, Grudem dismantled the claims of Kroeger on the head = source concept in Paul, and Junia as a female apostle is tenuous to say the least. Very modern translations claiming to be gender-neutral even at the expense of the source text still use ‘head’ rather than ‘source’ in say 1 Cor 11. If the evidence for this new figurative meaning were so great, they would surely have amended it.

vi) I actually attend a female led church on an ad hoc basis in a church-linked small brass band I play in. This is not an unknown quantity to me. I could never in conscience join, as I don’t think it right to undermine the leadership of a church.

vii) My UK experience of this does not include the marked extremes that say Michelle reports above where submission is synonymous with “absolute and total obedience/submission”. It is possible to have biblical complementarianism that does not lead to this.

Ken wrote:

i) This is not a pet doctrine of mine. I haven’t given it much thought for quite a while (years).

ii) When I did help lead a church, we spent a lot of time reading around this in order to get it right. Neither disallowing what God permits, nor ignoring something he forbids.

iii) The decisive factor was what the NT writers have to say. Egalitarianism is a secular doctrine and the bible should not be made to fit it. Many posters here have appealed to everything but the NT text to support their position.

iv) The issue only became current in recent years because the Willow Creek type church we were in in Germany ignored Paul’s teaching on this. Willow Creek makes acceptance of egalitarianism a condition of membership. Our church didn’t do this as far as I know, but was not particularly tolerant of any other view. It’s indifference to the NT here was supplemented by indifference in other areas, this is a dangerous road to go down. There was a marked ignorance of pseudo-Christian mystical occultism promoted in some of the WC books.

v) I don’t think your mind should ever be so made up you cannot change it if good reason is given for doing so, even on this doctrine. The claim about the ‘best scholars’ is contradicted by the lexicons and grammarians. In particular, Grudem dismantled the claims of Kroeger on the head = source concept in Paul, and Junia as a female apostle is tenuous to say the least. Very modern translations claiming to be gender-neutral even at the expense of the source text still use ‘head’ rather than ‘source’ in say 1 Cor 11. If the evidence for this new figurative meaning were so great, they would surely have amended it.

vi) I actually attend a female led church on an ad hoc basis in a church-linked small brass band I play in. This is not an unknown quantity to me. I could never in conscience join, as I don’t think it right to undermine the leadership of a church.

vii) My UK experience of this does not include the marked extremes that say Michelle reports above where submission is synonymous with “absolute and total obedience/submission”. It is possible to have biblical complementarianism that does not lead to this.

In all due respect, my response to your thoughts:

i) That’s good. I never heard of this doctrine (comp) until about 13 years ago. The environment I was in was NOT like what Michelle describes; however, I was only given books that put forth the comp doctrine and so fell into living that way without being exposed to any other teaching on the subject. My views have changed in the past few years, although I have been a Christian for over 30.

ii) Most people here have done this as well. I hope you’re not suggesting otherwise.

iii) This is YOUR opinion after you have studied scripture, but not everyone’s. You are accusing those who believe in Egalitarianism of not believing what the scripture says. “Many posters here have appealed to everything but the NT text to support their position.” This isn’t true at all. On this thread and others, different perspectives on scripture and specific words have been offered.

iv) “The issues only became current in recent years because the . . . ” Don’t know how you can declare this. Maybe where you are it only became and issue recently. Again, you are claiming that those who come to a different conclusion are “indifferent to the NT teaching and it’s a dangerous road to go down.” Where is your proof that I am going down a dangerous road because I believe in mutuality and functioning in gifts as opposed to complementarianism?

v) My mind wasn’t and it did change :)!! See (i.) above. Is Grudem the single expert on language in scripture? Seriously?

vi) That is fine. You are free to do that. (Are other’s free to come to a different conclusion, based on their studies?)

vii) It is also possible to have biblical mutuality that does not lead to extremes, i.e., usurping, lording over, power struggles, etc. 🙂

Your citing Grudem as an expert on NT Greek and culture is proof positive that you really do not know who the academic scholars are. Grudem is no expert.

Ken wrote:

iii) The decisive factor was what the NT writers have to say. Egalitarianism is a secular doctrine and the bible should not be made to fit it. Many posters here have appealed to everything but the NT text to support their position.

Ahem…

I agree with the first sentence.

As in ‘many of the posters here’ I’m pretty sure you don’t mean me. Because I’ve given you plenty of NT support for this position. I’ve given at least three direct references and alluded to others.

The fact that you completely ignore them, pretending that they don’t kick the legs out from under your preferred interpretation, does not make them go away or stricken them null and void. The NT is chuck full of verses that cancel out your pet doctrine. You just refuse to have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Egalitarianism is NOT a secular doctrine. We are not making the Bible fit it. The Bible teaches it. It is (one of) the New Things that the OT prophets prophesied. It goes against the fallen nature of men (Genesis 3:16d) and establishes a new order and more just order. But men prefer the old wine claiming it tastes better.

dee wrote:

Victorious wrote:
The one with the greater responsibility
Really? The husband has the greater responsibility? For what? Women have lesser responsibility?

Oops….I didn’t say that; Ken did. 🙁

Ken wrote:

You quote scriptures that have no direct bearing on marriage,

Hold it!

Stop right there!

Yes it does because these scriptures are about ALL fallen human relationships and our warped, fallen perspectives. Marriage is part of it. It’s not all of it. It’s about other relationships as well.

But compartmentalizing marriage out of it is quite convenient for those who want to set up the old hierarchies and broken ways we view the world.

Jesus is the foundation, the BEDROCK of all other doctrines, including marriage.

Stop, stop, stop trying to separate it out and make it a separate entity where you can cancel out the words of Jesus to make Paul say what you want him to say. Paul is NOT establishing ‘biblical’ hierarchies. He is speaking to the ones that already exist and trying to point people to what Jesus says. Quit pointing people away from the words of Jesus to support your pet doctrine.

And find another Bible language scholar besides Grudem. He’s too good at itching hierarchy ears and wants to hang onto the old wines kins because of the perks that are involved.

Another NT act of Jesus that tears down the old hierarchies was his act of washing the disciples feet. Only slaves and women (wives) did that. But Jesus wanted the disciples to imitate Him, breaking down all the systems of hierarchy, including marriage.

By your little proclamation above, you reject the Words of Jesus in favor of your interpretation of Paul based on the false foundation (sand) of the traditions of men.

I know you still want to sweep this all under the rug and conveniently compartmentalize. But to do so is to not honor scripture. It does not allow scripture to define itself.

@ Ken:
Ken. It is not the issue that “head” should be translated “source”. It is rather the meaning of the term “kephale” in the Greek, which is properly translated “head”, but what meaning of “head” would have been understood at the time in the culture of the writer and the readers. And “head” as “boss” was not the meaning, but more similar to the idea of a spring being the “head” of a river or stream, i.e., the sustaining source. The head, to the Greeks and Romans, was the source of light, information into, food into, the body. The heart was thought to be the locus of intellect, thought, etc., and thus the controlling organ of the body. Thus we have all of the language, still occurring, that talks about a pure heart rather than a pure head, as if one’s ethical center is the organ that pumps blood.

Grudem is a polemicist, not a linguistic expert regarding translation. Go find one that is, and you will find at least that source is an alternative meaning appropriate in the time and place.

The only person in the bible proclaiming men to be ruler of their own household is Vashti and Esther’s husband, King Xerxes. He was a man easily influenced by his courtiers and his evil vizier Hamam and, in my opinion, his decree should be accorded the same respect as that by another noble ruler to worship a giant gold statue, fiery furnaces notwithstanding.
Katherine Bushnell did an indepth study of Vashti and Esther which makes fascinating reading and highlights things that get lost in translation. It’s available on the Godswordtowomen website.

@ Ken:

The analogies don’t hold up.

A boss can stop being a boss on the weekend. A boss is interviewed, he’s hired for his skills.

Even if a woman has the skills to do a job, gender comp churches, say to her, “No, we can’t let you work in area X, even though you are gifted and educated in that area.” – based on her gender alone, not lack of skills or talent.

Also…. Barring a Chaz Bono type thing of sex change operations, a woman remains a woman non stop over her life time.

I was born female, can’t change it.

Also, I have never married.

I don’t need to marry to know what my gender is. I am not confused about my gender due to not having a spouse.

Gender compism does not know what to do with men and women who never marry.

I’m in my 40s now. I’ve not married. I don’t need a “man’s headship” over me or covering… neither does a married woman. I don’t need a husband to know what my gender is, or to understand my femininity.

@ Victorious:
Victorious, the book ‘The Vashti-Esther Story’ is available there under Online Books. Bushnell’s book ‘God’s Word to Women’ is now only available as a download for $5. It used to be freely available but when I checked the site a few months ago, one had to pay for it which I did. You’ll find it under Purchase Books.

Ken wrote:

I think the underlying difference between how you see this and how I do is that you cannot conceive of a ‘complementarian’ view that does not involve a kind of enslavement or ruthless domination. That’s the first thing that comes into your mind when you see the word, whereas in my mind based on my background I see it as a description of how men and women relate to each other biblically.

Ken – I entirely believe you when you say that this is not a pet doctrine, and I don’t doubt that there are many more facets to your theology and practical walk with God than gender roles. (Deebs themselves have a life outside TWW…) But: question. Can you conceive of an egalitarianism that is also held as a description of how men and women relate to each other biblically? In other words, that is not just a carnal and indulgent rebellion against God or a lazy imbibing of the sinful culture of the world, but that is actually arrived at not only by searching the bible but by seeing how the Holy Spirit, who authored and transcends it, is explaining what it means for us? I repeat (from an earlier comment): this is not new revelation.

I appreciate that you are re-adjusting from life in a congregation you consider to have rejected scripture. Your comments hint at the possibility that you are to some extent “on the rebound”; though I say that tentatively as the evidence is limited. I don’t know what dubious new-age-like elements were being brought in, for instance. But there are many things I used to believe as an 18-year-old who had just discovered the Bible to be inspired, but no longer believe 27 years later. This is not because they are too hard or I’ve become too sinful, but because I know a lot of things better than I did then. The bible not least among them.

Mara,
I came to the conclusion long ago, that the Bible is best interpreted in light of the culture of the first readers, and not as a one-time forever statement of do’s and don’ts. There are passages that clearly have eternal validity. Jesus command to love and his example of dying because of his love for us. Putting God first, others second, and ourselves last. etc.

When I get to Paul’s writing, and have in hand books about life and culture in the first century cities and regions where the letters were addressed, I see a problem solver addressing problems in that local church in its culture, more so than edicts for all peoples and times. Romans is a bit of an exception, b/c it is a legal treatise as much as an epistle. From all of that, however, I came to the conclusion that God did not ordain that women should be subservient to men, should have less authority over themselves than men, etc. As I have said elsewhere, I became an egalitarian man observing my comp believing parents’ marriage, where Mom did everything she wanted, managed the bank accounts, traveled extensively on mission activities, worked outside the home when she chose, etc.

I began to study the scriptures intensely on the issue when I was as a deacon in a church and we were tasked with assessing whether the Bible would prevent women from serving as deacons. Our Southern Baptist diaconate, all men, reviewed every verse or every passage that anyone would possibly cite as relevant. Members dug into commentary after commentary regarding key passages (all the commentaries were on the list of books available through the Baptist Book Store!). After weeks of discussion, we voted 25 to 1 that the church should allow for the election of deacons without regard to gender. I then served on a drafting committee to put together our report to the congregation regarding our study and conclusions. It was an extensive report, over 80 pages, with a much briefer summary.

The point is, egalitarian practice in the church and in the home is more supported by the Bible than is complementarianism.

An Attorney wrote:

The point is, egalitarian practice in the church and in the home is more supported by the Bible than is complementarianism.

Totally agree. Though I make room for people who haven’t arrived at that yet. We all have a lot of growing to do over so many issues. There needs to be a lot of grace towards each other as we try to figure out how to apply the stuff of heaven to the winds of earth.

I only get cranky, to the point of unreasonable, when people come in here (and other places of free expression) and try to coerce and shame us into a (IMHO) lesser understanding of the freedoms we have in Christ. And so I have been cranky with Ken. I’m working on being less cranky.

Mara wrote:

Ken, I know I come off as a raging, liberal feminist. Some of these others here know that it is more of an internet persona than anything else.
It might surprise you that I’m pro-life, pro-strong male leadership (just not as the expense of strong female leadership working along side men) etc.

To be honest your post did surprise me. I think if you weren’t pro-life, and I’m not surprised you are, it would be quetionable if you are a Christian at all. Your being pro-strong leadership did surprise me if only you have given the impression of being against hierarchy in any shape or form.

Thank you for moving away from the pet doctrine idea. For my part I haven’t intended to accuse you personally of anything. In trying to keep things brief, I fear I may come across as more wooden and dogmatic than you would think if this were being discussed over a cup of coffee (regardless of who made the coffee).

I’m afraid I cannot see from a study of the NT how you can arrive at the egalitarian position regarding roles (status yes!), bearing in mind that in Kenville there is very little women are actually prohibited from doing. I even agree with Hybels that ‘complementarian’ churches should at least make sure women do everything else apart from being teacher-pastors. That might at least take some of the heat out of the discussion as it ought to nail the superior/inferior attitude that can infect churches.

I have read considerably more than Grudem on this, including a dabble in pro-egalitarian sites to avoid confirmation bias. Peaceful coexistence is nice, but in the end one side is right and the other side is wrong, they can’t both be simultaneously right.

If I do have a pet theme here, it is that (obviously from my point of view) the authority of scripture is being set aside. That is the overriding issue. In my experience in the UK it has been believers who take the bible seriously who endorse complementarianism though in a very down to earth way, and to come back to Nick’s post you can almost despair over finding a church these days that does take this seriously. Rightly or wrongly it has become something of a litmus test, but has proved over the years fairly reliable. The bible needs supplementing with psychology, sociology, marketing that involves ditching or watering down key doctrines that might be perceived as negative. The underlying cause it seems to be is a drifting away from the NT writers.

It was never my intention to comment on this as often as I have, but there’s lots of you and only one of me, and it seems rude not to be prepared to engage and try to give the other side of the argument that is, I hope, not in the same league as the patriarchal movement.

@ Ken:

“Such feminism is about empowering women, a work of the flesh, whereas Christianty is about putting the flesh to death, for both men and women.”
+++++++++++++

I think you’ve misunderstood & spiritualized away the significance of empowering women. All societies function better when this happens (for the benefit of all, including men).

The words “power” and “women” used together can be like an encounter with a hand buzzer for some. But this knowledge is here to stay and it is truly in everyone’s best interest to embrace it.

@ An Attorney:

Can you pass on titles and authors? I’m much interested in this area also.

Ken wrote:

If I do have a pet theme here, it is that (obviously from my point of view) the authority of scripture is being set aside.

And from my point of view, translations of the scriptures, though mostly reliable, have been somewhat tainted by the prejudices of their own days.

When men fight to either make Junia a man (Junius) or to make her not an apostle, they are setting aside the authority of scripture.

When men refuse to let Pheobe be the deacon that she was in the NT (same Greek word as used for men) but reduce her to a servant, they are setting aside the authority of Scripture.

When they refuse to allow Lydia and the Chosen Lady of II John to be house church leaders in their own homes, they are setting aside the authority of Scripture.

When they claim that since Adam came first in the OT, that is irrefutable evidence of God’s intention to make men first, while at the same time deciding that the Resurrected Jesus revealing Himself first to women means nothing, these men are setting aside the authority of scripture.

When Grudem goes on and on about how God submits to men when He is referred to as man’s Help Meet rather than to accept that the term ‘help meet’ is not a subordinate term in the creation story, he (Grudem) gives into faulty logic and sets aside the authority of scripture.

You see, Ken.
I’m not setting aside the authority of scripture. I’m refusing to allow others to sweep away, explain away, twist away, all the supporting scripture for egalitarianism.

You are correct that only one can be right.
You are wrong in concluding that I, in any way, set aside the authority of scripture.
I don’t set it aside. I never have. But rather, I appeal to it.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Nick – just to say thanks very much for you encouraging post! I really appreciated it.

Going into a lay-by for a moment, on a secular forum I sometimes frequent with no religious connotations, I was very much the lone voice in arguing against abortion, I hope with wisdom and sound reasoning as the only Christian voice there. The wall of resistance that this is an absolute moral right that must not be questioned can certainly get you down, it’s far worse than the hargy-bargy on this thread and involves more serious consequences.

My argument that egalitarians set aside scripture was qualified by the phrase ‘in my experience’, not to make that the norm, but rather to say I’m not just regurgitating things I have read on the Internet. The discussion here has been hampered by the lack of a clear definition of just what egalitarian or equality actually means – I’ve taken it to mean sameness, interchangeability, but this can lead to talking at cross purposes.

Daisy wrote:

Then give women who are called and gifted by God to lead and to teach the opportunity to use that “privilege.”

This begs the question of the very thing in dispute: was learning in quietness/not teaching men of 1 Tim 2 local and temporary, or universal and permanent? It’s this very thing that generates three hundred and whatever comments!

The rest of your post about what you perceive as ‘comps’ bashing singles or obsessing with the married is not anything I have encountered. I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing here.

I had better away (got to get the tea on the way home) before this becomes 400 posts!

@ Mara:
Mara wrote:

I don’t set it aside. I never have. But rather, I appeal to it

Amen Mara. Me too. And within it’s cultural context.

Ken wrote:

Whatever legitimate complaints feminists may have had in the West about how women were regarded or treated, I wish the church would be very careful before it follows them down the road they are going, as though they are a source of light to a church following a dusty old book that needs to be updated (meaning discarded) for sophisticated, enlightened people of the 21st century.
What I see around me is a society in unbelief handed over by God to moral decay and disintegration and mental decay and disintegration, claiming to be wise but becoming fools, futile in their thinking and senseless minds being darkened (to echo Paul who saw the same thing in his day).

It is perfectly OK to view the bible in it’s cultural context keeping in mind it’s first century audience. Word meanings change over time and especially with translations. To conveniently forget the fact that the household codes of the 1st Century women were chattel unless very wealthy. Much of what is written in the NT concerning women was a step up for them. It was also considered “moral decay” for those women (both married and single) to travel all around the region with Jesus even taking care of Him with their own resources. The Pharisees thought that was despicable. :o)

Ken wrote:

Looking at your examples, I think too much is often made of too little in this regard e.g.

The same could be said of the smattering of unrelated verses that are strung together as proof texts of compism, all the while ignoring the true themes of the Bible.

Rather than look at what JESUS SAID AND DID, let’s sweep that all away and decide that what Paul said (whom Peter says is not always understandable) is the foundation, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end instead. Because Paul has become our chief cornerstone (again rejecting Jesus).

Ken wrote:

My argument that egalitarians set aside scripture was qualified by the phrase ‘in my experience’, not to make that the norm, but rather to say I’m not just regurgitating things I have read on the Internet.

I recommend this forum for engaging true scholarship concerning egalitarianism.

http://equalitycentral.com/forum/

Ken wrote:

The discussion here has been hampered by the lack of a clear definition of just what egalitarian or equality actually means – I’ve taken it to mean sameness, interchangeability, but this can lead to talking at cross purposes.

There is a minority that believe this among egals.
However, you should not just all within this camp by them anymore than we should judge you by Vision Forum or the Bayly Brothers.

Just for the record, I was a stay home home school mom. I had four children, two boys, two girls. I love being a mother (except for the diapers). I never wanted to be their father.

Also, I’ve seen first hand what even very light comp teaching does to boys, in one of my sons in particular. I’ve been going to a church that is comp light (remember I told you I could fellowship with them) because of the slim pickings of churches I have available out here in the boondocks.

My son rejects Christianity, in part, due to gender teaching. He knows full well that women are every bit as able to teach as men. But men kept telling him that “God says” that women are not to teach men.

This breaks my heart since I know full well, God never said that.
Some men have taken some verses out of context to mean that.
But God never said that.
It’s not in the 10 Commandments.
It’s not in the 2 Greatest Commandments.
It’s not in the Golden Rule.
It’s not in the Gospel anywhere, in red or black.

Yet so many men teach it as though it IS in the 10, the 2, the Golden, and the Gospel. This makes God look bad and turns people away.

They don’t stumble at Jesus. They stumble at the extras that men attach to Him. href=”#comment-122594″ title=”Go to comment of this author”>Mara:

@ Anon:

Yep, and I forgot to put the link in my comment above concerning the Danvers.

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-does-danvers-statement-really-mean.html

@ Mara:

I was disappointed you returned to putting Paul against Jesus. Paul was an apostle of Christ, who together with the other writers brought the ‘many more things’ Jesus had to say in the form of the rest of the NT. It is no less authorititive.

I also have a problem with you taking the equality or oneness/unity verses as I prefer and using them to override the submission verses. They are not incompatible. You cannot decide by majority vote which emphasis is going to have priority.

Junia – and similar verses. You need evidence that men have deliberately suppressed these to keep an egalitarian interpretation down. Junia in the end is a question of Greek grammar. Probably was female, known as an apostle or to the apostles is a grammatical issue. To say this greeting attests to numerous female apostles is to read too much into it. It might attest to one. That is what I mean by too much being read into too little. Similar with head as source.

I read your link to what the Danvers Statement ‘really’ means, and tried to be objective about it. Frankly, I’m afraid the assertions of what was really being said in most cases simply didn’t follow from the statement itself. For example, ‘The upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family’ actually means in part ‘They give husbands the OK to abuse his (sic) wife’. That’s slanderous. The one thing that comes across with Shirley here is she quite determined not to ‘submit’.

I wonder if abuses of complementarianism were really the target.

I’m not very happy when, in a Christian context, men or women start talking about their ‘rights’ (Evangelical Women’s Rights Convention). We have no rights to assert over against our creator.

I was sorry to hear of your son rejecting Christianity. Surely the point with regard to gender issues is that what others do – rightly or wrongly – is what they will have to give account for, he will only need to give account of himself. Obedience is a gospel issue, an interpretation of two aspects of Christian living in the home and church ought not to be unless it becomes an unwillingness to submit to the will of God. Churches that do not permit women teachers of men are taking Paul’s teaching in 1 Tim 2 at face value as they see it, they are at least trying to do God’s will as they understand it. I think you could commend that even though you don’t agree with them. It avoids ‘I’ll repent of my sin when they repent of theirs’. They may never get round to it ….

I know you think I might get it if you repeat the egalitarian line enough. I would change my mind on my understanding of this if someone can show me from the text that a different interpretation makes more sense. It doesn’t help the egalitarian cause at all when someone like Shirley in your link (and she’s not alone) comes across as someone who is so determined not do what the text itself says.

Ken wrote:

You cannot decide by majority vote which emphasis is going to have priority.

And neither can you or any other comp.

And yet, in order to support your house of cards, you do just exactly what you accuse me of. And I’m calling you on it.

More of the Bible supports my position than yours. But you minimize the parts you don’t like and maximize the parts you do like.

I am looking at the Chief Cornerstone, the One the Comp builders have rejected and I make Him that Cornerstone and Bedrock. I put Him in His rightful place in understanding all doctrine. Comps reject Him and build their doctrinal house on the sand of tradition. The sands of tradition with Paul’s words built over top lead to Compism . The Bedrock of Jesus with Paul’s words built on top DO NOT lead to Compism.

Compism doesn’t get a majority vote here either. Jesus gets the majority vote. Not you. Not Grudem. Not even Paul, though his vote gets way more consideration that all Comps and egals combined.

Ken wrote:

I would change my mind on my understanding of this if someone can show me from the text that a different interpretation makes more sense

Did you visit this place yet?

http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php

If not, then do so. Yes, there are crusaders like Shirley who just stand against the oppression.
But there is also sound scholarship that backs up this position.
No, you won’t get the ‘scholarship’ from crusaders so don’t expect it there. But don’t make the mistake that because the crusaders don’t go into deep scholarship, that it doesn’t exist.

Full disclosure: the weather’s not always that good.

Mara wrote:

Note verse 5 that He predestined us all (male and female) to adoption as sons.
Women have the birthright of sons in the Kingdom of God, not just men. Women are not second class citizens. They have full inheritance as sons.

The equality in inheritance is not in dispute. I’ve already explicitly somewhere upthread stated this so there’s no argument there. There is also agreement that this does not contract Eph 5. What you have there are two different commands to equals. The wife is explicitly told to submit to her husband in all things – this is as to the Lord. Both husband and wife are under authority, that of Christ, and this relationship to him is not mutual. Yet because submission to husbands is enjoined as part of submission to Christ, this preserves the equality of status whilst differentiating responsibility within the family.

There is no command for a husband to try to subjugate his wife. His authority as ‘head’ is itself not absolute (far from it) as he is under the authority of Christ, his word and the leadership of the church. (This might be something some patriarchs very badly need to hear.)

There is no verse explicitly telling a husband to submit to his wife, only a general command to submit to one another. There is the general command to love your neighbour, yet Paul explicitly commands the husband to love his wife, and expands on what this means. This sacrificial love is enjoined only on the husband, not the wife, so in this passage it is not mutual either. And, I might add, even Fred Butler sees this kind of love as involving ‘serving’ his wife!

Eph 5 has, of itself, not once ever resulted in abuse for the whole history of the church. It has to be misused for this to happen, and this is not a built-in feature of the complementarian view if you stick to what the text itself says.

That men can misuse such passages I do not doubt, but controlling and manipulative women can also do a vast amount of damage in the church. Disobedience is not one-sided (and some feminist evangelicals need to take this on board).

I have visited the site you linked to, and the council for biblical equality. I was not impressed with extra-biblical revelation in the form of ‘prophetic’ dreams to justify egalitarianism in the former. Some of what I have read on the latter is clearly driven by ideology. I’ve tried (time permitting) to give them a fair hearing, but the same stock objections keep coming up.

You are viewing this subject from a US perspective. I’m viewing it from a UK perspective, where it doesn’t raise hackles as it does in the States. I’ve not found Christian women in the UK taking the doctrine as demeaning, nor conversely is there a patriarchy movement. There is less extreme polarisation on this subject. David Pawson, who more recently has spent a lot of time ministering to men to get them to take spiritual responsibility more, wrote a book called Leadership is Male. I heard him say that this garnered him severe criticism from certain quarters (as you might expect), but that he had had hundreds of letters thanking him for writing it, every single one of them from women! They want men to take responsibility, a reflection perhaps that in today’s society feminism is enabling irresponsibility in men as independence replaces interdependence, and something Christian women don’t want their men to follow.

For the church not to follow the culture around it one way or the other is not easy, is it.

Ken wrote:

You are viewing this subject from a US perspective

Again with the assumptions.

Ken, I see that you really believe that you understand what makes ‘egal’ tick. But your perspective sets you up for so many assumptions that it is hard to talk to you.

Ken wrote:

Eph 5 has, of itself, not once ever resulted in abuse for the whole history of the church. It has to be misused for this to happen, and this is not a built-in feature of the complementarian view if you stick to what the text itself says.

And I am getting so tired of this worn out excuse.

Eph 5 and verses like it, interpreted by comps, has very much led to a great amounts of abuse, including keeping women out of areas that men don’t want them. Places God has called them to.

Saying, “They aren’t doing it right,” is a cheap shot.

Ken wrote:

I have visited the site you linked to, and the council for biblical equality. I was not impressed with extra-biblical revelation in the form of ‘prophetic’ dreams to justify egalitarianism in the former. Some of what I have read on the latter is clearly driven by ideology.

This leads me to believe that, no, you really haven’t. Or if you have, you have zeroed in on some of the fringe commenters who are still trying to figure out what it all means.

There are Greek and Hebrew scholars. And there is a guy there, in particular, that I’d like you to talk to. He set out to disprove ‘egal’ by studying it and found that it was more sound than the comp doctrine he embraced at the time. Until you talk to him or some of the other old-timers there like him, all yous dissing and dismissing of this site means nothing to me.

And finally, take your own advice. Set aside your assumptions about me and about the Bible that supports your ideology.

I’ve already tried to dance the comp dance and found it unsustainable in a fallen world.
But from what I gather, you have never gotten close enough to the egal dance to even understand the first step.

Ken wrote:

David Pawson, who more recently has spent a lot of time ministering to men to get them to take spiritual responsibility more, wrote a book called Leadership is Male. I heard him say that this garnered him severe criticism from certain quarters (as you might expect), but that he had had hundreds of letters thanking him for writing it, every single one of them from women!

So he claims.

Look, dude.
All mothers want the fathers to be engaged and take responsibility for the babies they help make. There was partnership in creating the baby. There must be partnership in raising the baby.
I didn’t go it alone as a mother and it was hard work even with my husband around. I don’t wish single parenthood on anyone, male or female.

But not one woman wants some man coming in and taking over. And yet this is what groups like Promise Keepers have taught even though you cannot come up with one legitimate Bible verse that supports “Leadership is Male”. Not one. Male lordship and hierarchy is a result of the fall, NOT the result of Creation. (Genesis 3:16)

For some reason, it seems, (some/many) men can only be involved in the family if they are in charge. If they can’t be in charge (as opposed to equal partnership) then they will take their ball (all the benefits of them being a contributing and involved parent) and go home.
Irresponsible men are irresponsible because of themselves and they need to own that weakness of irresponsibility. Do one is doing anybody any favors by blaming it on women through blaming feminism. That’s another overworked cheap shot.

I don’t know why it appears to be so much more easy for men to walk away from their parental responsibilities than women. But blaming women and wanting to be the boss is the infantile way of doing things, not the responsible way.

Yes, I want men to man up. But NOT at the expense of women and what they have to bring to the table.

Hierarchy brings division and strife and makes it easy for immature adults to steamroll someone else.
Equality brings the need to work things out which works maturity in both men and women. It removes the ability for an immature anyone to just have a fit, claim a Bible verse, and demand veto power which is what you get when you tell men they have this.

Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No, the above is not scripture. But it is a truism that has proven itself over and over.

Men ‘get’ this and totally believe it when it comes to government (kings) and church (priests). But they forget it in two seconds when their doctrine give them power over another. It is just as true in families as it is anywhere else.
I’ve met too many men, drunk on their own perceived power (taught by comps) to be convinced of anything else.

What is it about men that they can’t be involved in family life unless it is framed as “Leadership”. Is it really a virtue? Or is it a fulfillment of the curse in Genesis 3:16, Old Wine stuff?

Ken wrote:

This sacrificial love is enjoined only on the husband, not the wife, so in this passage it is not mutual either. And, I might add, even Fred Butler sees this kind of love as involving ‘serving’ his wife!

And we also have verse 2 — specifically written to all beloved children of God– kids, singles, widows, and even– wait for it– wives. “and walk in love, as also the Christ did love us, and did give himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell…” Much of this word-for-word identical with the v 25 command to husbands.
I’m all good with this, and with this kind of love involving “serving” my wife. But guys like Piper equate it with “leading” our wives. (Other Pauline passages about Christ’s headship do NOT refer to his leadership of the church- tough of course he does lead us.) For me, for several decades, leadership meant having the “tie break”. Probably just me, but the “tie break” idea really hindered living with my wife according to understanding, as Peter enjoins.

Ken wrote:

There is no command for a husband to try to subjugate his wife. His authority as ‘head’ is itself not absolute (far from it) as he is under the authority of Christ, his word and the leadership of the church.

Hello Ken,

Not only is there no command for a husband to “try” to subjugate his wife, but there is no command to be an authority. For such a pervasive alleged doctrine today, wouldn’t you think we could find support somewhere in scripture? I mean if God meant for husbands to be an authority, why didn’t He just say so? We would simply just post the verses that said, “husbands should be authorities over their wives” Book 2; verse 2.

The only place in scripture that even mentions the word authority relative to marriage is in 1 Cor. 7 where both wives and husbands have authority over one another in the area of sexual intimacy. That’s pretty clear. No room for disagreement, right? But the absence of any scripture delegating authority to a husband is important and not to be taken lightly. Nor is scripture to be twisted to arrive at a desired end with no clear scripture to support it.

Ephesians 5 holds no mention of authority for a husband, but rather a sacrificial of laying down his life for the sake of his wife just as Christ sacrificed His own life for those He loves.

@ Dave A A:

And thanks for this, Dave.
After I flew out the door this morning, late for my dentist appointment. My one regret was not including you in the list above.

Dave A A wrote:

Probably just me, but the “tie break” idea really hindered living with my wife according to understanding,

You know Dave, this “tie break” idea that comps use as a need for leadership is just a round-about way of assigning leadership where none exists in scripture. The same ploy is used when I hear the “two-head” excuse. By the time two people reach adult age, they hopefully have learned the art of negotiating and problem solving and reach an solution that’s mutually agreeable to both parties. They are valuable tools for day-to-day living and should be taught to our children rather than teaching that one person is entitled to have his way by virtue of his gender. That only leads to bullying and disrespect.