Cedarville University, Paige Patterson, Al Mohler: Tough Times for Female Christian Professors

“I lack the fervency, vitality, life, in prayer which I long for. I know that many consider it fanaticism when they hear anything which does not conform to the conventional, sleep-inducing eulogies so often rising from Laodicean lips; but I know too that these same people can acquiescently tolerate sin in their lives and in the church without so much as tilting one hair of their eyebrows.”-Jim Eliot link


Cedarville-University-DMC-596x237Cedarville University

The Wartburg Watch community extends its sympathies to female professors who have been mistreated, solely due to their gender, at Christian colleges, universities and seminaries.

Today I tweeted about Al Mohler's response to a Religion News Service article called The evangelical unease over contraception link. His response, Al Mohler responds: The evangelical unease over contraception link gave me pause and I realized that it directly relates to a growing controversy at Cedarville University. Here is a quote from that post.

…The references he cites all predate the current debate over the contraception mandate, and most long predate the election of President Obama. This is not a recent development, but a long-term evangelical reconsideration of birth control and the place of contraception within larger understandings of marriage, the family and human sexuality.

 …the shift of the evangelical conscience on birth control — and the rise of a new urgency to recover a more biblical understanding of sex, gender roles, marriage and reproduction — represents a far more formidable challenge to modernity 

Why the focus on limiting contraception as opposed to limiting abortion?

It is important to note that this is not a discussion about abortifacients. This is about contraceptives. This is not about adoption of the many unwanted children in the world. It is about the sin of contraception. And this sin, according to Mohler is linked to gender roles and reproduction. Oddly  Al Mohler and Paige Patterson (who will soon enter this discussion), who are hoping that Christians will forgo contraception, have had only two children each. They did not adopt children in order to fulfill some sort of mandate about huge families so one wonders if there is a different agenda here.

Whenever the Duggar family comes up in discussion forums, the inevitable question is raised. Why don't the Duggars adopt? A potential for huge families is one of the issues surrounding those who forgo contraception.  At least one of Duggar's pregnancies resulted in a prolonged hospitalization. She has had 19 children which, barring miscarriages, means that she has been pregnant for 190 months (roughly 17 years). Women who experience multiple pregnancies, along with the added pressure to homeschool, are usually unable to enter the work force and must rely on their husbands to provide. In other words, women will stay at home and leave the jobs to the men. Could the focus on contraception, as part of the overall push for defining of gender roles, actually be helpful in getting women out of the workforce and out of positions of authority? It sure seem to us that something is afoot in some Christian universities and seminaries.

Cedarville University is experiencing an exodus of female faculty

TWW has been contacted on several occasions over the years by anonymous female employees of Cedarville. Why anonymous? We shall get there.

Wikipedia link:

Cedarville College was chartered in 1887 by the New Light Reformed Presbyterian Church; at the time, the surrounding township was largely Presbyterian. 

In 1953, the Baptist Bible Institute of Cleveland relocated and transitioned into management of Cedarville College through a merger arrangement with the college's Presbyterian board of trustees, who each resigned in turn.[3] The Baptists were affiliated with the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, a fundamentalist group which later dissociated itself from the college.[4]  

In an article, Leadership changes at Cedarville University point to conservative direction, at Religion News Services link we see some worrisome developments. Before I begin, I find it interesting that word "conservative" in the title is directly linked to women faculty who are leaving the university. Once again, words are being redefined. Conservative, which once meant believing in certain fundamentals of the faith: Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc., no longer means that. Conservative, if one reads the article, now means believing in a literal 6 day creation and a limited role of women in academia. The following quotes are from that article unless noted.

The university has been taken over by Southern Baptists.

A private religious university in Ohio is undergoing a faculty shakeup, including an exodus of women faculty, after having been taken over by Southern Baptists.

Really conservative Southern Baptists. Paige Patterson and other Southern Baptists who have a history of problems with women teaching men.

Then in June, the school hired Thomas White, formerly vice president for student services and communications at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, 

The 25-member board now includes only one woman. Added to the board is Southwestern President Paige Patterson, a staunch biblical literalist and one of the leaders of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Suddenly, women start resigning and can't say anything because of confidentiality agreements.

I do not blame these women for signing these agreements. In the business world, severance payments are often tied to confidentiality. In other words, they may need that income to support their families.

The recent departures include prominent women such as Bible professor Joy Fagan, associate vice president of student life Kirsten Gibbs and Briana DuPree, resident director and coordinator of diversity student programs.

Fagan, who signed a confidentiality statement, said she’s limited in what she can say.

“I do not feel I am a good fit for the university going forward,” she said, declining to elaborate. Fagan is the only woman listed on Cedarville’s Bible department website

The university says that they have plenty of women in each department.

White said nothing has changed in the school’s official policy and Cedarville has women in every department.

“Our position is that we don’t train women to be in the office of pastor, elder or bishop,” White said.

But observers believe the university is undergoing a seismic shift in theological views on the role of women.

Under Brown, some say, it fit under a wide evangelical umbrella that engages the broader culture in ways similar to institutions such as Wheaton College (Illinois) or Taylor University (Indiana). Now, one alumnus said, Cedarville might be viewed as more akin to Moody Bible Institute in Chicago — a school that does not allow women to teach men theology.

The school now integrates "Scripture and discipline." 

Reading between the lines, one can imagine that this means a dim view on the role of women in academia.

The difference between the two administrations, said David Dockery, president of Union University in Tennessee, lies in the presidents’ theological perspectives. Brown would have put a greater emphasis on general revelation, finding truth outside of the Scriptures in God’s creation, in the natural world, Dockery said.

“Dr. White’s emphasis on the truthfulness and the sufficiency of the Bible causes people to ask a different kind of question,” he said. “It’s not so much the integration of faith and learning; It’s the integration of Scripture and discipline.”

There is an ongoing federal investigation into sexual discrimination and sexual harassment on campus.

TWW has been in touch with folks who know about this situation. Although we are not at liberty to state what we have been told, we can categorically say that this investigation is far more than "they hate women." It involves some serious complaints. We hope to discuss this in the near future.

In September the university said it is under review by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in response to a complaint claiming the university is in violation of Title IX — a federal gender equity law that requires colleges to adjudicate sexual harassment and violence on campus.

The office is still investigating whether campus officials resolved a complaint alleging sex discrimination.

It appears that being anything but Republican as a professor could result in being fired.

Worse yet, it could close down an entire department!

A philosophy faculty member caused a stir last fall when writing an op-ed for the campus newspaper on “Why I am Not Voting for Romney.” The philosophy department staff has since been cut back. The philosophy and physics majors have been eliminated.

So, are women really being eliminated from certain positions in the university?

Here is a comment under this post which adds more charges to consider.

Comment by Anon

Dr. White’s wife teaches classes that are only open to women. Not much of a counterexample.

Also, I’m also a Cedarville student, and I think your remark that it’s not a big deal outside of people “looking for controversy” is both incorrect and offensive. Over the past year, the new regime has caused the departure of a third of the trustees, over a dozen Bible faculty, the president, several vice presidents, and over thirty faculty and staff. Many of these individuals were forced to leave 

Women teaching the Bible to men is "unbiblical" in the university setting as well?

I find this unsettling.  Many of the complementarians claim that the only place a woman cannot teach men is within a local church. Don't believe them. It appears that they will extend this teaching far beyond the local church and seminaries and into academia. Who knows how much further this will extend?

In an article, Fagan Leaving Cedarville After This Semester  link, note what Professor Joy Fagan has to say about this.

Bible professor Joy Fagan is resigning from Cedarville after two decades of service to the university. Her last day is Dec. 20.(2013)

“The why is tricky,” she said. “Every administration has the right to take the university in a particular direction, and every faculty and staff member has the responsibility to determine if they are a good fit for that direction.”

Fagan said she believes she is no longer a good fit for the university, particularly because of her role as a woman teaching in the Bible department.

Paige Patterson being appointed to the trustees is proof positive that women will not be welcome in the academic environment unless they teach homemaking.

1. Dr Dorothy Patterson, Paige's wife, founded and heads up the homemaking school at SWBTS link. Needless to say, they do not offer a "heavy chores" degree for men.

Southwestern Baptist, one of the nation's largest Southern Baptist seminaries, is introducing a new academic program in homemaking as part of an effort to establish what its president calls biblical family and gender roles.

It will offer a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration in homemaking. The program is only open to women.

Coursework will include seven hours of nutrition and meal preparation, seven hours of textile design and "clothing construction," three hours of general homemaking, three hours on "the value of a child," and three hours on the "biblical model for the home and family."

Seminary officials say the main focus of the courses is on hospitality in the home — teaching women interior design as well as how to sew and cook. Women also study children's spiritual, physical and emotional development.

2. In a well known incident, Dr Paige Patterson despicably treated SWBTS professor, Sheri Klouda.

Here is an excerpt In an article by Wade Burleson. Sheri Klouda: Gender Discrimination, Federal Law and the Law of Christ in the SBC and SWBTS link.  

A Sad Story 

Paige Patterson was a hired as President of Southwestern Theological Seminary on June 24, 2003, a little over a year after trustees had hired Klouda. The trustees voted voted unanimously to hire Dr. Patterson just as they had Dr. Klouda a year earlier.

Some of the faculty at Southwestern were concerned about the hiring of Paige Patterson. Paige was asked during a June 24, 2003 press conference following his appointment if he would hire women in the school of theology. He responded that “Dorothy serves on the theology faculty at Southeastern”, and that “ provides somewhat of an answer.” Then he added, “there are ample numbers of men who are well-qualified for those positions.” Patterson said he planned to build the faculty with “God-called men.” 

Patterson’s philosophical perspective on the roles of women in theological education prevented him from feeling comfortable about women teaching biblical studies or theology to men. In September of 2003, two months after his appointment as President of Southwestern and a one month before his official inauguration,Paige met privately with all staff and faculty . David Allen, the 2003 chairman of the board of trustees responsible for hiring Dr. Patterson, and who himself would be hired by Patterson in 2004 to serve as dean for the SWBTS School of Theology, said of that private meeting with faculty and staff, "While some speculate about Patterson's compatibility with our faculty, I have high hopes that our excellent faculty will work well with Dr. Patterson." 

At that closed door meeting in September 2003, Paige gave personal assurances to faculty that their jobs were safe, regardless of gender. Sheri acknowledges her concern at the time, but after the faculty meeting, and the personal assurance by Dr. Patterson that her job was secure, she relaxed and continued in her commitment to invest her life and service in the school she loved. A few days after Patterson's inauguration,four professors resigned unexpectedly, including Dr. Bruce Corley, however, Klouda placed her focus on serving her school and being loyal to President Patterson and the constituency that hired her. 

Sheri is the primary provider for her family due to several illnesses which have plagued her husband over the years. In July of 2003 William and Sheri purchased a home in Arlington, in order to be closer to the seminary so that she could spend more time at the school and with her family than on the highway commuting. 

A little over a year after Sheri received the personal assurance that her job was secure, she was called to attend a meeting in June, 2004, where she was informed that she would not be granted tenure because 'she was a woman.' Ironically, Dorothy Patterson was serving as Professor of Theology in Women's Studies, but unlike Sheri, Dorothy 'only taught women’. Though it was often said by Paige and Dorothy that Dorothy worked ‘officially’ under the auspices of the School of Education at Southwestern, she was listed on the school’s web site as teaching in the School of Theology. As of January 2007, Dorothy Patterson’s name continues to be listed on Southwestern’s official web site as teaching in the School of Theology.

In that June, 2004, precisely a year after Patterson had been appointed President of the school, Sheri was told that it was ‘the President’ who would never recommend her for tenure. Why? It had nothing to do with her professional performance or collegiality, but simply her gender. She would not be given tenure by the President, because she was the only female teaching biblical studies in the school of theology, and that was not the proper place for a woman. There were many qualified men that could fill that position and it was the President's desire to replace her. Southwestern would give her two to three years to find another position at a reputable school, but she was to do her best to find another position as quickly as possible.

Sheri was stunned. In her mind she had the job of her dreams. While the issues surrounding tenure do not guarantee that a professor will retain his or her position at an institution, she saw herself as working towards tenure at Southwestern. She had invested her life, her family, and all her energy to be close to the school she loved. There was not one thing she had done to discredit her school. Rather, she was well liked by the students, had been loyal to administration and faculty, and had done her best to bring excellence to the school of theology in evangelical circles. 

She was being forced out because she was a woman. 

Al Mohler's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary also has some concerning statistics on the presence of women on faculty link

 The tenure status for instructors and researchers at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says it all.

95% men; 5% women

Summing it all up:

The authoritarian, gender driven crowd appear to making a full court press to get women out of Christian academia. However, it was sure nice  for them to be able to limit the size of their families so their wives could lead conferences and seminary programs designed to make sure women have lots of children and stay at home.

Please understand, Deb and I did stay home with our children. We have no problems with stay at home moms and large families so long as it is a choice as opposed to a mandate. This is turning into the Louisville Creed-Repeat after me." I believe that women are to get pregnant, have lots of babies and stay out of academia-Amen!"

The future, within certain segments of Christendom, looks rather bleak for those of the female gender who wish to participate fully in the life of Christian academia and the church. We express our sorrow to these women who have given years of service to universities and students, only to be encouraged to leave because they had the misfortune, in the eyes of some men, to be born female.

Lydia's Corner: Isaiah 51:1-53:12 Ephesians 5:1-33 Psalm 69:19-36 Proverbs 24:7

Comments

Cedarville University, Paige Patterson, Al Mohler: Tough Times for Female Christian Professors — 425 Comments

  1. So…does the SBC think going back to the 19th c. will win any converts?
    What’s next? Doing away with electricity and automobiles because they can’t be found in the New Testament?

  2. I am so sick of women being sidelined it’s not like we are incompetent because of our gender in the one place that we should be welcomed as equals.

    I think that is because we are too competent for those who want power, we can match their conversation and arguments and they’re scared of us, scared of the idea that we might actually be equal. This is because their power means everything to them. It is not their ideal to live harmoniously with women it’s their ideal to rule over women.

    They don’t want to be humble servants as Jesus taught them to be they want to be powerful dictators in the guise of servant leaders.

  3. Sorry you were having problems commenting, Eagle. I just now realized that there was a glitch.

    Great post, Dee! I should have known that it involved Paige Patterson.

  4. JeffT wrote:

    Mohler and Patterson are despicable human beings that blaspheme the name of God.

    “Despicable human beings”?

  5. I note that Mohler is not averse to quoting a female historian in his article linked to the post.

  6. I’m wondering about something, and perhaps someone has some information.

    The Mahaney’s sent their son Chad to Cedarville. I don’t see evidence that he’s still in attendance there. Appears he’s living in Louisville working at a car dealership. Whether he’s graduated or not I can’t say, but given the Mahaney’s propensity to make a big deal out of things, I’d think there would have been pictures posted on Facebook of the ceremony along with the follow up trip to Disneyworld or something lol

    Could it be the Mahaney’s pulled young Chad out and have been involved behind the scenes in some way with promoting the removal of women from teaching positions? Is Chad now safely living at home under the supervision of his Mom & Dad, safe from women who might exercise ungodly authority over him by teaching him in class at Cedarville? And will they reinstate him as a student once the university makes the changes they want to see to meet the Mahaney’s strict complementarian/gender-gospel standards?

    The Mahaney’s used to equate feminism to air pollution, and fought against it influencing the environment with the SGM bubble with vigor, refusing to allow any women to be in positions of leadership. In fact, I’d wager they view the trouble they’re in now stemming from the fact they have taken such a vigorous stance against women in ministry & leadership, and that it’s resulted in the “persecution” and the “suffering for righteousness sake” that they’ve been “enduring.”

    So I wouldn’t be surprised if CJ has been trying to exercise some influence on the Cedarville situation behind the scenes. We know how he donated large sums of money to Al Mohler’s SBTS in an effort to strengthen ties and build an inroad for SGM’s brand to gain a foothold there. What would prevent him from doing the same thing at Cedarville? With his son as a student, you know he’d be keenly interested the quality of the ‘air’ he breathes.

    Because we know any whiff of feminism in the air is far far worse an effect on a young, developing mind than say, marijuana smoke.

    So, it’s possible that Chad Mahaney’s college education is on hold until Cedarville gets rid of the feminism. Until that time, maybe he’s living at home, learning to be a man under his father’s careful tutelage while his mother takes care of his laundry, cleans his room, and packs his lunch – always impressing upon him the kind of things a woman should be doing (and not doing).

    So anyone know? Has Chad Mahaney gotten his degree from Cedarville? Withdrawn? Dropped out? Gotten expelled for smoking pot?

  7. In the post: “The philosophy and physics majors have been eliminated.” I wonder if this is a in principle decision since physics underlies all the accepted dating methods, or simply pragmatic since there is nothing left of the discipline if all majors must conform to the very narrow theological requirements of the place. (Philosophers are more than capable of speaking for themselves.)

  8. This breaks my heart as a woman. I enjoyed many wonderful professors in college, both male and female. I am overjoyed to have had a lovely woman teach my foundation courses in Latin. When we would go over our homework, her favorite thing to discover were mistakes for the best learning occurs from correcting them. I had the same classmates all four semesters with her (only 20 total) so the night before our very last final with her, we surprised her with dinner at an Italian restaurant and a beautiful engraving from the work we had studied all semester. Mrs. G. gave me the courage to then take my copy of the Latin Vulgate with me to Bible studies and use it as a tool to dig deeper into my studies. Another one of my Latin professors, also a woman, is one of the world’s leading nautical archaeologists specializing in the coast of Israel. I cannot fathom a world without these women and their incredible contributions.

    To the women who have been forced to move on from jobs at Cedarville University, I pray that you find jobs in communities where you are valued for your talent and abilities regardless of gender.

  9. Estelle wrote:

    I note that Mohler is not averse to quoting a female historian in his article linked to the post.

    I’ve noticed that about some gender complementarians as well.

    I mentioned on the last thread about a gender complementarian guy with a radio show who is against women being preachers, yet not too long ago on his show, he quoted from a Christian woman’s blog to refute the preaching of certain types of male preachers.

    Why is it okay with these gender complementarian guys to quote women as sources of authority or teaching in some aspects (even to correct men!), but not others? They aren’t consistent.

    Then, some of them don’t even follow the complementarian interpretation as confined to the Bible alone (the Bible only discusses preaching, wives submitting to husbands) but seek to subjugate all women in all areas of life and society.

    (Then there are still some gender complementarians who only obsess over marriage and motherhood, completely neglecting single, widowed, and childless ladies.)

  10. From the post:

    “At that closed door meeting in September 2003, Paige gave personal assurances to faculty that their jobs were safe, regardless of gender.”

    Promises, promises… :(

    From now on, I think I’ll call Patterson “M.T. Promises” (with apologies to a fine, classic kiddie show). Not terribly original, I know. And I have no idea whether he actually resembles this character in any way. http://tgscoaster.com/characters/m-t-promises/

    Still, I figure the name fits.

  11. Deb wrote:

    First commenter! Where is Eagle?

    Given Mohler’s position on contraception, will he be a grandpa any time soon?

    Good question! Seems it was ok for his daughter to graduate from college and go work for a senator in DC before marrying. I expect to hear of a pregnancy soon. I never hear anything about his son. But if Mohler is giving young men and women such godly council should we not look at his own family example?

  12. Apparently the crisis in evangelical masculinity is even worse than we have been led to believe! These male students – I would say “grown men” but…obviously not – are such wilting flowers that they must be protected at all costs from being told what to do by a woman not their mother lest they suffer an even further and possibly irreversible emasculation. One can only wonder at the long-term effects of having an adult woman requiring them to “turn in their assignments by Friday” or – and this one would really sends shivers down their spines if they had any – being publicly corrected in their Latin verb conjugations by a woman with more degrees than they have and decades of experience in the subject matter. Such an event would obviously by life-altering, and could only have the effect of causing long-term, profound confusion regarding gender roles. I would not be at all surprised if the XY chromosome victims of such Amazonian educators were subsequently found attempting to enroll in interior decorating courses or even cooking an evening meal that included complicated sauces. We live in desperate times.

  13. I would love to see a list of Christian colleges/seminaries that allow women to teach men. They have not gotten to Gordon Conwell have they?

    I saw a bit of an attempt with the SBC to try and control Campbellsville college for being “liberal”. (The truth was they were not giving a certain prof tenure who just happened to be a Calvinist) It did not fly. One of Mohler’s guys who is KBC president wrote a post about saying they were going to withhold their 1 million a year if Campbellsville did not respond satisfactorily. As one person on the committee who looked into it told me: These young guys (Mohler’s loyalists) are immature with social media. He should never have written that.

  14. I’ve said it before but it deserves saying again: These guys haven’t been under a woman’s authority since they were in high school–and they act like it. Mohler is the same age as me and has been out of high school 35 years. If he’s not at all clued to the vast, vast changes which have taken place over the past three-plus decades, then he’s terribly ignorant.

    I have a suggestion to help Al and Paige with their difficulties in understanding women’s role in the modern world. I think they should be fired from their jobs and forced to go out and look for work like the rest of us schlubs–and maybe even have a woman for their boss. It warms the cockles of my cold, cold heart to think that they’d have a screaming fit about the management over me: divorced woman, then gay man, then childless married woman. Oh yeah, and none of those people (or myself) would put up with their anti-woman nonsense. It gets in the way of getting the job done.

  15. Paige Patterson had more comebacks than Bill Clinton. He has always been one step ahead of the firing ax. Even Criswell wanted to fire him but the big boys always found a cushy place for him to land. I don’t know how he does it except perhaps he knows where all the CR bodies are buried. He has been around forever. How old is he? He has to be in his 70’s.

  16. Anon 1 wrote:

    I would love to see a list of Christian colleges/seminaries that allow women to teach men. They have not gotten to Gordon Conwell have they?

    Not yet to Gordon or Gordon Conwell , Wheaton or Samford.

  17. Look, it’s like this. The SBC needs men to be the “joyful warriors” in the “devil-haunted universe.” Women can just make them sammiches as they do battle.
    “As we come alongside one another, we’ll talk about crucial ethical issues confronting churches and how we can engage the culture with a Gospel-focus. We’ll think through issues that aren’t yet confronting churches, but will, and how we can best go through the difficulties of life and local church ministry with a joyful warrior kingdom expectancy-marching toward Zion on the triumphant side of history.”
    – See more at: http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2014/01/southern-baptists-erlc-and-devil.html#sthash.2IMg6q6J.dpuf

  18. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    JeffT wrote:
    Mohler and Patterson are despicable human beings that blaspheme the name of God.
    “Despicable human beings”?

    That’s what I said. That’s what I call anyone who perverts the word of God to a gospel of oppression that justifies throwing people out of a job and into the street just because they lack a penis. They can twist the few verses there are out of context to try and put lipstick on their theological pig, but when Jesus says the two overriding commandments are to love God and love your neighbor and on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets, there is no way to justify such oppression of women because that is NOT love in any sense of the word.

    If Mohler and Patterson lived in the South in the mid-1800’s with this same hermeneutic, they would be slave owners.

  19. Amy Smith wrote:

    Women can just make them sammiches as they do battle.

    lol! But only the kind of sammiches they like! No peanut & butter for warriors!

  20. A homemaking program? Do they not realize that this is self-parody?

    Or maybe this entire neo-Cal show is just a large scale exercise is satirical performance art.

    In any case, these people are far and away on the wrong side of Scripture and history. Their efforts will fail. Their efforts are failing, and this type of desperate action is proof positive.

    (As an aside, Regent College, an important evangelical seminary in Vancouver, is as egalitarian as it gets. Thank goodness that there are pockets of sanity.)

  21. Times like this make me glad I’m Catholic (the idiocy of Patterson and Mohler, not the blog here). It’s so stupid to fire someone because of their sex. I basically had that that happen to me in my last night (they’ll say it was for misconduct but it was totally sexual discrimination and severe harassment and glsd I’m out of there).

    Neither would like Catholic seminaries where women are mot allowed but encouraged to teach and study. Most Catholic clergy have no problem with women teaching them (there are a few nuts but it’s NOT the teaching of the Church) and even encourage them to get advanced degrees not just in fields like chemistry nut also theology and Scripture. Heck, the chancellor for the Archdiocese of Portland (OR) is a woman. The only person “above” her is the Archbishop and that’s because he’s her boss (now I’m not entirely sure what her job truly entails but she’s no secretary and highly intelligent; she writes reflections on the Sunday readings for the Catholic newspaper and they are very thought provoking).

    I know there are well-reknowned Bible scholars who are Catholic women even if I can’t remember their names right now. I heard about them from priests who praised their knowledge and education (and of course their faith but that’s a given).

    So while individual Catholics and clergy certainly have expressed and pushed false ideas about women and men, it is NOT Church teaching. And the last three popes (John Paul II, Benedict, and noe Francis) have all praised women and encouraged them. JP II’s Letter to Women comes to mind, Francis’s recent words on a better theology of women indicate that the Catholic Church has much to be thankful for in women and their contributions to the Church and to society.

    That being said, there is room for improvement (even Pope Francis said so). This does not mean a change in dogma and doctrine. There will never be women priests and contraception and abortion will never be allowed. I understand that many of you will have problems with this and that these reasons are reasons you will never be Catholic. I can respect that, I won’t agree but I will respect that.

    As a response to to the post from Wed., I went lookinh at what the Catholic Church really teaches about marriage. So first to the Catechism (easy to read, nice index, and lists the relevant references to specific Church documents). If curious, read paragraphs 1601-1666 in the Catechism because that’s what I’m going to reference here.

    Paragraph 1605 “thewoman, “flesh of his flesh,” his EQUAL, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”;she thus REPRESENTS GOD from whom comes our help (emphasis mine). So men and womem are equal. P. 1607 states ” Acvording to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the NATURE of man and women, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin.” (nature is italicized in the original text.) So sin is the problem. Mot being male or,female.

    I searched the WHOLE Catechism and I found nothing about gender roles. So I went to the encyclical “Humane Vitae” and still no gender,roles but a really good encyclical on marriage and why contraception is wrong. The encyclucal can be found at the Vatican website vatican.va. You might have to dig a little. I have a handy free app called Laudete (yep, Catholic) that lists the most recents Vatican documents going back to the documents from Vatican II. Plus it has the Catechism though I have a hard copy, digit is easier to manage. So I had handy access to all this. So far, I can conclude that with the evidence I’ve listed sovfar, the Catholic Church does not teach or endose this false, heretical gender gospel. I haven’t even mentioned words from JP II’s “Letter to Women” or document “On the Dignity of Women” which can both be found at the Vatican website.

    So why have I been rambling on so long? Simple. Patterson, Piper, Mohler, et. al., teach a reductionist, utilitarian view of women. They distill women (and men) down to objects that can only fill specific functions. They deny the fact that women (and men) are made in the image and likeness of God Himself. By denying this reality and truth (and yes, it’s Catholic but probably everybody here would agree to it’s truth), they deny or at least ignore Jesus’s own coming as flesh and blood which we just celebrating at Christmas (the Incarnation). They refute/ignore/deny/something that yes, God created mankind in male and female, God DID NOT creates or teach these false ideas that they twist from Scripture. Yes, men and women are different but that has more to do with who can carry and sustain life than some false perception of “biblical gender” and perceived economic value of culturally created ideas about sex/gender.

    And now I should stop rambling. I apologize for the typos and the very long post. If tjis too much De and/or Deb, you can break up this comment as necessary.

  22. Oy, were there typos in my last post. Something I didn’t say in my last comment: I feel for these women. What’s happening to them is illegal and I don’t care if Mohler and Patterson and those nuts can turn to their fruitcakery of gender beliefs to argue that they can do this to these professors. These women do not deserve to be treated this way. Like I said they are created in the image and likeness of God. God gave these women these gifts of education and teaching and mentoring and what not. They should not be targeted due ti their sex.

  23. The school now integrates “Scripture and discipline.”

    Including wife-spanking?

    Cedarville University: NO GURLZ ALLOWED.

  24. E.G. wrote:

    A homemaking program? Do they not realize that this is self-parody?

    I don’t understand why it’s limited to women at their school (can men take the courses too)?

    People are not marrying today, or not until their late twenties or much older.

    That means a man cannot count on a wife to mend clothes, do laundry, clean bathrooms, or cook meals for him.

    In the year or so before my Mom died, she could not cook and clean. I helped care for her, and I also helped with housework, but my Dad had to do that stuff too.

    So, even if you are a married guy with a spouse, if your spouse dies, or gets sick, you will still have to know how to use the washing machine and cook.

    (Unless you are filthy rich and willing to hire a full time maid/ cook. Most people do not have scads of extra money for stuff like that.)

    I also do not understand why the gender comps assume cooking is a feminine activity. About half the chefs I see on “Food Network” are males.

    My father has a few college degrees.

    For one, he took a home ec. course. I can’t recall if he chose to take it as an elective or if he was forced to take it. Regardless, he seems to have enjoyed the course. It helped him learn how to cook and stuff.

    Even before Mom got sick, my dad would occasionally cook, especially on the grill.

  25. @ Pacbox: I hear you! Am Lutheran (ELCA, which ordains women) and the sheer bigotry of these men just does bad things to my head.

    I’m also a bit boggled by how different many things are south of the Mason-Dixon line. It’s a world I don’t recognize.

  26. Daisy wrote:

    Why is it okay with these gender complementarian guys to quote women as sources of authority or teaching in some aspects (even to correct men!), but not others? They aren’t consistent.

    Oh, it’s consistent.
    “WHAT’S YOURS IS MINE AND WHAT’S MINE IS MINE!”
    (HUMBLY, of course.)

  27. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    Despicable

    Mohler pretty much depicts all single adult Christians as being ‘despicable’ in explaining why he thinks it’s okay to practice discrimination in churches not hiring singles, and in blaming singles for being single (he thinks everyone should marry by 21 or 22.)

    Mohler is definitely prejudiced against adult singles.

    So, if someone else wants to peg him as being ‘despicable’, it doesn’t bother me too much.

  28. Amy Smith wrote:

    Look, it’s like this. The SBC needs men to be the “joyful warriors” in the “devil-haunted universe.” Women can just make them sammiches as they do battle.

    Warhammer 40K meets June Cleaver?

  29. Victorious wrote:

    Amy Smith wrote:

    Women can just make them sammiches as they do battle.

    lol! But only the kind of sammiches they like! No peanut & butter for warriors!

    Only inch-thick rare steaks and beer!

    (Anyone remember Jimmy Kimmel’s The Man Show? Definiton of “Men” best described by a certain Frank Zappa title?)

  30. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Some of them attempt to come up with an elaborate set of whens, ifs, hows, and whys women may or may not preach and teach, bless their hearts.

    I remember reading examples of it by that Tony Milano (spelling?) who Julie Anne has dealt with at her blog.

    I read some stuff at her blog and did a little googling on him and that book he wrote about women and open air preaching. I don’t remember all the details of it, but the guy has all sorts of ideas about how, when, if and why a woman may teach/preach.

    He’s against women even coming across as though they may be authoritative.

    He got into stuff about if a woman talks loudly or raises her voice, that is authoritative.

    IIRC, he also believes a woman merely talking in public is authoritative, and what happens if she is talking in public about Jesus but is shouted down or approached by an argumentative, big, burly man?

    He sort of reasons like Piper. You know how Piper said if a woman gives a lost man directions, she should do so in a way as not to make the man feel bad or under her submission? Milano’s (sp?) rules seem to operate much the same way.

    It’s very subjective, based on his ideas, or his culture’s ideas, of how a woman should act, or what makes a woman ‘appear’ authoritative – not at all biblical.

  31. The SBC is an evil institution. It is run by evil men. Yes, Seneca, evil. When you attend and give to a SBC church you are supporting both this institution and its evil rulers.

  32. Steven wrote:

    The SBC is an evil institution. It is run by evil men. Yes, Seneca, evil. When you attend and give to a SBC church you are supporting both this institution and its evil rulers.

    I don’t attend an SBC church.

  33. Steven wrote:

    The SBC is an evil institution. It is run by evil men. Yes, Seneca, evil. When you attend and give to a SBC church you are supporting both this institution and its evil rulers.

    *
    I think you want to post to Wade Burleson. He actually pastors an SBC church. Therefore, I guess he’s one of the “evil men.”

  34. What a false gospel and world these men promote. They fit right in with Mormons and the Taliban.

  35. Anon 1 wrote:

    They have not gotten to Gordon Conwell have they?

    I have seen strong undercurrents of this at Gordon Conwell. A professor recently was asked to not use N.T. Wright as a resource to point students towards. Seriously?!

  36. Years ago, I had church history class with who was probably the premire SBC church historian, Penrose St Amant. ( he had retired from Louisville seminary and being President of the Baptist seminary in Switzerland)
    Dr St. Amant had three doctorates, two of which were from European universities. ( Edinburgh and Geneva) I remember him telling us how the denomination was probably going to regress. That there were powers in the denomination who were afraid to move forward. He was in his 80s then and what he predicted has come to pass.
    I remember reading a post a few years later written by a pastor who had taken Dr St Amant’s classes in Louisville. The post basically concluded that today’s powers would have fired Dr St Amant for one simple reason….he was too smart for the SBC.
    Let me add this part. When I was taking Dr St Amant’s class, Ft Worth had a horrible ice storm. Most of the city was without power. I will never forget him calling everyone in his classes, to see if we had heat and if we didn’t, come to his place, he did, bring our families, Mrs. St Amant was cooking stew, and we’ll make pallets to sleep on the floor…..I never lost heat, but several of my classmates did, and took him up on the offer…..now tell me, how many of the present SBC leadership would do something like this???

  37. Anon 1 wrote:

    Deb wrote:
    First commenter! Where is Eagle?
    Given Mohler’s position on contraception, will he be a grandpa any time soon?
    Good question! Seems it was ok for his daughter to graduate from college and go work for a senator in DC before marrying. I expect to hear of a pregnancy soon. I never hear anything about his son. But if Mohler is giving young men and women such godly council should we not look at his own family example?

    Amen!

  38. I have lots of good friends who are SBC. And who doesn’t? It’s the largest protestant denomination in the US of A. But the “conservative resurgence” is a lie. It was a fundamentalist resurgence, exchanging the cool waters of the gospel for socially contrived, theological law. I’m not sure many realize the dark path some of the SBC is on (they are not monolithic). The 1960s was almost certainly a generational reaction to the fanatically legalistic religion and morality of the 40s and 50s.

  39. The other thing that struck me is this really brings into question the intellectual rigour of the university if they are systematically excluding an entire gender from the teaching staff. Add on the requirement to toe the party line and what you get is not the best people for the job, but only the ones who tick a couple of arbitrary boxes. Some of them will be great, but some of them won’t be, and some of the best potentials will be ignored because they fall foul of the gender or ideology requirements. Any degree from such a place is really not worth the paper it’s written on.

  40. @ Pacbox:
    The Catholic church talks a good game, but it’s past and present on the treatment of women is pretty abyssmal. Setting aside the issue of female ordination (which is a HUGE) issue, there’s a long and ugly history of abuse and mistreatment. Women counseled, pressured, and forced to stay with abusive husbands. Rape victims, unwed mothers, girls suspected of being sexually active, and others enslaved and tortured in laundries and workhouses in Ireland (only a male relative could retrieve them). Teaching thousands upon thousands of girls in the middle of the last century to revere poor 11 year old Maria Goretti, cannonized because she fought off her rapist and was killed. They now claim she was cannonized because of the coda to her story, where she allegedly gorgave her killer, but that was not the gist of the lurid tale as it was told to schoolgirls, who were told that she resisted and chose death so they wouldn’t both be sinning. And so the Catholic church perpetuated another round of toxic rape culture.And the effects of their current position on birth control and abortion are dangerous for women – little girls forced to carry extremely dangerous pregnancies to term, a woman forced to die an agonizing death as the baby she was miscarrying slowly suffocated and starved to death within her, women ravaged by the effects of continued pregnancies because birth control is forbidden. And thats just the last century. Read some of the writings of earloer Catholic leaders and scholars on women. Horrifying, dehumanizing stuff.

    I’m not writing this to pick on Catholicism or claim it was or is any worse than the toxicly misogynistic culture described on this blog. Indeed, in the devolpped, western wotld, many of the abuses described would be unimaginable in the current Catholic church, particularly the nonsense about teaching. But it would be a mistake noto recognize the serious women problem the Catholic church has and had. Because these problems arose in a larger historical context where the Christian religion in general has long had a deep strain of misogyny.

  41. JeffT wrote:

    Mohler and Patterson are despicable human beings that blaspheme the name of God.

    Jeff, Al Mohler and Paige Patterson are not despicable human beings. They are very bright, articulate, and both men have really soft hearts. The thing that is “screwed up” is not their personhood, but rather their philosophy. They BELIEVE they are following the Bible, and though I understand your pain (believe me, I too have been the recipient of hundreds of personal attacks by men and women following “their principles”), I think it would be good to argue with the men based on principle, and not their personhood.

    Here’s why. Jeff, you have a perspective that needs to be heard. You (and I) obviously disagree with the systematic removal of women from positions of service in schools, churches and institutions because of their gender. We must prove our position from the Bible (and it can EASILY be done), without casting personal aspersions. Here’s why: Once someone calls another human being a “despicable human being” all communication ceases.

    However, when we can show respect to personhood, reply strongly, consistently and forcefully with our disagreement by backing up our principles with solid logical, biblical and rational truth (those three things go together, for He is Truth), then our philosophical opponents MIGHT (no guarantees, just might) listen to us. However, when we shut them out by attacking personhood, they don’t listen and the world never changes.

    Again, I understand that “hurt people, hurt people” and I do not know your story, but I would suggest it best if we oppose their distorted views, not their human dignity.

  42. @ That Bad Dog:

    One can only wonder at the long-term effects of having an adult woman requiring them to “turn in their assignments by Friday” or – and this one would really sends shivers down their spines if they had any – being publicly corrected in their Latin verb conjugations by a woman with more degrees than they have and decades of experience in the subject matter. Such an event would obviously by life-altering, and could only have the effect of causing long-term, profound confusion regarding gender roles. I would not be at all surprised if the XY chromosome victims of such Amazonian educators were subsequently found attempting to enroll in interior decorating courses or even cooking an evening meal that included complicated sauces.

    Best comment of this thread so far. :-)

  43. @ Amy Smith:
    I thought these guys claim perpetual persecution of the church. Now they’re on the triumphant side of history?

    Also, what the doctor said. Write English, guys.

  44. Jeff, let me tell you a true story. It happened to me this past month. I have been instrumental in bringing to a closure a particular ministry in our church that has served a good purpose in years past, but has become a little outdated in the means and methods in which the gospel is shared – particularly in light of the fact how we share Christ is changing drastically through Internet, social media and other avenues not available to us in the 1960’s, 70’s and even 80’s. In other words, our church is changing. I received a letter from a person who was furious with me for my leadership. She disagreed with me. She told me (and I quote) – “Don’t ever speak to me again; don’t call – I will not answer. Don’t look at me – I will walk away. I will attend worship and leave. I can’t stand to hear you preach. You are not a Christian!” I respected this woman’s boundaries, knowing that the ministry that ended was very dear to her and she spoke from her pain. At a banquet this past week to show appreciation to all those who had participated in 40 years of service in this particular ministry that was coming to an end, I sat down at the table where this woman was seated. I was polite and greeted her, and then involved her in all the conversation with the people around the table. I noticed she was on crutches and volunteered to go through the buffet line and get her salad and food. After I got her food, I went back through the line and picked up mine. Yesterday morning I received a voice mail from this same woman with an apology. She thanked me for my kindness to her, and said she had spoken to me out of her pain, but she knew I was a Christian and she loved me and my wife, and would follow my leadership.

    I tell you this story because I think you and I are in a similar situation. We both have had hurtful and painful things said and done to us. How we respond to our hurts caused by other people dictate whether or not those people will ever eventually listen to us. Had I called this woman “a despicable human being” for questioning my salvation, I would have never won her over to my belief that it was time to change the methodology of how we share Christ.

    Thanks for listening. I don’t know if I’m making sense, but I feel we are on the verge of producing some very influential and important changes in the body of Christ, and I would like to see us do it while preserving our belief in the dignity of all human beings – even those who do painful things to us.

  45. Dee, headed to Nashville. Going to miss you there, but looking forward to seeing Deb and her husband. Hope we can make some progress on the work at hand! Blessings to all – will be unable to respond further to any comments!

  46. Daisy wrote

    Then, some of them don’t even follow the complementarian interpretation as confined to the Bible alone (the Bible only discusses preaching, wives submitting to husbands) but seek to subjugate all women in all areas of life and society.

    For the same reason some denominations ban dancing? It might lead to. . . other things.

  47. Wade Burleson wrote:

    Thanks for listening. I don’t know if I’m making sense, but I feel we are on the verge of producing some very influential and important changes in the body of Christ, and I would like to see us do it while preserving our belief in the dignity of all human beings – even those who do painful things to us.

    I know you won’t see this immediately, but I so appreciate your comments Wade. Self-control and gentleness come only through Holy Spirit’s power in us, but if we walk with Him, we truly can demonstrate the kind of kingdom Jesus invites us into.

  48. Thank you for writing this. When word got out that the philosophy dept. was getting axed a small group of us alum reacted, trying to get the word out to others. Why? Because taking away a program that teaches logic and reasoning, is the first step of turning students searching for truth and knowledge into mere minions of one certain belief system – whatever that belief system may be. We started to notice folks on the board who either had loads of money or loads of power in certain circles. We noticed President Brown’s resignation…then Carl Ruby’s….then Kirsten Gibbs (a classmate of mine and a wonderful, wonderful woman whom I’d be proud to mentor my two daughters.) We were told by the interim administration, “Don’t connect the dots.” More resignations from faculty and staff. More wonderful, long faithful trustees (who are conservative in their beliefs, but who respect the school as a place of learning not indoctrinating – not a bully pulpit for their chosen doctrines) either resigning or not re-upping when their term of service was over. We noticed Paige Patterson was back on the board and wonder of wonders, the new President was one of his own…but we weren’t to connect the dots. By the time other folks started to look up and notice, it was too late.

    There’s so more, but honestly, it’s just too sad to type. I loved my school. I met Christ at my school. I have life long friendships from my school, but I can no longer recommend my school to others. Several of my female professors were role models to me long after I left as wonderful professionals, spouses and mothers. One of my fondest memories is a male professor calling me up after class one day and telling me, “You ask a lot of questions. Most women don’t speak up when they have questions like you do. (Remember this is the early ’90s in a conservative school.) This is good. Keep it up.” I’d never noticed up until then that I was so vocal compared to other women – I graduated with a bunch of questioning, vocal women I’m happy to say. That’s right, a male professor told a female student, “Keep asking. Keep speaking up.” 20 years later we females are told, “Don’t bother your pretty little heads. There’s nothing going on here that concerns you. You are imagining things.”

    When I was in school there was a philosophy department that taught us how to connect dots. The dots are all connected now at Cedarville, and the finished picture is one that I as a woman cannot hang on the wall of my heart, soul or mind.

  49. numo wrote:

    I’m also a bit boggled by how different many things are south of the Mason-Dixon line. It’s a world I don’t recognize

    Perhaps it is all the sun and heat. It makes us slow and stupid unlike our Northern cousins :o)

  50. Wade Burleson wrote:

    Here’s why. Jeff, you have a perspective that needs to be heard. You (and I) obviously disagree with the systematic removal of women from positions of service in schools, churches and institutions because of their gender. We must prove our position from the Bible (and it can EASILY be done), without casting personal aspersions. Here’s why: Once someone calls another human being a “despicable human being” all communication ceases.

    Gotta disagree with this one. Sounds real nice but it is a waste of time. They make their living with these doctrines and it attracts followers. No followers, no living no need for the doctrines.

    Prove our position from scripture? Have you not seen the Calvinist debate? With the Patriarchal interpretation you have men who benefit greatly. You think they are going to give up that power and position OVER others because we think we can prove the bible teaches opposite? The pecking order is what they live for.

    I think the best thing to do is to STOP talking to them. Trying to change the mind of these leaders is only giving them more influence AS leaders. Stop recognizing them as leaders of others. They are false teachers and should be treated as such. The best thing we can do is educate people through discussion to be more independent and stop following the gurus. To be thinkers and use logic and reason. People who follow the gurus rarely think through what they believe and why.

    I agree with JeffT they are despicable. Not just for their errant doctrine on women but because of their behavior over their careers. Both men have treated others horribly who disagreed with them. I see little of Christ but lots of wielding power.

  51. Wade Burleson wrote:

    Again, I understand that “hurt people, hurt people” and I do not know your story, but I would suggest it best if we oppose their distorted views, not their human dignity.

    Let me see if I have this straight. Al and Paige hurt people because they are hurt?

  52. Wade Burleson wrote:

    We must prove our position from the Bible (and it can EASILY be done), without casting personal aspersions. Here’s why: Once someone calls another human being a “despicable human being” all communication ceases.

    Wade, Thank you for this excellent response and good advice! May we all pray and work to speak with grace.

  53. @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

    Man, I love your comments. I have never yet heard you say anything way off base or wishy-washy or deceitful. It would be good, I think, to hear you preach. However, the thing about fanatical legalism in the 1940s and 1950s is not totally spot on as regards SBC. I was born in 1934, grew up SBC in the 1940s and went to school ad nauseum in the 1950s and early 1960s. All of this while living within the SBC subculture. It was not SBC that had the problem then with fanatical legalism, it was the independent fundamentalist baptist movement. They and we were, in fact, in open conflict about some things. Then in the 1970s, when I had young children, the SBC had changed drastically. It was this latter change that the “conservative resurgence” took up arms against. Don’t let the words “conservative resurgence” fool you. It never was a “resurgence.” It was and is a “fundamentalist takeover” playing on the old old conflict within Baptist faith and practice between calvinism in some form and arminianism in some form. General atonement vs limited atonement. The current bunch have grabbed up on the old ideological struggle, tapped into present cultural trends, spotted a hodge-podge of people that they can attract to a larger concept conglomeration than just ideas of the atonement, and built an expanding empire that seems to be becoming an addiction of sorts with the motto that bigger is better no matter how one gets to “bigger” and what truth has to be compromised in the process and no matter who gets hurt.

    I no longer participate in SBC anything, have re-directed my missions giving to other channels, sit on a different pew and live and have lived a different life style. But I did think I needed to defend the SBC of my youth and young adult years, which was not fanatical legalism at all. It is, however, becoming that now.

    @ Steven:

    Yes, what you said has a lot of truth in it. I heard Wade say, in response to someone else, that these people believe that they are right and scriptural. I also heard C.S.Lewis say that there are sins of the mind just as there are sins of the body (not an exact quote–ref: The Great Divorce). I do not see in scripture where being deceived is a good excuse. This mess is sad. It is sin to distort scripture and oppress people. But it is also still sad.

  54. http://www.cedarville.edu/Job-Openings.aspx?OpeningType=1%2C2

    Out of the 18 current Cedarville University faculty employment opportunities, it appears to me only 4 areas are open to women, individuals with disabilities, minorities or veterans, and they are as follows:

    Adjunct Positions:
    School of Business Administration

    Private Lessons Instructor Positions:
    Music and Worship – Bass Guitar

    Private Lessons Instructor Positions:
    Music and Worship – Guitar

    Private Lessons Instructor Positions:
    Music and Worship – Voice.

    As advertised, only those four faculty openings contain the following statement, which none of the others do:

    “Positions are subject to Cedarville University policies, verification of credentials and other information required by law. Applications from individuals with disabilities, minorities, veterans, and women are encouraged. Applications will be accepted until positions are filled. Positions are pending budget approval.”

    Added to each posting, Cedarville includes this statement:

    Cedarville University is an Equal Opportunity Employer

    But at the bottom of the page they attach an “Equal Employment Opportunity Statement” in which they declare their right to discriminate on the basis of religion, gender and/or marital status.

  55. “I no longer participate in SBC anything, have re-directed my missions giving to other channels, sit on a different pew and live and have lived a different life style. But I did think I needed to defend the SBC of my youth and young adult years, which was not fanatical legalism at all. It is, however, becoming that now.”

    You are describing the SBC my mom grew up in. My grandmother preached as a sub in an SBC church! Women taught mixed classes all the time. No one thought a thing of it. I can remember my mom being very distressed at the changes in the SBC in the 80’s.

    Yes, The CR was a fundamentalist take over. But their “rallying cry” to amass the troops was inerrancy and then later gender roles which was a backlash to the culture and laws opening up financial freedom for women. When you get people on board with inerrancy (which they never question the concept?) you can easily move on to gender roles because they signed on to believe the gurus.

  56. Erik wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:

    They have not gotten to Gordon Conwell have they?

    I have seen strong undercurrents of this at Gordon Conwell. A professor recently was asked to not use N.T. Wright as a resource to point students towards. Seriously?!

    Erik, That is ridiculous. Wright is a great scholar even if I don’t agree with everything he certainly makes one think deeply. He does not “indoctrinate” at all. Perhaps that is the problem? I do know that many gurus today are very intimidated by him and have tried to steer folks away from him. Piper comes to mind.

  57. @ Anon 1:
    These guys name buildings after themselves (pretending, of course that it was a big surprise), rooms after themselves, windows after themselves. To bad they don’t donate to a charity for child sex abuse victims since they have been instrumental in allowing the abuse numbers to climb within the evangelical church.

  58. Amy Smith wrote:

    we can best go through the difficulties of life and local church ministry with a joyful warrior kingdom expectancy-marching toward Zion on the triumphant side of history.”

    I wonder how pedophilia fits into their theology? Not so much warrior activity in that arena, is there? The devil is all those who were upset about statement on Duck Dynasty. Pedophilia? Well, it could hurt the ministry so lets just ignore it.

  59. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: maybe its just, you know… different. Culturally different.

    Get that bee out of your bonnet.

    I thought it was a strange comment to make without elaborating on what you mean by “different”. Especially since many Northerners have moved to the South since the 70’s and 80’s. Just as one example, Atlanta has a huge population of Northerners who made the trek years ago as many banks, companies moved South some for tax reasons. Many Northerners came to the Sun Belt during those years as it was exploding. So would that be included in the culturally different?

    It would be interesting to compare the number of Pedophile Priests in the North vs the South. Could it be because there were simply more Catholic churches in the North? I just thought it was strange comment that needed elaboration.

  60. JeffT wrote:

    If Mohler and Patterson lived in the South in the mid-1800′s with this same hermeneutic, they would be slave owners.

    This is an important comment. They are all aware of the fact that the SBC did precisely that. The history of the SBC is unfortunately tied up in the slavery/race wars.

    That is why they are jumping through hoops trying to “prove” that the Bible is against slavery and discrimination of racial groups and OK with this sort of behavior to women. I predict that 100 years from now, these men will be looked at with pity for their ability to jump hoops to get to this sort of point.

  61. @ dee:

    I would love to see the price tag on those stained glass windows of CR leaders. Who are the well heeled who donated money for that idolatry? And how do you put glasses on a stained glass figure? :o)

  62. E.G. wrote:

    A homemaking program? Do they not realize that this is self-parody?

    No, they don’t. And Dorothy (Dr) is the professor of this program. Interestingly, they are pushing for these kids to have lots of babies while they only had two. The important people can’t be tied up with 12 kids.They have to make the rules for the others.

    PS-Dorothy wears hats because she believe it shows her position as under her husband. Whaddaya wanna bet that this message is quietly being sent to those poor women who think they need to study homemaking on a college level in order to do it?

  63. “Why? Because taking away a program that teaches logic and reasoning, is the first step of turning students searching for truth and knowledge into mere minions of one certain belief system – whatever that belief system may be.”

    Bingo! It is hard to indoctrinate when people are free to think critically and analytically.

  64. @ Pacbox:

    Sorry to point it out, but Catholocism has by far a worse record when it comes to women. At least some evangelical Protestants ordain (etc.) women. Until I see women priests and bishops, Catholics have at least as many problems as does the rest of Christendom.

  65. @ Anon 1: I don’t get the SBC; we have no analogue up here. And I can’t imagine these kinds of firings taking place in a Northern school, unless at a small “Bible college” with no accreditation or other academic bona fides.

    But there are quirks of local/regional culture everywhere – certainly the case where I’m currently living! I wouldn’t expect non-natives to be anything but baffled by a lot, if not all, of said quirks.

  66. Pacbox wrote:

    The only person “above” her is the Archbishop and that’s because he’s her bos

    I would like to write a post reflecting the Catholic view on women and singles. Thankfully, Father Ochs who has posted here has offered to help me with understanding their positions on various subjects. Although women cannot be priests, there is no question that women have had great success in academia as well as through service as nuns. Heck, the Pope recently left a message on the answering machine at one order.

    I would really like to do a post on Mary. I believe the evangelicals have deep sixed her role in an effort to avoid some of the Co-Redemptrix doctrine. I have never heard one sermon on how Jesus chose to spend his young life with a woman. We hear of the three years with the disciples but what about the decades with Mary? As He was dying, He spoke directly to His mother which to me shows the importance of her relationship with Him during His life.

    I had a deeply committed Catholic friend ask me about this one time. He said something that I have mulled over for many years. He claims that our marginalization of Mary has resulted in a lower view of women in the evangelical church.

    Anyway, i think there are those who already believe I am a heretic so maybe I should seize the moment and write about her.

  67. Steven wrote:

    The SBC is an evil institution. It is run by evil men. Yes, Seneca, evil. When you attend and give to a SBC church you are supporting both this institution and its evil rulers.

    The SBC is such a behemoth and diverse that it is possible to find quite decent churches and quite ‘despicable’ churches.

  68. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: I don’t get the SBC; we have no analogue up here. And I can’t imagine these kinds of firings taking place in a Northern school, unless at a small “Bible college” with no accreditation or other academic bona fides.

    But there are quirks of local/regional culture everywhere – certainly the case where I’m currently living! I wouldn’t expect non-natives to be anything but baffled by a lot, if not all, of said quirks.

    Back in the 90’s when I sat on many hiring committees for a college system we had many Northern applicants who could not get tenure because they were known for their free market beliefs. It was quite a problem.

  69. @ Anon 1:
    I second that. I agree they are locked into teaching falsehoods and have shown no sign of openness to listening to what Christians are saying, or demonstrating any willingness to repent. Soft hearts? I’d say hardened hearts.

    If what they persist in teaching what is contrary to sound doctrine, why be afraid to apply the scriptural admonitions that address false teachers? As I read the various ones, they don’t call for a soft, understanding, “let’s be diplomatic about this” approach that encourages continuous interaction. It’s says take a stand, then steadfastly maintain it, resisting those who teach falsehoods and wrongfully deny others full participation in the Kingdom.

  70. Pacbox wrote:

    here will never be women priests and contraception and abortion will never be allowed. I understand that many of you will have problems with this and that these reasons are reasons you will never be Catholic.

    Actually, it is not those three items that would prevent me from becoming Catholic. I am opposed to abortion and, as you can see, there are many in the evangelical world who eschew contraception. Although, something just occurred to me as I write this. The Catholic church allows for natural family planning from what I have read-please correct me if I am wrong. I wonder…do the evangelicals who are opposed to contraception oppose natural family planning? Something to think about.

    I think many of us are not Catholic is due to some doctrinal differences such as the Pope’s ability to speak “ex cathedra”, the issues surrounding Mary, etc. I have come to an understanding which is different than some evangelicals on the issues of salvation and the Catholic church. In meeting with some priests in the past, i believe that Catholics do believe in salvation through faith alone and in Jesus alone.

    The longerI am at this game, the more I realize that evangelicals point to the Catholic church as messed up and avoid, as always how messed up the evangelicals are. I think we have many of the same issues as Catholics but we like to pretend we are better because our “doctrine” is right. Except which doctrine. There are some Calvinists who would imply that Arminians are no save. So, what truly is an evangelical.

    I am waxing eloquent this morning so I can avoid all of the things I must accomplish today. Needless to say, I am grateful that you are here on this blog.

  71. Disgusting. This is not what Christianity is about. In true Christianity people are allowed to use their gifts God has given them. Gender in this regard is not an issue. These people quote 1 Timothy 2, not realizing what Paul was saying was no one should be domineering over others. Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick!

  72. numo wrote:

    I’m also a bit boggled by how different many things are south of the Mason-Dixon line. It’s a world I don’t recognize.

    Things changed for me when i became a Southerner. I was so confused when I got here. Now I understand…

    Been thinking about your recently! Praying…

  73. @ dee:

    Hopefully not 100 years. With the general attrition (retirement, death) of the “old guard that’s still on guard,” I’m hoping for 10 at the most.

  74. So while I am in rare form right this minute, let me explain to one and all about the culture of the south. There is no such thing as a one and only culture of the south. Maybe there used to be, but what we have today is multiple cultures and lots of diversity. Maybe some magazine makes money with pictures of southern gardens, and maybe writers of cheap paperbacks fantasize about some supposed different sort of “relationships” between the sexes, and maybe Hollywood still has some pictures on file of some old dirt road replete with oak trees, but that is about as accurate a picture of the current south as the picture of cowboys and indians and gunslingers is of the current west. And, people, camouflage and facial hair in Louisiana is show biz.

    Let me be specific. The area where I live in NC was identified by the federal government as a good area to relocate refugee groups. Add that to the pre-existing massive diversity, and the attraction of the local university medical center to people from elsewhere, and we have 70+ (that is not a typo) different identifiable ethic/language groups in the immediate area.

    How do I know this? The information was presented at my daughter’s SBC mega last year while the church made decisions as to how to help meet the needs of yet more people groups in this immediate area. Already one of their campuses in totally Hispanic, and already one fairly large refugee group meets at the main campus with its own pastor; this would be in addition to that.

    Let’s bring it home. That same daughter is a public school high school teacher in a close-by smaller town area in the same county. She teaches EC. The school population that she deals with is approximately 1/3 rural white, 1/3 urban black and 1/3 Spanish speaking. Many are gang members and many are illegals, through no fault of their own. My daughter makes it work. The schools make it work. And the south makes it work. And BTW, my daughter’s two children are Chinese. Mostly, around here, we just don’t care. Are we a threat to the rest of the nation because of this? Depends on what you think the American society is or ought to be. But if homogeneity is part of your creedal statement, we are not singing off the same hymn book.

    But, yes, we do feel the need in the English language to differentiate between you singular and you plural. You all can have fun with that if you want. I think it is kind of silly and cute when you do, actually.

  75. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: how is that remotely germane?

    It is germane because YOU brought up cultural differences. I simply shared what I have experienced on that score from another angle. I would prefer we be one big happy family and forget the Mason Dixon line you have mentioned several times on several threads. There are oddities everywhere as you pointed out later. There are simply more SBC churches here. But they are coming to a town near you soon as they expand their church planting efforts along with Acts 29 and Sojourn.

    You guys above the Mason Dixon have your share of fundamentalists as it is growing. Harvest Bible church, Acts 29 plants,etc.

  76. Daisy wrote:

    Mohler is definitely prejudiced against adult singles.

    This is one of the subjects that I plan to explore with Fr. Ochs. I have heard the Catholics do the single thing so much better.

  77. @ Steven:
    As Eagle and I have talked-this is why we all need Jesus. No matter how hard we try, we screw things up. In the search for “righteous” doctrine, we trample on many people.

  78. @ Nancy:

    Nancy, well said! My metro area of 1 million has a huge population of Croats, Russians, Somalians, Hispanic, Vietnamese (who came in the 70’s!) and Koreans. We also have many Muslims who stayed here when they came over to study in the 80’s. We also have many Jewish folks who led the way bringing in Jewish refugees from Russia. All of these folks mingle together in public schools and live in assimilated neighborhoods for the most part.

  79. Erik wrote:

    I have seen strong undercurrents of this at Gordon Conwell. A professor recently was asked to not use N.T. Wright as a resource to point students towards. Seriously?!

    I have been in touch with a few people from Gordon Conwell. The Neo-Calvinist reach is wide and beginning to affect lots of people. Gordon Conwell has always been a broad based evangelical institution. However, just like Wheaton, people who are involved in the Calvinista brigade are beginning to have influence.

  80. K.D. wrote:

    Years ago, I had church history class with who was probably the premire SBC church historian, Penrose St Amant. ( he had retired from Louisville seminary and being President of the Baptist seminary in Switzerland)

    He sounds wonderful.

  81. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    But the “conservative resurgence” is a lie. It was a fundamentalist resurgence,

    You are correct. We were all fed a lie. Of course there were some sluggards. There will always be those. But many, many good people were fed to the sharks.

  82. Pam wrote:

    The other thing that struck me is this really brings into question the intellectual rigour of the university if they are systematically excluding an entire gender from the teaching staff.

    Those who wish to get rid of women do not see it that way. They believe that women in these positions are an affront to God. This is what the comp crowd is bringing us.

  83. @ Nancy: of course it’s diverse, and has many regions/regional variations – just like the rest of the country.

    Still, I grew up during the Civil Rights movement, and there are images seared into my brain. Words, too. One of the images is of fire hoses and dogs being turned on the peaceful demonstrators in Birmingham. Another is of George Wallace standing in a doorway, loudly proclaiming that there would be no black students there, ever.

    Yet another: the gigantic monuments to the “heroes of the Confederacy” in Richmond, along with the protests at the city government’s putting up a statue of Arthur Ashe, who was a native.

    It seems to me that the South is still working through its legacy of things good and bad. (So is the very non-monolithic North, where discrimination was and is a reality, but which never had de facto segregation.)

    Since the SBC came into being as a result of the choice to defend the “peculiar institution,” I can’t help but see that evil legacy in these firings. It’s bigotry, turned against women this time – outright misogyny. How is that different from open racism, I wonder? I don’t see any nuances here, I’m afraid.

  84. @ burntnorton:
    The Catholic church is taking steps to change this past which, in many respects, is not a heckuvalot different than the Protestant church. I have been doing lots of reading on fundy blog sites. What I have read has turned my stomach. There are some who claim that women can not have an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

    In fact, the more i read, the more I believe that we are all alike in many respects including the Pope thing. We may not have smoke o announce their coming, but boy of boy do we have Popes-lots of them.

  85. @ Wade Burleson:
    And this is why TWW has you as part of our family. You get pain and you do not let it influence how you respond. This is Christ’s words in action. Thank you so much.

  86. @ Anon 1: oh good grief – we’ve had fundamentalists since forever! They’re nothing new, but they are largely in small, independent churches.

    Ever lived anywhere up here for any length of time? I lived south of the borderline for 20+ years…

  87. CC Alum wrote:

    When I was in school there was a philosophy department that taught us how to connect dots. The dots are all connected now at Cedarville, and the finished picture is one that I as a woman cannot hang on the wall of my heart, soul or mind.

    Thank you for adding your comment to this post. Please know that I am so, so sorry for what has happened. I hope that the story about Paige Patterson and Sherri Klouda can help everyone to see that this is the direction that CU is heading. It is a sad day.

  88. @ numo:

    Numo, You seem to forget all the Cabrini Green style housing complexes of the North that for decades kept segregation and poverty alive and well in the North.

  89. @ dee: the *church* has a very long and painful thread of misogyny running through its history. This isn’t about us/them; its us, period.

    Once you start reading a lot of the early writers’ comments on women, your hair will go up in flames. It’s pretty much the same as the antisemitic ranting that also began quite early on..

  90. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: oh good grief – we’ve had fundamentalists since forever! They’re nothing new, but they are largely in small, independent churches.

    Ever lived anywhere up here for any length of time? I lived south of the borderline for 20+ years…

    I spent every summer growing up in Michigan with relatives. Does that count? :o)

  91. @ Anon 1: that’s only one project – there were/are many, and Chicago is in the Midwest. ( not that it matters; but strictly speaking, it’s hardly the North of the Yankee carpetbaggers… ;) l

  92. Evie wrote:

    Cedarville University is an Equal Opportunity Employer

    Equal Opportunity, in this situation mean “Equal opportunity for those who we thing should be allowed to apply for this position.”

    Animal Farm: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

  93. @ Anon 1: I’m not sure how or why I got into this slanging match, but I’ve played a few sets now and am ready to hit the ball into the net, then quietly leave the court.

  94. @ Anon 1: it’s more like “love – all,”as tennis commentators would say. Nobody won anything; there’s no trophy for falling into pointless arguments.

  95. Anon 1 wrote:

    He does not “indoctrinate” at all. Perhaps that is the problem? I do know that many gurus today are very intimidated by him and have tried to steer folks away from him. Piper comes to mind.

    I have found NT Wright to be an interesting individual since many Calvinists love his writings. But, he does not follow the straight and narrow. So they are caught between a rock and hard place. I get great enjoyment out of watching how they deal with him.

    The other one that freaks them out if Stott who decided to support annihilationism. They studiously ignore it because they use Stott’s stuff a lot. It is one of my favorite comebacks to anyone who goes after people on the issue of hell. I always ask them how they deal with Stott. They usually disappear as opposed to responding. I am waiting for them to say he had Alzheimer’s or something else. It is coming…

  96. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: oh good grief – we’ve had fundamentalists since forever! They’re nothing new, but they are largely in small, independent churches.

    As in “too small and too scattered/anarchistic to reach Critical Mass”?

  97. numo wrote:

    Since the SBC came into being as a result of the choice to defend the “peculiar institution,” I can’t help but see that evil legacy in these firings. It’s bigotry, turned against women this time – outright misogyny. How is that different from open racism, I wonder? I don’t see any nuances here, I’m afraid.

    Women are the new “Animate Property”.

    Don’t the comp/patrios talk about planning 200 years in advance for your descendants’ “Estates and House Servants”? Looks like the Plantation way of life didn’t Go With the Wind…

  98. dee wrote:

    I would really like to do a post on Mary. I believe the evangelicals have deep sixed her role in an effort to avoid some of the Co-Redemptrix doctrine. I have never heard one sermon on how Jesus chose to spend his young life with a woman. We hear of the three years with the disciples but what about the decades with Mary? As He was dying, He spoke directly to His mother which to me shows the importance of her relationship with Him during His life.

    During the Reformation Wars, Mary-bashing (like married clergy) announced Which Side You Were On. And it’s stayed that way ever since.

    I had a deeply committed Catholic friend ask me about this one time. He said something that I have mulled over for many years. He claims that our marginalization of Mary has resulted in a lower view of women in the evangelical church.

    Resulting in the rise of Goddess cults (bearing as much resemblance to the originals as Reality Shows do to reality) and pop-culture female god figures from a bowdlerized Lillith to Princess Celestia, all taking up attributes of St Mary.

  99. @ CC Alum:

    Thank you so much for sharing all of this. My heart aches that a precious place of yours, which once may have felt like a second home, is now so strange and unrecognizable. I hope that God will be good to you again. And I hope and pray that the light you (and others) are shining on Cedarville will one day chase away this blight of chauvinism, dishonesty and indoctrination.

    Sunlight is an excellent disinfectant.

  100. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: and their iterations can be pretty odd. Case in point: Francis Schaeffer, who started out in a Fundy splinter Presbyterian group, and got sent to the Swiss Alps to convert Roman Catholics. That’s literally how L’Abri got started. He became more moderate in time, but then seemed to revert to his background in later life.

    Not sure if you’ve ever read his son’s novels, but I’d guess they’d strike a chord with most when grew up fundy.

  101. dee wrote:

    No, they don’t. And Dorothy (Dr) is the professor of this program. Interestingly, they are pushing for these kids to have lots of babies while they only had two. The important people can’t be tied up with 12 kids.They have to make the rules for the others.

    Three words re Dorothy:
    QUEEN. BEE. SYNDROME.

  102. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: they’re reverting to treating women as chattel, which was a reality for most until the mid-20th century (here).

    I guess they want to reinstate it all, you know? Slavery, peonage and women as property…

  103. burntnorton wrote:

    @ Amy Smith:
    I thought these guys claim perpetual persecution of the church. Now they’re on the triumphant side of history?

    doublethink, comrade, doublethink.

  104. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy: they pretty much either disagree with each other, or think others’ version of xtianity is lacking, or…

    Remember the theoretical end state of Protestantism: MILLIONS of One True Churches, each with only ONE member, each denouncing and Anathematizing all the others Ex Cathedra as Heretics and Apostates.

  105. @ dee:

    There was actually an extensive debate about Stott’s views by evangelicals who considered both sides of the argument. The conclusion reached was that Stott was wrong but had reached his conclusion for the best of reasons.

    “Evangelical Annihilationism in Review” by J.I. Packer
    http://www.the-highway.com/annihilationism_Packer.html Cached
    An assessment and critique of “Annihilationism” in contrast to the biblical … eight pages by John Stott in Essentials, 6 and ten by the late Philip Edgecumbe …

  106. @ numo:

    I know you don’t think you generalized and insulted Southerners. But your comment was strange considering the changes in the South over the last 30 years. We had more integration than Detroit in the 70’s. My first SS teacher at age 6 was African American in the late 60’s. Places change. My guess is fundamentalism thrives in the South because more people let things go and don’t think it their business to micromanage religious groups. I saw this in the aftermath of the CR. The attitude was let them be. We will do our own thing. I don’t think it is because the people are just more ignorant than Northerners. Too many Northerners moved South 30 years or so ago for that. :o)

  107. Nancy wrote:

    I also heard C.S.Lewis say that there are sins of the mind just as there are sins of the body (not an exact quote–ref: The Great Divorce).

    I enjoyed that book a lot, Nancy. Lewis does indeed discuss that briefly with George MacDonald in his dream. I think another scene in “The Great Divorce” also applies to this issue (that of Patterson and Mohler’s ‘errors’).

    In the scene, one of the numerous ‘ghosts’ is accused of being a Christian apostate. Distraught, the ghost insists that his heterodox notions are “honest beliefs, honestly held”, and that it’s unfair to consider them sins. The response to him: What about an alcoholic who ‘honestly’ believes that one more drink can do him no harm? Or a jealous husband, who ‘honestly’ believes blatant lies that people tell him about his wife? (From memory, not an exact quote.)

    In may well be that Mohler and M.T. Promises (Patterson) truly believe what they espouse about gender and its centrality to the Good News. They might simply be ignorant. But ignorance can be culpable, too. If they don’t know better, I really think they ought to.

  108. The issue as to whether and/or to what extent the federal government should be involved in the Cedarville issue should be considered carefully. We already have the feds trying to force the catholics to furnish contraceptives as part of employee health insurance benefits. Regardless of what one thinks about contraception or fecundity, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of such? Similarly, regardless of what one thinks about female theologians in private colleges, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of the question? Once we go down the road of “I can force you to do it my way” in the area of faith and faith-related practice have we opened up the proverbial can of worms?

  109. numo wrote:

    @ dee: they’re in violation of federal law…

    And why would women want to spend their money to go to an institution that advocates gender bias, where they will have very few, if any, women to engage with. This insitution, and others like it, are creating segregation of the sexes. If they don’t want women to apply for most of the teaching positions or the classes, why should women attend? Even better, why are they even soliciting women to attend? Is it because the institution still wants the money that comes with female students?

  110. Nancy wrote:

    The issue as to whether and/or to what extent the federal government should be involved in the Cedarville issue should be considered carefully.

    I wish I could tell you the ins and outs of this situation of the feds looking into CU. But, I can tell you this. It has nothing to do with the contraception angle. It is for something very serious. Look at this quote. “federal gender equity law that requires colleges to adjudicate sexual harassment and violence on campus.”

  111. @ Steven:

    I was brought up in Southern Baptist churches. They do have problems, and I don’t agree with their stances on stuff like gender roles, but I don’t know if I’d go so far as to describe them as “evil.”

    I think Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, with their majoring on the minors (they are hyper legalists, they get upset over men having hair past their collars, women whose skirts are an inch above the knee), etc, are worse.

    Not evil per se, but worse in comparison to SBC.

    Both groups are kind of rotten about dealing with spousal abuse and child sexual abuse. In some cases where cover ups were perpetuated despite a mountain load of evidence and notifications, I’d be willing to describe such negligence as evil, but I don’t know about every single last SBC member.

    Most SBs (the rank and file in the pews) are sweet little old white haired granny ladies who love Jesus.

    I know when I was going to SB churches, I was not aware of the amount of abusive preachers and child sexual abuse that was going on.

    I knew their position on women and disagreed with that, but I only knew about that because it would make the headlines in the papers, about their resolution or whatever it was asking for wives to “graciously submit to their husbands.”

    And how one of their colleges was offering a ‘Homemakers 101′ course for women. Not for men too, just women.

    Because, as you all know, all men will marry, men won’t be single past the age of 25, men’s wives never die or get cancer and get too sick to cook, clean, and do laundry.

  112. Wade, I very much appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue here on TWW, this and your blog have been a benefit to me on my faith journey. Let me say that I absolutely agree with you regarding your experience with the woman who was angry with you. It is exactly for these instances that we are told to turn the other cheek because good can come out of it. Here’s where I see the difference – Mohler, Patterson, et. al. have been at this for years with no sign they feel the need to repent. More importantly, these guys have been teaching their heretical doctrine of oppression to waves of new ministers created in the SBC – they need to be called out the same as any Pharisee that was called out by Jesus.

    Let me explain where I’m coming from on this issue. I grew up in a liberal Lutheran church (ALC now ELCA) and became a Methodist when I shortly before getting married because my wife was a Methodist, I found liked their theology somewhat better than the Lutheran and because being a Methodist meant more to my wife than being a Lutheran meant to me. Over the years I watched my wife become more and more involved in the church and enjoying carrying out the love of God and love of neighbor. What was actually happening was that she was experiencing a call to ministry and she eventually went to seminary and became a Methodist minister in the 90’s.

    As a minister yourself, I’m sure you would agree that anyone who experiences such a call considers it to be a sacred obligation and duty. Have witnessed this myself, I shudder to imagine what would have happened had we been in the SBC when the revised Baptist Faith and Message was adopted in 2000 due to the efforts of Mohler, Patterson, and others of their ilk. Her church would have had to dismiss her or be thrown out of the SBC. If she was a professor at an SBC seminary she would have been tossed out on her ear, the same if she had any position of authority in any SBC-affiliated organization. The hurt and pain inflicted on those women who did experience this treatment and being denied their sacred call because of their anatomy seems unimaginable.

    By one estimate, there are about 20,000 Christian female clergy in the U.S.
    If you believe that God has forbidden women to be ministers, then there are 20,000 women who:

    • Lied about their call,
    • Were mistaken about what they were called to do, or
    • Were called by someone who they thought was God (Satan perhaps?)

    and not one experienced a legitimate call by God.

    How guys like Mohler and Patterson can deny God’s call of women to ministry and square that with the foundational Christian requirement for love of God and neighbor based on a very few texts that they refuse to read in context and completely ignore the many other texts in the New Testament that support the opposite is something I can’t comprehend. It’s nothing but a twisted gospel of oppression. It seems to me to be more than their own honest reading of the Bible, it seems more like they have started with their own male supremacist views and picked the texts that support their view and ignoring or dismissing those to the contrary.

    Having seen the brutality and carnage wrought by the Civil War, every Christian should be appalled at the result of our classification of someone as less than equally human based on how they appear when they are born and use the Bible to support that view. The male supremacist view of the world is, at its core, no different than the view of race that created slavery in this country.

    But all this alone is not what causes me to label Mohler and Patterson (and others like them) with a very harsh term like “despicable”. What pushes me to that is the sheer callousness and meanness that seems to be underlying their words and actions and when they conduct a jihad against women in every organization they get their grips into. I have no idea where the love is in this wing of the SBC because I’ve never seen or heard it from them.

    At any rate, Wade, these are my views. Mohler, Patterson, and others of their type are oppressors who are teaching a dangerous false gospel. I know my description of them as “despicable” is very harsh, but what they believe with respect to women is so destructive of the faith that it is warranted. Finally, I don’t believe that my words are any more harsh that those of Jesus in a number of instances, for example, Matthew 23:13-15:

    ‘But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

    At any rate, Wade, please keep up the Lord’s work. I’ve learned much from you. Even when I disagree with you I find I need to take what you say into account and think through it in order to articulate my response, which is why it took so long for me to respond to your posts.

  113. @ burntnorton:

    There are Roman Catholic equivalents to Baptist and Protestant gender complementarians, such as,

    6 Reasons to NOT Send Your Daughter to College – Fix the Family
    ^(this is by a Roman Catholic group, pushing gender complementarian theology and perspectives, though I don’t know what phrase they use for it. They may have a different phrase than “gender complementarianism” or “biblical womanhood”)

    One thing I’d like to point out is that contrary to what a lot of gender comps think, rejecting gender comp is not tantamount to being, or becoming, a secular bra-burning feminist.

    That is, there are more alternatives to gender complementarianism than Second and Third Wave Feminism.

    Rejecting gender complementarianism does not necessarily lead to the embrace or acceptance, by individuals, of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, or abortion, as they seem to assume it will or does.

    I believe that is where gender complentarians’ big fears really resides and what motivates them. I think they assume if they can hammer men and women into strict gender roles, than they can somehow fight against homosexuality and abortion.

    It’s like when I used to talk to Calvinists years ago:

    Most Calvinists don’t seem to comprehend that there are more choices and ways to view things than
    1. Calvinism
    2. Arminianism

    I am neither Calvinist or Arminian, but your average Calvinist cannot understand that position; they think you either have to be one or the other.

    It’s the same thing with gender comps. They think either one must be

    1. gender comp / believe in inerrant Bible / believes in Christ

    2. be a flaming feminist who supports homosexuality and abortion, and who hates the Bible, thinks the Bible is errant, and rejects Christ

    These guys don’t see you can reject Gender Complementarianism but still be a social conservative and believe that the Bible is inerrant, Jesus is Savior, etc.

  114. @ Anon 1:
    Places do change, but history dies hard – as in the former Yugoslavia, as in the UK (many Scots are separatists; the Stone of Scone is only “lent” to them), etc.

    We have our own problems with rural poverty, btw… Very much so. It’s not something that’ll make it to the news media, but it’s a reality nonetheless. The vasdt majority of the rural poor in my state are white, and that’s likely always been true. There’s also a lot of clannishness; many local people view those who’ve moved away and then come back as traitors (literally).

  115. Wade Burleson wrote:

    They are very bright, articulate, and both men have really soft hearts.

    You would not know that from reading Mohler’s incredibly rude, condescending, insulting, unbiblical rhetoric against adult Christian singles.

  116. @ numo: something that people don’t realize is that the Mid-Atlantic and New England states are primarily rural. NYC, D.C., Boston etc. come to mind immediately, but they’re the exception, not the rule. Some of that is because of the Appalachians and smaller, related mountain ranges, some because there’s no reason for urbanization and people like things the way they are. That said, small farmers are fading away, which is sad…

  117. @ Anon 1:

    It depends on what part of the south.

    Folks along the coast don’t have it too bad, but in the Mid West, Georgia, as far up as Ohio, etc, it can get up to 110 – 120 during the summers. It does get hot in the south, but not 110 – 120 hot.

    What you get in the south is lots more humidity, and hurricanes and roaches.

  118. Nancy wrote:

    The issue as to whether and/or to what extent the federal government should be involved in the Cedarville issue should be considered carefully. We already have the feds trying to force the catholics to furnish contraceptives as part of employee health insurance benefits. Regardless of what one thinks about contraception or fecundity, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of such? Similarly, regardless of what one thinks about female theologians in private colleges, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of the question? Once we go down the road of “I can force you to do it my way” in the area of faith and faith-related practice have we opened up the proverbial can of worms?

    Nancy, Patterson has some experience with this. In the lawsuit that Klouda brought against SWBTS for her demotion/firing, Patterson’s lawyers argued that SWBTS was a quasi church and could do what they wanted. The judge agreed.

    The REAL message has to be that people give up some rights (especially labor laws) when they go to work for “Religious” organizations. So many people have learned this the hard way. They should NEVER assume they are going to work for “Christians”. Many mega churches do not even participate in unemployment so it can be a double whammy. And we wonder why folks go along with all sorts of things who work for these people.

    The thing that impresses me about the Cedarville women faculty that are quoted is they see this. And yes, their severance pay and references will be hurt if they speak out. These guys have power to ruin. And they do. It is second nature to them.

  119. @ Daisy: we have bad heat waves and *lots* of humidity (inland, not just on the coast) in the Mid-Atlantic states, too. It can be brutal without a/c… The summers of my childhood and adolescence blur together as one big, long, miserable heatwave, with the only relief coming from hanging out in the basement, going to places with a/c, and having vacations at the beach. (Which is great unless/until the wind direction shifts and you get a steady land breeze – thankfully, a rare and usually short-lived thing.)

    We get occasional clear, dry cool weather in summer (Arctic air masses), but mostly it’s hot and muggy. I would love summer if it wasn’t so consistently humid!

  120. @ Wade Burleson:
    (for eventually, when you can read this)

    There’s a difference between power-hungry men who are ruining a faith and people who respond angrily out of hurt. I think they need to be handled differently.

    But I agree that the only way to be convincing in any argument is to insistently remember that all people were made beautifully by God. When someone aligns self more and more to that which God made him/her to be, that is worthy of praise. When someone goes further and further away, that is worthy of criticism. It is not the way they were made that is up for evaluation but what they have done to themselves.

    Take for eg, Piper as a small man. It is how he was made and there is nothing wrong with it! Small guys have a harder time in our society—my bro is one and has had a rotten time dealing with it because we have crappy social standards for what makes a man. That is wrong!

    Yet I think it is fair to bring up smallness as a possible factor for why Piper is demeaning half of humanity. When we bring it up, it is probably best to clarify that we are not accepting the rotten social value but the way that Piper has possibly succumbed to it. We respect how the man was made and also criticize what he seems to have done with himself.

    Also, I agree with Anon 1. I don’t think there’s any value in trying to convince power-hungry people of their bad theology because they only use it as a device to grab/maintain power. The value in arguing with them is for those around them who may be feeling uncertain.

    It is worth being kind to the latter group, too, whereas extraordinary kindness is completely wasted on someone who is operating from power hunger. They only twist it, seeing it either as a gesture of submission or a gesture towards grabbing power away from them. This is my experience.

    Wade, I’ve not yet responded to your post from a few weeks back about loving criticism. Sorry! I have been not feeling well and life has been busy so I’ve been dragging through my days. But I’ve been thinking on it. This is part of my thoughts.

  121. Nancy, something else I have been thinking about over the years. If these “faith based” institutions take tax breaks or government backed student loans are they not already letting the Feds determine what benefits them? The only institution I am aware of that takes no Federal help of any kind is Hillsdale and that is not fait based as far as I know.

    It is a huge can of worms, I know.

  122. Anon 1 wrote:

    I think the best thing to do is to STOP talking to them. Trying to change the mind of these leaders is only giving them more influence AS leaders. Stop recognizing them as leaders of others.

    As has been mentioned by others on this thread and the last one, Southern Baptists are losing numbers, and the people pushing the gender comp view are preaching to a very small choir that is shrinking with each passing year.

    Some of us posted stats and figures of changing demographics and so on.

    The gender comp crowd keeps assuming, or badly wanting to believe, that 98% of Americans are married today, with dad working a 9 to 5 job, and Mom stays at home all day with a baby.

    The reality of America today: Many adults today are single and do not have kids. The ones who are married do not all have children, and the ones who do have kids, both partners have to work or choose to work. (SAHMs are not as commonplace.)

    I think they’ve already lost the war. So maybe arguing Bible and doctrine is unnecessary. Culture has changed a lot.

    About the singleness issue, as an example, the only thing I see put forth as a Christian solution to delayed marriage, or to no marriages taking place, is, in the last five or so years, loud mouthed SB talking heads (including Mohler) is not to suggest that SB churches take steps to help adult singles (which is what they should be doing), but-

    To clamp down even harder on how great marriage is, to tell all the teens today to get married by the time they are 20, etc.

    Generally, they do not believe in dealing with people where people actually are.

    They keep directing their policies and positions in accord to how they wish things were, or how they think things used to be.

    The more a denomination refuses to deal with things as they are (which means they are not helping people who don’t meet their ideals) and keeps griping about how things are not, they are going to keep driving people away.

    Maybe that will get their attention and be a wake up call, if arguing doctrine won’t.

  123. Two groups I seriously wish would hush up.

    Group one is the ninnies that think women remain perpetual children, unable to think or speak. These are the hyper-comps. Even if you do not believe the scripture allows for women as pastors, this other stuff as to teaching is sheer nonsense. They do not need to give up their comp position to allow female teachers.

    The second group I wish would hush up is the hyper egals. There is absolutely nothing wrong if a woman chooses to be a full time homemaker. Nothing wrong in getting a degree in homemaking so she can do the job well. It is insulting to imply that it is so easy she needs no training. (Or he, if a couple chooses for him to stay home and her be employed.)

    We could do with a whole lot less heated rhetoric from both sides. No sneering remarks about women in authority needing a good—-. You know the term. No sneering remarks about June Cleaver or how many children the Duggers choose to bear and raise. No comments questioning why large families don’t adopt. It is their private business, period.

    I think what we are experiencing is the pendulum swinging right over into backlash. Women’s lib accomplished so much that was good. Unfortunately, it also brought with it some bad side effects such as we see when the home and the children are neglected by both parents as they struggled up the corporate ladder.

    Perhaps we will go through a time of backlash where those with legitimate concerns overdo the attempt at correction. Hopefully in time we will settle in the middle where both the family unit and the career are in good balance.

  124. Anon 1 wrote:

    The REAL message has to be that people give up some rights (especially labor laws) when they go to work for “Religious” organizations. So many people have learned this the hard way. They should NEVER assume they are going to work for “Christians”. Many mega churches do not even participate in unemployment so it can be a double whammy. And we wonder why folks go along with all sorts of things who work for these people.

    Sad commentary on Christianity when the government provides more for people than many ‘Christian’ organizations provide for their own.

  125. @ Daisy:

    Daisy, in the summers I would prefer Florida hot to Kentucky hot any day! The humidity is stifling. Thank God for AC!

  126. Nancy wrote:

    The issue as to whether and/or to what extent the federal government should be involved in the Cedarville issue should be considered carefully. We already have the feds trying to force the catholics to furnish contraceptives as part of employee health insurance benefits. Regardless of what one thinks about contraception or fecundity, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of such? Similarly, regardless of what one thinks about female theologians in private colleges, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of the question? Once we go down the road of “I can force you to do it my way” in the area of faith and faith-related practice have we opened up the proverbial can of worms?

    *
    Very thought provoking.
    *

  127. Patrice wrote:

    Also, I agree with Anon 1. I don’t think there’s any value in trying to convince power-hungry people of their bad theology because they only use it as a device to grab/maintain power. The value in arguing with them is for those around them who may be feeling uncertain.
    It is worth being kind to the latter group, too, whereas extraordinary kindness is completely wasted on someone who is operating from power hunger. They only twist it, seeing it either as a gesture of submission or a gesture towards grabbing power away from them. This is my experience.

    We have to understand we are dealing with bullies in suits who are articulate and have the position of power. If anyone knows anything about Pattersons career climb in the SBC, he did not get where he is being humble and fair! Mohler spent his career consolidating power he was handed very young at age 34 or so. And now he has it in spades as he is basically the national face of power behind the SBC with the child molester protector Mahaney trailing along behind him. It has been proven over and over Mohler can do what he wants with no consequences from other SBC leaders.

    These men have built their power bases not on the love of Christ but on political strategy using doctrine, cultural issues, marginalizing those who disagree etc. And there are many bodies in their wake.

    The last thing I want to do is to affirm their positions or even change their minds. A waste of time and effort. Without the numbers of money of what is left of the SBC they would have no platform that others pay for.

  128. Daisy wrote:

    I think they’ve already lost the war. So maybe arguing Bible and doctrine is unnecessary. Culture has changed a lot.

    They seem to be doing an impression of King Canute. I have met a lot of male SBTS seminary students who married young and their wives worked while they were in semiary and before they got a church. There was always a big explanation about why this was ok. She was designed to support his ministry and this was how she was doing it: helping him have a ministry. it was temporary so not a gender role sin to be the breadwinner, etc. It was mind numbing to listen to these mental gymnastics.

    BUT, as these young grads went out to churches the big issue was a salary large enough to support them and their new family so the wife does not have to work. But, most of the women in the church had to work—the very same ones who they expected to support them!

    Oh the irony of the SBC

  129. @ dee:

    Mmmmm. Well. It kind of bothers me as a hetero, never-married woman who was raised Christian and who wants marriage, but it did not come to pass, is that being a single woman seems acceptable in some quarters (e.g. Catholicism),

    Only if one made a deliberate choice from a young age to do nothing but religious stuff one’s entire life (i.e., serve God by living in a hut in a third world nation, handing out soup and Gospel tracts to the locals, be a nun living in a convent, etc.)

    You have your Baptist and Protestant equivalent to this, that just assumes (with no biblical support for this position to boot) if you have not married by age 35/40, then God has “obviously” “called you to singleness,” or has “gifted you with singleness” (the Bible teaches neither concept, there again).

    Nobody – and I mean nobody – in any facet of Christianity that I’ve seen so far, respects or helps adult women who want to get married, did not choose to stay single, who were not “called” or “gifted with” singleness, but who still find themselves single. We are not acknowledged.

    On rare occasions a preacher deigns to respond to this issue, we single ladies get the unhelpful cliches and scoldings of “it’t not about you, remember eternity, stop coveting marriage!,”
    “be content in your singleness,”
    and odd concepts uttered at us, such as,
    “Jesus is your boyfriend and husband; he is sufficient for you, so find joy in being married to God!”

    Oh. According to preacher Mark Driscoll (in one of his blogs), and others like him:

    1. if you are single past a certain age, it’s because God is sending you to a remote, dangerous spot to die young for the Gospel (ergo, it makes no sense for God to send you a mate or let you have kids), and,

    2. God magically lowers the libido of adult singles, so you will not experience sexual desire if you are single

    -neither view is taught in the Bible, but he and other preachers I’ve seen, act as though this stuff is in the Bible

    There is nothing out there for the adult singles who desire marriage, who was not called or gifted with singlehood, and who remains single.

    It’s either- be a missionary and die in a third world nation; or convert to Catholicism and be a nun.

  130. @ linda:

    No sneering remarks about…how many children the Duggers choose to bear and raise.

    The rest of your comment wasn’t bad, but I do have to point out that there are many, many legitimate problems with the Duggars that don’t even begin to touch the issue of how many children they have. In their particular case, the large number of children is a symptom of underlying theological problems like Quiverfull and militant fecundity. I don’t care that they have 19 kids. I do care that they’re indoctrinating them with heretical crap like militant fecundity, being promoted in the Christian community (which is largely in denial about said heretical crap), and given a microphone to glorify said heretical crap through a nationally televised show.

  131. E.G. wrote:

    Hopefully not 100 years. With the general attrition (retirement, death) of the “old guard that’s still on guard,” I’m hoping for 10 at the most.

    The trouble is that even after they retire or leave this earth, they will have trained 1,000s of men a poor theology of women. Not to mention that those men will not have been taught critical thinking skills. They will believe something not because they have actually thought through the doctrines, but because they don’t know how else to think.Teaching people to think becomes anathema because they might make the wrong choice. You know, think outside the box.

  132. dee wrote:

    I think we have many of the same issues as Catholics but we like to pretend we are better because our “doctrine” is right. Except which doctrine. There are some Calvinists who would imply that Arminians are no save. So, what truly is an evangelical.

    I’ve noticed this too the last few years.

    A lot of Protestants complain that the RCC rejects sola fide (IMO, that is true, they do, on an official level), but, a lot of Protestants reject it too, while claiming to believe in it.

    There are Baptists and Protestants who say they believe in sola fide, but what they really mean, is they think while Christ is necessary for you to get your foot in the door initially, after that, it’s up to you to maintain and keep your salvation (by doing good deeds and/or repenting after each sin, or not sinning at all to start with).

    And that is foreign to my understanding of the Gospel as a child.

    Even as an adult, I don’t understand how a person (or a denomination) can claim to believe salvation is by faith alone, but then teach after coming to Christ, a person must work to keep the salvation, or it’s sometimes phrased as “cooperate with the Holy Spirit” to keep one’s salvation.

  133. @ Nancy:

    I’ve had to live all over the country, and you are spot on!

    I’ve lived in Texas, New Orleans, and many other places. I think Hollywood and TV gives Americans the wrong idea about the nation to people who don’t move or travel much.

    Any time you see Louisiana on TV or on film, nine out of ten times:
    1. everyone speaks with a Cajun accent;
    2. shots of the French Quarter are shown;
    (with the quaint horse-drawn carriages, the cafes, the wrought iron fences);
    3. swamps and alligators are shown

    There are suburban neighborhoods in Louisiana. There are malls and McDonald’s.

    New Orleans is more than the Quarter. Not every one there speaks with a Cajun accent. In all the years I lived in NOLA and repeated visits, not once did I visit a swamp or pet an alligator.

    Almost any time you see a Texas on TV, or Texas itself on a TV show, they almost always show people riding horses, people wearing cowboy hats, cows on ranges.

    Most of Texas and Texans do not look that way.

    There are suburbs where people get in their Fords and Chevys, and there are Wal Marts and JC Pennys just like the rest of the country. many people wear T-shirts and jeans in Texas, not all, or even most, wear ten gallon hats and cowboy boots.

  134. dee wrote:

    Those who wish to get rid of women do not see it that way. They believe that women in these positions are an affront to God. This is what the comp crowd is bringing us.

    That sort of reminds me of,

    John 16:2

    They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God.
    Not that gender complementarianism is on par with people killing other people, but I had in mind the idea that they think they are acting with God’s approval, or that what they are doing is good in God’s sight.

    The Pharisees always thought they were acting as God wanted them to, but Jesus had to correct them multiple times.

  135. @ Anon 1:

    When I lived up north (including St. Louis and Ohio), there were hardly any black people. There were so few black kids at the St. Louis school I went to, the city bussed them in.

    Being around black people and befriending them if you’re white is much more common in the south, because there are more black people to be around. Some of my sisters closest friends are black ladies (my sister is white and lives in the south).

    There really is not a huge race issue in the South. It’s common to work with and for black people if you are white, to shop with them, to have black friends.

    I’m puzzled by this mindset that the South today is a frothing pot of whites hating blacks.

    I saw a news story several years ago about how many black people have moved to Atlanta and (at that time) made up the wealthiest shakers in that city.

  136. Daisy wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    I’ve had to live all over the country, and you are spot on!
    I’ve lived in Texas, New Orleans, and many other places. I think Hollywood and TV gives Americans the wrong idea about the nation to people who don’t move or travel much.
    Any time you see Louisiana on TV or on film, nine out of ten times:
    1. everyone speaks with a Cajun accent;
    2. shots of the French Quarter are shown;
    (with the quaint horse-drawn carriages, the cafes, the wrought iron fences);
    3. swamps and alligators are shown
    There are suburban neighborhoods in Louisiana. There are malls and McDonald’s.
    New Orleans is more than the Quarter. Not every one there speaks with a Cajun accent. In all the years I lived in NOLA and repeated visits, not once did I visit a swamp or pet an alligator.
    Almost any time you see a Texas on TV, or Texas itself on a TV show, they almost always show people riding horses, people wearing cowboy hats, cows on ranges.
    Most of Texas and Texans do not look that way.
    There are suburbs where people get in their Fords and Chevys, and there are Wal Marts and JC Pennys just like the rest of the country. many people wear T-shirts and jeans in Texas, not all, or even most, wear ten gallon hats and cowboy boots.

    I have to agree….I live in a rural area of Texas and you are as likely to see people in tennis shoes as well as boots. Very few own horses, even a number of folks in the cow businesses. They are an expense that doesn’t help the bottom line.
    Go to the ‘burbs of Dallas or Houston, and most of America will see their neighbors….( heck most cities. Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Tyler, Lubbock, look like the rest of America. Same malls, same Honda dealership, same Burger King and Pizza Hut….)

  137. dee wrote:

    The other one that freaks them out if Stott who decided to support annihilationism

    Is that John Stott, lifelong Christian single and celibate guy?

    I’m sure he was a nice guy and all, but… he is unfortunately used, in a way, as a ‘Poster Child of Adult Celibacy’ to further assure Christian singles who are still single past 35, that they must have the “gift of singleness/celibacy” but that “that’s okay because God can use you, just like Stott!”
    *Sigh.*

  138. @ Anon 1:
    As Daisy did, I found it disturbing that Wade wrote of Mohler and Patterson: “They are very bright, articulate, and both men have really soft hearts.”

    I do not think they are very bright. They have the same abilities as our infamous banksters: legalistically clever and savvy at turning situations to their favor. Certainly they have no wisdom, which is the best of intelligence.

    As to “really soft hearts”, my abusing pastor-father had that, too, over some things. No one is without humanity in every way.

    For eg, my father adored my sister’s love of butterflies and went out of his way to help her build a lovely collection but every fall (for 5 years, after which she quit owning cats), he drowned her cats without telling her, letting her call and search for them around the town into the night. For weeks.

    He also wept over his love of Christ and yet told me that my biological father (who died when I was young and who he didn’t know) wasn’t in heaven.

    He kept faithful integrity in use of church funds, yet took all the money we made on our after-school jobs: picking berries, working in greenhouses and at a local nursing home, and mowing lawns. Didn’t even give us an allowance.

    Where a human has a soft heart, they show the way God made them. But we need to look at human’s total behavior or we are in danger of misrepresenting them and allowing evil to grow among us.

    I agree that it wastes energy to talk with them, as such. If we spent all our efforts on the people around them, to get them to leave, these leaders would be left without that which they most want, power.

  139. K.D. wrote:

    Let me add this part. When I was taking Dr St Amant’s class, Ft Worth had a horrible ice storm. Most of the city was without power. I will never forget him calling everyone in his classes, to see if we had heat and if we didn’t, come to his place, he did, bring our families, Mrs. St Amant was cooking stew, and we’ll make pallets to sleep on the floor…..I never lost heat, but several of my classmates did, and took him up on the offer…..now tell me, how many of the present SBC leadership would do something like this???

    Some will maintain that this is just ‘works based’ righteousness (an excitable old German friar in the 16th cent. comes to mind here) and if the dear old prof. didn’t ‘know the Lord’ he’ll burn in hell for all eternity.

  140. Anon 1 wrote:

    The thing that impresses me about the Cedarville women faculty that are quoted is they see this. And yes, their severance pay and references will be hurt if they speak out. These guys have power to ruin. And they do. It is second nature to them.

    Here is a big problem for me with what the leaders of this institution are doing. If they believe what they are doing is good and right, then why are they silencing the people leaving? It’s like a legal, but worldly blackmail, but I don’t see it as a righteous act before God. Also why did they tell people to not try to connect the dots? If they are so incredibly proud and sure about what they are doing, then why are they doing it in secret, silencing people, and asking people not to think about what is happening. They should be shouting it from the rooftops if it’s so pleasing to God. Instead they are hiding what they are doing and working in darkness . . .

  141. @ numo:

    I was going to ask about that. There are laws against employers discriminating on the basis of gender, and I think marital status? They’re not supposed to ask a person if she is single, has kids, is married, plans to marry, etc.

    I read that some job interviewers will try to trick you into giving up that info, though.

    For instance, a female interviewer (who is single and childless, let’s say), will rush into the room and blurt to the female interviewee the following lie:

    “I am so sorry I am running late, but I had to just drop John Jr. off at day care, and he has a cold. Raising kids is so hard, amirite????”

    This tricks the female candidate into admitting she has kids (if she has any) when she replies,

    “Shucks, don’t worry, I know how hard that is! Just yesterday I had to rush little Joe Jr. off to day care myself.”

    The interviewer just found out you have a child, and you are now out of the running for the job, if they don’t want to hire mothers.

    I don’t know if these same rules against asking women about marital status, etc, apply to religious groups, such as Christian universities.

  142. Bridget wrote:

    If they are so incredibly proud and sure about what they are doing, then why are they doing it in secret, silencing people, and asking people not to think about what is happening. They should be shouting it from the rooftops if it’s so pleasing to God. Instead they are hiding what they are doing and working in darkness . . .

    Yep.

  143. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I think you want to post to Wade Burleson. He actually pastors an SBC church. Therefore, I guess he’s one of the “evil men.”

    Jimmy, you could profit greatly from an introductory class in set theory.

  144. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Don’t the comp/patrios talk about planning 200 years in advance for your descendants’ “Estates and House Servants”? Looks like the Plantation way of life didn’t Go With the Wind…

    That doesn’t sound far removed from Mormonism, which tells the men and women something about being married in the afterlife, and having planets to rule as gods.

    I think in Mormon theology, the more kids (or wives?) a man has in the here and now means the more planets they get to rule? (My memory is shaky on this, it’s been several years since I read about their beliefs).

    The complementarians are not far off from that stuff.

  145. @ Patrice:
    I just want to follow up on my last comment. I obviously think that Mohler et al are abusers of the caliber of my father. I believe this because they are doing publicly what my father did privately: deliberately insistently demeaning people at the core of their beings—in their case, women.

  146. dee wrote:

    Look at this quote. “federal gender equity law that requires colleges to adjudicate sexual harassment and violence on campus.”

    So, I’m guessing a female employee was sexually harassed or raped?

    The military and its academies have been having problems with this.
    Report: Sexism part of military academies’ culture

    Assaults, harassment, and rape are also big problems with Non Christian / non military universities. They often cover up such cases or don’t do nearly enough about them.

  147. @ Patrice:

    Patrice, As to “soft hearts”, I am familiar with some of the broken discarded bodies in the wake of both Mohler and Patterson. We can start with Daryl Gillyard’s victims who went to Patterson and were rebuked and Paul Debusman who was fired from SBTS a few months before his retirement because he disagreed with a chapel speaker. Mohler was what? 33 when he fired this long time SBTS employee set for retirement. These are just ONE example from each.

  148. @ Daisy: did you live in St. Lois proper, or in the county?

    I mean, St. Louis – also East St. Louis, across the river in IL – are largely black. There are white enclaves in the city, from wealthy to working class, but there’s a good reason for one of its nicknames: St. Soul. (Some soul, blues, gospel and R&B greats are from St. Loius, and many notable jazz musicians call it home, too.) I spent a fair amount of time there in the late 80s (for work), when there were literally acre upon acre of abandoned streets and buildings immediately west of downtown. I also vividly recall seeing many tarpaper shacks along the route to and from the airport, which was very sobering.

    The county was another matter entirely – partly because of “white flight” from the city. I gather that the area west of downtown St. Louis has undergone extensive renovation and redevelopment since I was last there.

    As for NOLA, I’ve gotta ask – did people go and visit colleagues/friends down in the lower Ninth Ward(etc.), or did they confine socializing to more or less neutral territory? Because the way you talk about the city and racial tension contradicts most everything I’ve ever been told/read/heard about NOLA and the surrounding area – I think it’s going to take a few hundred more years and much more intermarriage for the wounds, pain and fear to truly begin to dissipate. I *can* see that happening with many young black people, who were born post-1968, but they’re mostly from middle-class backgrounds and haven’t had to face nearly as much as their parents, grandparents…and peers from less fortunate circumstances.

    I guess my age is showing.

  149. JeffT wrote:

    every Christian should be appalled at the result of our classification of someone as less than equally human based on how they appear when they are born and use the Bible to support that view.

    One problem is they try to evade that this is doing by insisting that they believe women are equal in worth and are equally saved so that makes it okay for them to teach that women are not to be equal in roles. It is a distinction without a difference, and you are right, they ignore or rationalize any and all passages that do have women teaching and leading men with God’s approval.

  150. @ numo:

    I don’t want to get into specifics of where I lived. (I had another kooky guy start stalking me around different sites this past year.)

    NOLA is not just the ninth ward or the Quarter, as I was saying above.

    There are white and blacks living and working together just fine in Metairie, Gretna, Aligers, and all around NOLA, and nobody in those areas gives it a second thought.

    Southerner whites are not a bunch of KKK members who hate blacks, wear white sheets, and burn crosses on black people’s lawns.

  151. @ Daisy: look, I realize this stuff, but honestly, we white people tend to miss the obvious a great deal of the time, because we’ve never had to live with it.

    Yes, things have changed a great deal, but you can’t erase history and deeply entrenched attitudesovernight.

    As an aside, I spent some time in neighborhoods in D.C. and suburban MD where white people rarely go. If anything, suburban MD is full of black middle-class families who left D.C. as soon as they had the money to afford other options. That’s “black flight” as well, even some black gated communities. (And there certainly are “old money” black families in D.C. itself – most would rather die than move!)

  152. Oops, *there’s “black flight” as well…

    And hey, I was born in the 50s, so my perspective is going to be different to yours, just like my elderly mom’s is different to mine in many respects. She’s seen and lived through things that I haven’t, you know? (Like WWII.)

  153. @ numo:
    Which shows that it is more about class than race, although there is overlap, which just makes the whole thing tres confusing.

  154. @ Daisy: I also hear you re. the bguy and reasonably integrated neighborhoods, but there’s still the question of where/how people visit and socialize…

  155. Somebody brought up the issue of why would anybody work for a Christian institution given some of the work conditions and such. I have searched for the comment but cannot find it. Anyhow, about people who work for Christian organizations…

    My personal experience is almost zero with that, but I watch and listen a lot. In my family there has been some investigation of private church-related elementary and high schools. The ones that “we” checked out do not pay as well, have poor and almost non-existent retirement systems, and sometimes lean toward part time (even if only slightly less than full time) employee work schedules. So why would anybody work in that sort of situation? I have identified some reasons: jobs in public schools are hard to get and if you need to work then you do what you can; some folks really are seriously ideologically committed and will make personal sacrifices to do what they believe in; some folks do not much want to “deal with the public.” This person was someone who is just too religiously idiosyncratic to survive in a secular setting. This is different from ideology and more like weirdness. No doubt there are other reasons, and I have no opinion about college level educators.

    I do know that the one year that I worked as the lowest of the lowest of the low “faculty” at a catholic university, I was so thrilled to get the job that I would have worked for bread and water if necessary. I was almost dancing down the streets of St. Louis singing “He Lives” I was so thrilled. So, who knows what people will do.

  156. linda wrote:

    The second group I wish would hush up is the hyper egals. There is absolutely nothing wrong if a woman chooses to be a full time homemaker. Nothing wrong in getting a degree in homemaking so she can do the job well.

    Yo’re getting Christian egalitarians confused with secular feminists on that score.

    I did take a few basic home ec. type courses in junior high, but I’m afraid that other homemaking skills don’t really need formal education, no.

    Your parent might need to give you a brief explanation of how to use the laundry machine (when you’re 10 – 15 years old), you might need a cooking class, but I don’t see where it takes a lot of study to know how to run a rag across a dusty table top or mop a floor.

    I learned how to bake cookies from reading the recipe on the chocolate chip package when I was around 14 years old.

  157. @ Patrice: agreed. But there are some big issues here, and no easy way of getting around them.

    Most of black D.C. has been there since well before the Jim Crow laws were repealed, and thought neighborhoods change, some folks will always be there.

    Example: over in VA, you could (probably still can) find large numbers of people – many in close proximity to one another – who are direct descendants of people who were enslaved by Washington, the Fairfax family (as in Lord Fairfax; had a huge plantation), etc. When I 1st started becoming aware of things like that, my brain began to short-circuit.

    I also saw how many older black employees (in service jobs) would laugh and joke with the few black professional employees, but who always switched to a totally different demeanor, tone of voice etc. when speaking with me – and most of the other white people at the place in question. It was a literal enacting of Paul Laurence Dunbar’s poem “We Wear the Mask.” The only time I ever saw true happiness in one woman’s face was when she met and shook hands with Rosa Parks.

  158. @ Anon 1:

    Humidity in some parts of the south is very bad. You can take a shower one minute and two minutes out the door on the way to the garage to get in the car to go to work, already be covered in sweat.

    Hair spray melts after three seconds outside. Glasses fog up and steam over when you walk out of the AC buildings.

    And some places of employment in all that much still demand women wear panty hose to work!

  159. @ Hester:

    I think linda is still upset over a comment I made on a prior thread, where I asked “How many kids do the Duggars have now, one 134?”

    I asked because I don’t watch the Duggar show and don’t keep up with them and precisely how many kids they have. all I know is they have a lot of kids.

    Linda interpreted my comment as being “snarky” in a post below it. It was not snarky.

    But yes, I find it weird that a woman would want to have more than two or three children. If you are a woman and want to have 145 babies, more power to you, but I don’t have to like that choice, agree with it, or celebrate it.

    BTW, I get ripped on by secular feminists on other blogs for defending a woman’s choice to be a stay at home wife and mommy.

    What I am against are churches, political groups, or religions telling women that is their ONLY choice, or only GODLY purpose to be a wife and mother, and/or as though it’s a sin, wrong, or shameful to be single or childless or pursue a career.

  160. numo wrote:

    look, I realize this stuff, but honestly, we white people tend to miss the obvious a great deal of the time, because we’ve never had to live with it.

    My great grandparents were abolitionists in deed. Both my parents were very involved in the civil rights movement. My dad was physically threatened by the teamsters union for daring to hire black drivers at the same wage as whites back in the 1940’s. I know, most folks don’t think of the teamsters as being so discriminatory but they were back then. Big time.

    The truth of history is very nuanced. It is a mistake to get it all from school books or media. The sensational always makes the news but the other stories of Southerners who fought against segregation is rarely mentioned. It is usually spun as only Northerners coming here to help. Simply not true. The saddest part of it all is that many churches were integrated somewhat in the 60’s and that started to change.

  161. K.D. wrote:

    Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Tyler, Lubbock, look like the rest of America. Same malls, same Honda dealership, same Burger King and Pizza Hut….)

    Yes, just the geography changes.

    I had to visit someone I knew in Colorado as a teen, and Colorado had Pizza Huts, malls, banks – only difference between that and the state I was visiting from, is that there were mountain ranges in the background everywhere.

  162. @ Patrice:

    That is awful. I don’t see how someone can claim a love for Christ and drown cats and let the little girl wonder what happened to the pet cats. :(

    It does make you wonder about people who mouth all the right doctrines and religious platitudes, but they can be so cruel or indifferent to people (and animals).

  163. numo wrote:

    @ Daisy: look, I realize this stuff, but honestly, we white people tend to miss the obvious a great deal of the time, because we’ve never had to live with it.

    I don’t buy into “white privilege” thinking, that there is rampant racism everywhere, but because I am not black, I am just so blind to it.

    I was born in the 1970s. Grew up in the 1980s with, went to school, with black kids. Had black teachers, had some white teachers, too. Later had black co-workers.

    It was not an issue for them or for us. People got along. Skin color was not a big deal to anyone.

  164. @ Anon 1: I haven’t gotten it that way. I did extensive oral history work in and around black DC and northern VA, and dug into a ton of material -some dating very far back – that has never gotten any exposure outside of Howard University and other DC-area black academic/museum enclaves,

    The teamsters – oh gee, like I didn’t know that! Samwe for the East and West Coast longshoremens’ unions, which were often a thorn in the side of people who made their living on merchant (cargo) ships, like my dad.

    You keep making wrong assumptions, ma’am, and I’m tired of it. I don’t appreciate the lectures, either, and believe me, I could hold forth on my own family’s admittedly later entry to the abolitionist cause!

    Ok, wenoufgh of *this* round. You seem to love to argue and cherry pick what people have said, and I’m not playing along.

    Godspeed,
    n.

  165. @ Daisy: go work in an all-black school ( or other place f employment) and listen to what people say when you’re not in the room.

    There’s so very far to go re. overcoming fear and distrust, and all too real reasons for both. Still.

    Ok,him done.

  166. @ numo:

    In NOLA, white and black people live in the ‘burbs, shop at the same stores, go to school with each other, go to the zoo, both go to the movies at the same movie theaters.

    (BTW, there are also impoverished white people in and around NOLA. Some of them live in crummy, run-down apartment complexes.)

    You appear to hold some odd, retro idea that NOLA (and other Southern cities), that they are all strictly pockets of blacks here, whites over there, with the groups never intermingling, or overlapping, there’s white flight, all the whites leave, and the ones that remain, they all detest each other.

    That is not so, there are neighborhoods where blacks and white live, work, and play together.

    Same with Houston, Texas. In addition to black people, there are also brown skinned (Hispanic, and folks from India) there. You work with them. Live next door to them.

    You don’t have to take special sight seeing trips to The Projects or “pockets o’ black town” to see black folk daily or weekly, any more than they have to get in a car to drive to Whitey-ville to see white people.

    My sister is white, lives in NOLA, and 90% of her co workers have been black people, and she doesn’t have a problem with it. For years, her closest buddy was a black lady.

    I remember after living in NOLA for years and moving up north to a largely Lilly-white city, it was strange to see nothing but whites. It was strange not seeing black people everywhere. It took a couple of years of that to readjust to it.

    Then I had to move back down south, where it was odd to see more black and brown skinned people after years of seeing 99% whites every where.

    I have lived all over the nation, including a large chunk of time in the south, and there is not a hot bed of fomenting racism there.

    It’s normal for blacks and whites to see each other, work together, and become friends in the south.

  167. @ numo:
    I agree with that. One of my neighbors is currently having a problem with me, and I’m almost certain it is white/black based, but I have no idea what/why and no idea how to repair it. It has always appeared for a bit after a grandmother’s annual visit, but this fall it hasn’t gone away. Their kids no longer come over for a couple of hours on an occasional Sunday (so mom can nap) and no more quick greetings over the fence. I miss them!

    There’s so much bad history and it is hard work to keep misunderstandings away and then, still, not always possible it seems. And this is a reverse problem caused by hundreds of years of the actual problem. So uncomfortable and seemingly intractable!

    But I suspect Daisy is missing the divisions that class structure sets up and they are deep in our country these days. Do you have any idea how much trad. evangelicalism is based in middle-class and how much in the poor/working class? The people you live around are the poor whites, I think. Would you define many of those believers as evangelical or is Catholicism more the thing? Just curious.

  168. “We wear the mask that grins and lies,
    It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes –
    The debt we pay to human guile;
    With torn and bleeding hearts we smile,
    And mouth with myriad subtleties.

    Why should the world be over-wise
    In counting all our tears and sighs?
    Nay, let the only see us while
    We wear the mask.

    We smile, but o great Christ, our cries
    To thee from tortured souls arise.
    We sing, but oh the clay is vile
    Beneath our feet, and long the mile;
    But let the world dream otherwise!
    We wear the mask.”

    – Paul Laurence Dunbar

  169. @ Anon 1:

    “These men have built their power bases not on the love of Christ but on political strategy using doctrine, cultural issues, marginalizing those who disagree etc. And there are many bodies in their wake.”

    ……….

    That is what think too.
    Why on earth should these men’s behavior get a pass, when their love of power and worldly tactics, hurt so many? All the while, they get to live high on the hog(along with their families) and look down their noses on the ones they have stepped over or think don’t deserve God’s blessings anyway.

  170. Daisy wrote:

    It’s normal for blacks and whites to see each other, work together, and become friends in the south.

    I have a black boss on a project I am doing. He is a smart, industrious great guy.

    One of the best times I ever had was going out for drinks with some of my black women coworkers because they wanted to “school” me on black hair.

    I just do not get this preoccupation with bashing the South. It is up to us as individuals to bridge the gaps. In fact, I don’t even believe in “race”. I was raised to believe we are all ONE race.

  171. Patrice wrote:

    But I suspect Daisy is missing the divisions that class structure sets up and they are deep in our country these days

    No, I’m really not.

    The South was depicted above in prior posts as being filled to the brim with racism, where whites and blacks never visit each other. That is not so.

    Whites and blacks live and work together, befriend each other, in poor areas, on up to middle class areas. I’ve lived in and around such cities in the south. This is reality, this was the life I lived, not me conjecturing or guessing.

  172. Patrice, I think the “class” divisions are the big thing. Some of my black friends are really put out with the pastors who tell them it is wrong they moved out of their neighborhoods for nicer places. So there are issues within, too.

  173. @ Patrice: oh, there are a lot of middle-class people here, but recent decades (and Walmart) have gutted the local economy. Unemployment is way up; so is abuse of meth and heroin. (Yes, heroin.)

    There are many people whose refuge is church. But church is no longervwhat it used to be, when it offered lots of socializing opportunities for the larger community. (My granddad was in the Sunday School Orchestra, and it *was* an orchestra! Sadly, there’s nothing remaining of things like this.)

    There is an air of desperation here, in stark contrast to the buzzing, humming, all stops pulled out economy one county over – due to the presence of a large university plus assorted tech companies that have grown out of it.

    Most of my state is a mess, per jobs and economy. There are more and more working poor every month, and sadly, I don’t see an end in sight.

    Catholicism: people from certain backgrounds (Irish, Italian, etc.) are Catholic, mostly. True of new Central American residents here, not just the Irish, etc. I don’t see that the local parish gets many takers, though I have a hunch that the primary one in the county south of here is more lively these days, due to the new folks from El Salvador and Guatemala.

  174. @ Daisy: you misunderstood what I was attempting to say.

    I give up, as we’re talking past each other. I wish some of the black folks who used to comment here were still around. Their perspective would be welcome right now.

  175. Daisy wrote:

    It does make you wonder about people who mouth all the right doctrines and religious platitudes, but they can be so cruel or indifferent to people (and animals).

    I know, right? Sheesh. And I do think that the way some leaders in the church treat their various parishioners, and the complaints you legitimately make about yourself, particularly as a single woman, are as damaging as the outrageous behavior of my father.

    By the way, I am “feminist” and I think that women who stay home with their children are lovely. I also think that homemaking is an area of expertise that can be taught and skills developed in such a way as to make it like a beautiful dance through life. My feminism means that I want women to be considered as peers to men, and thus the time /energy spent in child bearing and raising should be given the same respect given to any good human pursuit. So I don’t want child-bearing to be given extra-holy status nor do I want it to be under-estimated.

    And yet I think the Duggars are selfish for a number of reasons, not least because one cannot have that many children without requiring the older ones to give most of the care to the younger ones. Thus their ideology denies their own kids the privileges of childhood.

  176. @ Anon 1:

    My reality of having lived in the south (and in different southern cities) is not lining up with what I’m being told it is like. :)

  177. @ numo:

    Why? Because they would say they experienced racism in the south, and racism is everywhere in the south?

    I’m sure there is racism in the south, and there are some racists there.

    I lived in NOLA, Houston, and other southern cities, and it was normal for blacks and white to befriend each other, work alongside each other, and it was not an issue.

  178. @ Patrice: as for you neighbor, I’m sorry, but not entirely surprised. It’s a common thing, and i’ve had similar experiences. I don’t think any of them were about me so much as they were about the mess we all still live with, and its emotional/psychic impact on us all.

    fwiw, I am a big admirer of the Grimke sisters (sorry for missing accent there), the hugely influential abolitionists who grew up in a wealthy Charleston family, decamped for the north – and who openly acknowledged bands supported their brothers’ sons, who confounded the NAACP. Few white people have ever taken such steps to try and repairs breaches and heal wounds. As in many situations, the first steps often come from those who were harmed.

  179. @ Daisy: because they could bring their own perspective and experiences, that’s why. It might well tally with yours in some respects, but will be markedly different in others, I’m sure.

    But they’re not here anymore. I miss them.

  180. numo wrote:

    There are many people whose refuge is church. But church is no longervwhat it used to be, when it offered lots of socializing opportunities for the larger community.

    What kind of church is it now, do you know? Does it address their quiet desperation in any way, even just personally? Besides the RCC, are they mostly evangelical-ish? If you know….

  181. @ Patrice:
    Lutheran, United Methodist, Mennonite, Church of the Brethren (German Anabaptist, came to this country very early). There are a handful of newish evangelical churches, and many go to those now? They’re all varying degrees of fundy, too. :(

  182. @ Patrice:
    What I mainly meant was that church is less involved in the community, in general. Denomination isn’t really the issue; social roles are, along with offering a place for like-minded people to do things like play non-sacred music together.

    That all disappeared in the Korean War era, per my mom, along with local public transportation and superb rail service. We were connected; now we’re really cut off from the larger world. We no longer have a Jewish community, which makes me very sad.

  183. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t know if I’d go so far as to describe them as “evil.”

    Daisy, you are right. I chose too harsh of a word. I apologize for this thoughtless error. Thanks for the gentle correction. Steve

  184. @ Daisy:
    Having never lived in the south, I cannot say anything about it. The closest I’ve been is a couple of years in Baltimore, not yet south. I’ve heard many things about it (including from great authors) and it is obviously different than my living experience. But the far west where I used to live is different than the upper midwest where I now live. And both are different than Alberta Canada, where I spent the happiest years of my life. Overall, I like differences.

    I think we will just have to disagree as to the state-of-being between blacks/whites, which I see as having gotten better but still a mess. I am finding it a complicated puzzle to live in an almost all-black neighborhood. My whiteness always gets in the way. It just does. I am glad to be here because I think it helps chip away at the underlying issues, but I admit that sometimes I get a smidge weary of it. But so it goes.

  185. @ Daisy: *Philadelphia* is verty segregated still, and there’s lots and lots of problemw in the area. As Patrice said, some of it definitely is class-related, but by no means all.

    True of the other Northern cities I’m familiar with as well, though many younger people live in very diverse neighborhoods. Equally, historically black neighborhoods are often targeted by developers for “gentrification,” and many longtime residents have to sell up and move, because they can’t afford to stay. That happens in every city in this country, unfortunately. I feel very badly for older people whose houses have been in their families for generations – and now their neighborhoods aren’t even recognizable to them. They’ve lost their community, not just their houses, and the suburbs have little-nothing to offer in that respect.

  186. @ Patrice: Baltimore is still very segregated, imo, and I have some ties there. But then, there’s a very nasty slur used of one of the oldest Jewish communities in that area, still.

    As for problems, lots of things look good on the surface, but aren’t, really. There’s so much that people cannot/will not talk about with outsiders – even when those “outsiders” are neighbors or casual friends. Real transparency is rare, and almost impossible to achieve, but I keep hoping all the same…

  187. @ Daisy:

    Yes, Daisy. Everyone’s experience is different; even two people who grow up on the same street can have widely differing experiences. I don’t think anyone is denying you your experience, just saying that yours isn’t the same one that everyone else had.

    My experience of growing up in the city you mentioned above is quite different than yours was. I lived where it was mainly Caucasian, worked in the city near the river, visited my gradparents in an area that was once all white and they were one of two white families who never moved. They were respected in their neighborhood because they respected everyone else. I had a great aunt who lived with my grandparents who was a racist and never changed. As a teenager, Anon 1 wrote:

    Clay Crouch wrote:

    To my point, I notice that the church Wade Burleson pastors has only two of the ten ministry staff positions filled by women – children’s pastor and nursery director. So

    To be fair to Wade if his church has congregational polity and not everyone is on board with women staff pastors (who would teach men) then it is not really his call.

    I got so mad at her

  188. @ Bridget:

    Well, I don’t know how Anon 1’s response got interjected there.

    Carrying on:

    . . . that I had to leave the room so I wouldn’t get in trouble for talking back to an older adult.

    I saw all kinds of nonsense between the races, between the age groups, between classes . . . between anyone different than anyone else really :( and I’ve seen the good as well :) It has all contributed to shaping who I am.

  189. @ Bridget: hatefulness is a horrible thing. I used to have to visit some elderly relatives who were extremely racist and antisemitic. It was always an ordeal, due to their frequent ugly comments. One of them seemed to believe that extreme Jim Crow was the best thing going. : (

  190. @ Bridget: it’s a sad fact that we humans always seem to want someone else to kick around, especially when we’re getting kicked a lot ourselves.

    And yet, many choose not to do that, to live in an entirely different way. Still, that choice doesn’t negate the pain and harm that they might have experienced themselves. They just refuse to let it define them. But some end up crushed and wounded in ways that can’t be repaired in this life, on this planet.

  191. Apologies to everyone for losing my cool a little while ago. Though the points I was attempting to make still stand.

    Best to all,
    numo

  192. Daisy–I do not think of you as a hyper egal. Those are the ones referring to homemaking as a mindless job for trained monkeys.

    We deal in antiques. There is a great deal more to dusting than just dragging a rag across a surface. That can seriously impair the value of some things. My husband makes good many repairing those mars, along with cleaning up the mess where someone did not know the difference between different polish bases and switched from one to another.

    There is more to textile care than knowing how to run a washer. But usually the textile subjects teach things like tailoring. Man, wish I had taken that! Men and women with those skills can save a bundle of money.

    As to the Duggars, anytime you google them and read the comments there are many very snarky ones about the number of children they have. That is as bad, imho, as snarky comments aimed at single women for being single. Shoot, one of my “old maid aunts” simply was having too much fun in life to want to marry. A man would have tied her down, not to mention kids.

    I believe we have to be the change we want. If we don’t want whatever our station in life is ridiculed, we need to treat others with the same respect. Something I don’t see the hyper versions of either complementarianism or egalitarianism doing.

    Most people, I believe, would support the middle ground.

  193. Hester–you are entitled for sure to your opinion of the Duggars and their theology. But just as surely, they are entitled to their opposite point of view. Are you suggesting some sort of censorship should be used for those we disagree with?

  194. numo wrote:

    And yet, many choose not to do that, to live in an entirely different way. Still, that choice doesn’t negate the pain and harm that they might have experienced themselves. They just refuse to let it define them. But some end up crushed and wounded in ways that can’t be repaired in this life, on this planet.

    Very important points, Numo. I’m wandering off-topic here, but it’s noteworthy that Jesus was not raised from the dead “as good as new”: he still carried the scars and if John’s vision of a lamb “looking as if it had been slain” in Revelation 5 is anything to go by, they are part of who Jesus himself is for all eternity.

    The good news about a God who is powerful and loving, set against the backdrop of a world in which suffering and injustice occur, only makes sense in the light of the resurrection of the dead. This was Paul’s constant hope, and he had good reason for it to be, because he didn’t exactly land the plum job on earth. You could quite safely have said of anywhere he lived that “it’s not that great of a house”. There’s a jarring contradiction when eternal salvation is preached by men who don’t seem to appreciate that the first will be last and the last, first.

  195. @ linda:

    Are you suggesting some sort of censorship should be used for those we disagree with?

    No. I think conservative Christians should be smart enough not to consume bad theology like militant fecundity, and the only way to change that is via education, i.e. ground-up efforts like this blog and others. I’d also add that the Duggars do not have a right to promotion, simply because they have a right to hold their opinion.

    As for the TV question, the Duggars are only one example of bad thinking being promoted via reality TV (see also Honey Boo Boo, Snake Salvation, etc.). TV networks are about the bottom line, and right now people seem to be very entertained by bad thinking. If they weren’t, most reality TV wouldn’t exist. I can’t stop the general public from consuming bad programming. I can, however, speak out against the ideas being passed off as positive, funny or entertaining in said programming.

  196. Daisy wrote:

    linda wrote:
    The second group I wish would hush up is the hyper egals. There is absolutely nothing wrong if a woman chooses to be a full time homemaker. Nothing wrong in getting a degree in homemaking so she can do the job well.
    Yo’re getting Christian egalitarians confused with secular feminists on that score.
    I did take a few basic home ec. type courses in junior high, but I’m afraid that other homemaking skills don’t really need formal education, no.
    Your parent might need to give you a brief explanation of how to use the laundry machine (when you’re 10 – 15 years old), you might need a cooking class, but I don’t see where it takes a lot of study to know how to run a rag across a dusty table top or mop a floor.
    I learned how to bake cookies from reading the recipe on the chocolate chip package when I was around 14 years old.

    I’d say it’s radfems rather than secular feminists. The vast majority of feminists don’t have any issues at all with anyone – male or female – choosing to be a homemaker or stay at home parent. Radical feminists are a different breed, but fortunately a small (if sometimes vocal) group.
    At the same time, it still really rubs me the wrong way that courses in homemaking could be called a degree. I am completely and utterly biased on this because of my own family and educational background, but I just don’t see homemaking courses as being on par with a three or four year degree. Skills such as cooking, balancing a budget, etc, are hugely important, but they’re life skills which I see as something different to a post-school degree – a degree is something you need to qualify for and is by nature exclusionary, life skills are things that you learn, but are (ideally) inclusive and for everyone.

  197. @ linda:

    We deal in antiques. There is a great deal more to dusting than just dragging a rag across a surface. That can seriously impair the value of some things. My husband makes good many repairing those mars, along with cleaning up the mess where someone did not know the difference between different polish bases and switched from one to another. There is more to textile care than knowing how to run a washer. But usually the textile subjects teach things like tailoring.

    You are right here, of course, though I’d be curious to know if they actually teach these things in the homemaking degree being referred to. I’d also want to know if male students would be admitted to the program.

  198. @ Anon 1:

    Just read that post on the “shrine to the conservative resurgence”. Pardon me while I vomit…

    These so-called leaders are insufferable. They can’t even wait until they’re in the ground to become a part of history — they have to see themselves immortalized NOW.

    Glad most of the comments on that article reflect the same disgust.

  199. Anon 1 wrote:

    BUT, as these young grads went out to churches the big issue was a salary large enough to support them and their new family so the wife does not have to work. But, most of the women in the church had to work—the very same ones who they expected to support them!

    Oh the irony of the SBC

    This drives me crazy! Wouldn’t it be great if those young pastors’ wives had degrees in homemaking? That way they can shame the working (less spiritual) women by demonstrating “biblical womanhood” all while living off their tithe money!

  200. @ burntnorton:

    You seem to think I am unaware of the abuse and intolerance carried out and perpetuated by Catholics. These are individuals who are responsible for these sins. It is not nor has it ever been Church teaching to hurt women.

    Don’t believe everything you read about the Catholic Church in the newspaper. Read critically. I’m well aware of the child abuse (most of which took place before I was born), the issue of abortion (the case in Ireland was not quite what the papers made it out to be) and the child abuse victim in South America (the child was NEVER and WILL NEVER be held in anyway responsible for the choices the adults in her life made about her).

    I know I can’t convince you because you have already made up your mind about the Catholic Church and its members. Thing is, all I was pointing out was CHURCH TEACHING which is what we are looking at when we look at Mohler and Patterson and Piper and their teaching. Church Teaching has existed since Jesus. Mohler and all the other fruitcakes basically invented a belief system that makes them and their male followers dictators and despots.

    I understand and accept the teaching of the Catholic Church because it is in no way suppresses me or confines me. These “rules” are there to protect me not hurt me. I have lived them and will continue to live them because I find them freeing, not constraining. I have dignity and worth as a child of God and a follower of Jesus that I have not seen expressed or taught elsewhere. As a woman in the Catholic Church, I feel safer and am more respected and treated with care and kindness and as a distinct person who has her own unique talents and skills I can bring to the table and am encouraged to.

    I can’t speak for or to other Christian churches and their views on women. But for me, I will stay Catholic. And I know what I have gotten myself into.

  201. Pacbox wrote:

    As a woman in the Catholic Church, I feel safer and am more respected and treated with care and kindness and as a distinct person who has her own unique talents and skills I can bring to the table and am encouraged to.

    We wore uniforms and nylon stockings underneath were a must. We were forbidden to go to the local coke shop after school because it was across the street from the boy’s high school. More than once, the nuns came to the shop looking for any girls who may have disobeyed, but the shop owners used to hide us in the basement.

    If you didn’t go to mass on Sundays, a written notice from parents was required. I was taken to the principals office where I was questioned about my reasons for associating with girls of a different ethnic persuasion.

    When I asked a question in religion class, I was told to sit down and not question the faith. The bishop turned the heat off in gym when we played basketball as he didn’t think girls should play basketball.

    I could go on and on, but many of those things changed over the years which made me question the teachings even more. We “had” to believe in purgatory, confession to a priest, the saints, the assumption of Mary, the virginity of Mary, etc. and then later some of the teachings weren’t mandatory to believe.

    My brothers also attended catholic schools and frequently witnessed pretty violent beatings on a bare backside by priests.

    Of course I love catholics (most of my family is still catholic) but in all good conscience cannot say I respect many of their teachings or methods of discipline meant to humiliate.

    I apologize if I offended anyone; that was not my intent. But rather to show that not everyone experiences protection and love for the catholic faith. I hope things have changed since the 50’s and 60’s as I don’t have the fondest memories of that era as a catholic.

  202. I neglected to add this to the post above.

    Well, I must come from a different generation of catholics than what I’m hearing here. Having attended 13 yrs. of education in parochial schools, looking back, I’d been taught some very strange doctrine with no apparent scriptural basis. As a teen, I actually put stones inside my shoes and offered that discomfort as reparation for the poor souls in purgatory. We were not allowed to sing “Away in a Manger” during the Christmas season because it was written by Martin Luther. While we were forbidden to watch Billy Graham on TV, my two aunts (who were nuns) went home from school to watch their favorite preacher.

    We were not allowed so much as a drop of water prior to receiving communion on Sundays having fasted from midnight from food or water. It’s my understanding that that mandate has since changed. We had to wear veils to church or a Kleenex if we forgot it.

    Again, my intent is to show that no one faith has a corner on abuse or dictator-type authorities.

  203. “Paige Patterson being appointed to the trustees is proof positive that women will not be welcome in the academic environment unless they teach homemaking.”

    Ugh. I honestly thought you were using hyperbole until I realized that, no, no… actually that is a “thing.” Homemaking as a major. And it is only open to women. Shame on them and shame on anyone who supports them by giving them money.

    Legality question here: are they allowed to deny tenure to female faculty members if there is no rule on the books that they only allow males? Is there no ground to sue?

  204. @ dee:

    Thanks Dee. Anytime the Catholic Church comes up in a post or a news story or what not, I cringe because it invariably ends up with commenters who bring up the child abuse scandals and juat lots of hate spewing forth by people who almost always have no knowlege of the Catholic Church or what her teachings actually are. It can hurt to read atuff about my own family (the Catholic Church and her members are my family and I theirs as we are all members of the same Body of Christ, as are you Dee). It also leads to people telling me that now that I now the flaws of Her members I should leave and find a “real” church to join and “really” truly get to know Jesus. That’s the part that really hurts, that I must be so stupid to be Catholic and that if I only knew better I would become a “real” Christian and then I would be a “real person” otherwise I’m just too stupid and not fit to live.

    Sorry, I had to say that, especially that last part but I’ve had to deal with that before. You , for which I am grateful, have never done that or expressed that view. I was tears when I reading all the comments to catch up on, earlier.

    You should totally write about the Catholic view of women and singles and Mary, at least how the marginaluzation of Mary affects evangelicals view of women. As for thoe mention of abortion, contraception, and ordination (which tends to tie in Mary), those are the big three things people claim to have with the Catholic Church and why they won’t become Catholic. Well, more like sex and Mary.

    Most people think Natural Family Planning (NFP) means the old Rythem method. Rythum only counts in ballroom dancing and if you want to take up ballroom dancing, go for it. NFP actually covers multiple methods such as Creighton, Billings, Symtp-Thermo that measure a woman’s fertility using such indices as temperatire, cervix mucus, and other things. I’m not at all well versed in any method only that they exist, are easy to learn, and different methods can be used esoecially if a woman does not have a regular menatrual cycle. NFP can be used witn a contraceptive mentality but considering the work and communication and self-control involved(aupposedly, or so I’ve heard) I highly doubt it happens. It’s approved by the Church because it doesn’t fruatrate the marital act being open to life which is what happens with contraception. Basically, sex in marriage is understood to be both unitative and procreative. You can’t break these apart because mot only does it divorce the two aspects of the marritial embrace it also puts a barrier between the couple to be fully giving of themselve to the other. Sex then becomes an act of selfishness instead of an actbof selflessness. It also tells God that they don’t want to be part of His creativeness. By enagaing in sex and understanding that it can result in the creation of a new life, a child, God allows His creation to take part in His creation of new life.

    That’s why abortion and contraception are wrong and why the Catholic Church considers them an evil. They deny God as the Creator of life, the Creator of our life and our awesome part in His creation that He has granted us.

    Okay, I hope some of that helps. If you have any questions let me know. You have my email if you want to contact me privately.

  205. I really sympathize with the women at Cedarville. I am a woman who worked at a college. Most of my co-workers were men with stay-at-home wives and large families. There were few women in professional roles. Several times, male co-workers asked me when I was going to be pregnant.

    In the future, I want to work somewhere with more women in leadership. It’s hard to network or get increasing responsibility in your job if all your co-workers are male.

  206. @ Victorious:

    Sounds like you and your brothers has nuns and priests who should not have become nuns and priests let alone be let near children. And unfortunately, the 1940s-1970s were bad years in the Catholic Church in America. I’m sorry. Those were the decades of rampant child abuse, physical, sexual, spiritual, and mental all carried out by priests and sisters and brothers, like I said who should never have been permitted to become priests and religious. Unfortunately, there was a lot of pressure for boys to become priests, and educational stands for teaxhers in Catholic schools were pretty much non-existent. Sisters were forced into teaching when they were definitelt not meant to be teachers.

    You are right. Things have changed largely due to societal changes and to the abuse you and your siblings experienced. Unfortunately, there are Catholic fundies (traddies or traditionaliats) who want to go back to that era for its supposed faithfulness anf ignoring the rampant abuse you you described. Thankfully, most Catholics don’t want what traddies want and most dioceses and schools have protections in place that protect chilsren. Background checks and training are now required to even volunteer ina parish, even if there is no interaction with children. Children, not just in Catholic schools and parishes, are taught that abuse is not acceptavle or allowed and they are not to tolerate or put up with it happening to them.

    Most Catholucs have learned and are learning. Some will never learn. And, I really am sorry that you and your brothers and friends and family were treated this way. It was wrong.

  207. The problem I am having with this trend is that it fails miserably to minster to single parent mothers who are becoming more and more prominent and HAVE TO WORK GUYS! DO YOU NOT GET THIS MINISTERS! You know they pulled out the day care out of Southwestern several years back so that single wives could help out while students PAID a lot of tuition as well. BUT I GUESS stained glass windows and buildings have taken precedent over the Body of Christ. Deb and Dee I am really tired of these neo-fundamentalists (basically constructivist conservatism) that have taken over the seminaries. Constructivist conservatism is basically one who wants a structural reformation of biblical laws and now heart and soul one. I deacon friend of mine once said of one at his church is that his pastor was good at sermons but really not that good of a pastor. This has been a mere academic pursuit in reforming that end up bullying the truth into organizations and actually teach a form of replacement theology (like replacing Mal 3:10 tithing as the tax to the Temple government in Israel to their own congregations). But nooo….. we got to tell about the resurgence of conservativism in the stained glass windows, PLEASE. I can tell you in hearing several sermons out of the mouth of Patterson is that his basic understanding of the Bible fails miserably on understanding Jewish contextualization of the Gospels, tithing as it relates to the Temple ONLY and application of the Torah on rulings that can exist outside of an assembly, not to mention about other Jewish rulings that can call for a wife to divorce her husband. Where is the CALL of Revival on that? Where is the Resurgence OUTSIDE and influencing others? Cal Thomas said it best reformation is a BOTTOM UP Process NOT a TOP down approach because it oppresses many and is what Christ warns about in Matthew 23 about NOT LIFTING A FINGER!

  208. Sorry about some misspelling and quick writting

    “You know they pulled out the day care out of Southwestern several years back. Wives were helping out working while their husbands, the students PAID a lot of tuition as well.”

    “Constructivist conservatism is basically one who wants a structural reformation of biblical laws and not a heart and soul one. A deacon friend of mine once said of one at his church is that his pastor was good at sermons but really not that good of a pastor. This has been a mere academic pursuit in reforming that end up bullying the truth into organizations and onto people and also actually teach a form of replacement theology (like replacing Mal 3:10 tithing as the tax to the Temple government in Israel to their own congregations).”

  209. Thank you, Pacbox. I’m happy to know things have changed in some areas as a safeguard against abuse. I’ve no ill-feelings as, believe it or not, very strict rules and treatment were the norm and most times we didn’t recognize it as abuse. Strange how abuse can become the norm in one’s life!

  210. @ Hester: most of those skills fall under the conservation/preservation heading, and are taught to men and women who study for degrees in art, textile etc. conservation and restoration. Lots of men are conservators, though most of the textile specialists I know of are women.

  211. @ Victorious:
    You are welcome. Like I said, it is those from those years who have made me and others safer. Not just in the Church but in American society as well. I am grateful that there are laws meant to protect people from those kinds of abuse. Now we just need people not to commit or cover up or encourage or support abuse in any form. We still have work to do.

    While it may have been the norm, does not mean it was not wrong.

  212. And Victorious, I understand how abuse can be considered “normal.” I grew up being abused by my mother thinking what she did to me every mother did. What she did was abuse but I really didn’t grasp that until I was in my late 20s. It’s depressing that people think, because they haven’t yet learned otherwise, abuse is normal and okay and that they have to accept it. I just wish abuse didn’t happen atll but until we become perfect people will sin and choose to abuse. (Sorry, had to finish dinner before it got too cold)

    I did want to mention, in general, that we now know abuse has effects that can continue for decades, for some victims of abuse. Type of abuse does not matter. I say this because I’m dealing with these effects myself and have brought it up before. As have many others here, as has the blog itself with its purpose to expose. Too many, as exposed here in previous posta, think abuse causes no linger or long lasting effects. Take Piper for example who advocates women staying with abusive husbands. Or the whole SGM debacle, especially with forcing a toddler to face her abuser and being forced to forgive. Even the criminal justice system understands that child victims should not be forced to confront their abusers. And there is now evidence that abuse changes the way the brain of a victim works along with the body. Victims of abuse, especially as the brain is developing in the womb and in infancy and toddlerhood, can end up scared sick because they have learned to fear so much. Sick in that later incidents of things,like heart disease, chronic illness, what not in people in their 30s, 40s, 50s are now being looked at as being influenced by trauma in the womb, as a baby, as a child. Life long effects. There is a book called “Scared Sick” that looks at how trauma does have more of a psychological impact than previously thought.

    This wasn’t pointed at you Victorious, I just used your response to me to springboard of of. You were probably already aware of some of this. I just wanted to share what I’ve learned through reading and what medicine and science and all have learned, are learning, and are studying/investigating. We all know our actions have consequences. Now we are learning that some of those consequences have deeper and more lasting effects than previously thought. The brain itself is fascinating in itself and how our survival of trauma affects the brain. I read alot so I learn fascinating things and I want to share all the fascinating things I learn.

  213. @ numo:

    most of those skills fall under the conservation/preservation heading, and are taught to men and women who study for degrees in art, textile etc. conservation and restoration.

    That’s what I suspected…which is why I also expect they’re not included in the homemaking degree.

  214. This is what Cedarville’s new president Thomas White, had to say at his induction.

    In addition to where he met Joy, Southeastern is also where White began to get interested in higher education. White said this was through Southeastern’s then-president, Paige Patterson.
    “I understood that he was a man who was bold for the Gospel and a man who was incredibly intelligent,” White said, “and he combined all of his passions and just pursued God with all of his heart. And that allowed me to open my eyes to the potentials for education, the potentials for influencing the next generation through education and what it looked like really to live a life that was Gospel-centered.”
    After Patterson – who just rejoined Cedarville’s board of trustees in May after being on the board from 2003-2011 – left Southeastern to be president of Southwestern, White eventually followed him and has been there since 2004.
    White will be joined at Cedarville in the fall by new Bible school dean Jason Lee, who also has been teaching at Southwestern. But White said Patterson, Lee and him all coming to Cedarville this year is purely coincidence. (Taken from Cedars online).

    Coincidence? Of course it is.

  215. Casey wrote:

    Where is the CALL of Revival on that? Where is the Resurgence OUTSIDE and influencing others? Cal Thomas said it best reformation is a BOTTOM UP Process NOT a TOP down approach because it oppresses many and is what Christ warns about in Matthew 23 about NOT LIFTING A FINGER!

    Casey, Right! They are out of touch with the problems. They don’t understand the factors in the lives of single parents, or anyone else who doesn’t fit the Gold Standard of Evangelicalism. Their solution is: Shape up and try harder. No self-reflection, no awareness of data, no investigation, no listening, no empathy, no understanding of the situation…and therefore no reform or solutions. And attitudes and systems need to be revised in order to embrace divorcees and single parents as full members of the church.

    Now that nearly 1-in-3 people who’ve ever been married has gone through a divorce, the demographics are far different than our grandparents’ Christianity. Time for a change. I agree with Cal Thomas on this one.

  216. @ Pacbox:
    On your second point, Catholic teaching has changed considerably over the years on gender and other issues. You should read some of what the Church had to say on secular democracies in the 19th century. But more fundamentally, I don’t think you can draw a brightline between teaching and practice. The practices I described weren’t isolated errors or abuses by individual clergy or Catholics. They were widespread, open, and, in many cases, the official policy of the Church. When the pope, on announcing Maria Goretti’s cannonization, actually explicitly uses her story to exhort young people to resist assaults on their chastity (remember, this was in the context of a rape victim who was murdered resisting), it’s hard to argue that misogyny wasn’t a major problem throughout the Catholic church.And I don’t want to derail into an abortion debate, but the Irish and Latin American cases do reveal how the church’s embrace of extreme anti abortion ideology and advocacy for laws that don’t provide exceptions, hurts women. In the Irish case, I’m as familiar as any member of the public, having read the available official reports. An abortion would have saved her life by preventing sepsis or (if they had provided it at the first sign of sepsis) allowing effective treatment for it. That’s one of the reasons doctors offer abortions to miscarrying women and recommend them when any complications arise during the miscarriage or when the miscarriage takes too long.

    But, again, my point isn’t that the Catholic church is worse than, say, the SBC, but that it had and continues to have a misogyny problem.

    And please understand that many of us disagree with the Catholic church not out of animus or misunderstanding, but because we have studied the issues and documents and just don’t find them persuasive or appealing.

  217. Pam wrote:

    At the same time, it still really rubs me the wrong way that courses in homemaking could be called a degree.

    It seems like a really weird thing for someone to pay for. I can cook, and enjoy it tremendously. I know the value of a good chef’s knife and tellicherry peppercorns. And I learned it all the old fashioned way. Now, there are plenty of young women who just don’t have these skills, but how ridiculous is it to pay for years of schooling to learn this stuff?

  218. In how Dee and Deb are addressing this Baptist so called resurgence know that in the 1920’s Lutherans in Germany also thought they were doing the same thing. The symbol of the white cross was placed in the middle of the Nazi symbol. If over 80% of Jews identify with a liberal party don’t you think that American conservative Chistianity is missing something in their approach? I got on my Facebook yesterday and I got to reading about how Sarah Silverman, a Jewist actor, , is a reprobate in her comments about Christian and Christianity. One comment bashing, next bashing, next line bashing. My gosh let us think about how to reach others.

  219. This course also doesn’t look desperately rigorous, does it?:

    It will offer a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration in homemaking. The program is only open to women.

    Coursework will include seven hours of nutrition and meal preparation, seven hours of textile design and “clothing construction,” three hours of general homemaking, three hours on “the value of a child,” and three hours on the “biblical model for the home and family.”

    Seminary officials say the main focus of the courses is on hospitality in the home — teaching women interior design as well as how to sew and cook. Women also study children’s spiritual, physical and emotional development.

    I did ten times more cooking than that at 15/16 to pass my O Level in Food & Nutrition, let alone these days where I’m booked on a training course in Child Development this year that has 14 hours over 2 days. And that’s just a normal professional development basic level course…It just all looks like a Mickey Mouse pretendy-degree to make the little women feel affirmed.

  220. There was a lot written on the homemaking degree a few years back on blogs. The cost of setting up the kitchens and other homemaking type needs was pretty high. So, what are the numbers enrolled in that program? When looking at this overall a few years back, folks pointed out how SWBTS had declined sharply in enrollment.

    And to look at this more deeply, these institutions were chartered for seminary education not for undergrad degrees. If not for them adding Boyce college, the undergrad college at SBTS, their numbers would show a sharp decline, too. In other words, they found they had to get them young.

    As to the stained glass window project at SWBTS, it tells me all I need to know about the Conservative Resurgence and what it was really all about.

  221. To tie this all together, what I wrote above is what the Cedarville students and faculty can expect. Patterson does not just “sit” on a board. He will change it for his own glory and probably profit from it. He always profits in some way. He has been making bank off SBC institutions for years. Your institution is forever changed.

    Female students should bone up on his dealings with the pervert pastor, Darryl Gilyard who ended up serving time. But not before Patterson tried to protect him from his victims who started speaking out. In other words, Patterson did not care about the victims and even rebuked them for speaking up. He told them they needed 3 witnesses against an elder! For a pervert! That is how bad it is with Patterson.

    And you can read about the Sheri Klouda issue and how deceptive Patterson was on that one. Even getting male students to say how offended they were to have to listen to a female prof teach them Hebrew. Oh yes, Patterson just had to do something about that. And this was after telling the faculty when he came that all their jobs were safe. The man is despicable.

    But he has a “soft heart”. Right.

  222. dee wrote:

    This is one of the subjects that I plan to explore with Fr. Ochs. I have heard the Catholics do the single thing so much better.

    It’s at least not despised, and it can be seen as a calling. But you have to remain celibate. However, with the overwhelming influence of evangelical Protestantism seeping into various aspects of Catholic practice over the decades, familyolatry to the detriment of singles has gotten into certain pockets of American Catholicism as well. (This is what I’ve picked up from my on-again, off-again boyfriend, who is Catholic and, obviously, single.)

  223. Nancy wrote:

    The issue as to whether and/or to what extent the federal government should be involved in the Cedarville issue should be considered carefully. We already have the feds trying to force the catholics to furnish contraceptives as part of employee health insurance benefits. Regardless of what one thinks about contraception or fecundity, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of such? Similarly, regardless of what one thinks about female theologians in private colleges, is that OK for the feds to be the determiners of the question? Once we go down the road of “I can force you to do it my way” in the area of faith and faith-related practice have we opened up the proverbial can of worms?

    OK, this is where the rubber meets the road for me. I don’t want my tax dollars going to fund schools where sexism is ingrained in custom and practice. Period, end of story. And it’s not like this isn’t the first time this type of situation has happened. Bob Jones “University” was in and out of court throughout the 1970s and until 1982 over the loss of its IRS tax exemption because it discriminated against African-Americans. The Supreme Court upheld the loss of the tax exemption, saying the IRS could do that as part of a larger public policy to not support discrimination. I think the same thing would apply here. While I do not believe Cedarville will lose its tax exemption, I do think Cedarville will lose its ability to accept funds from students in the form of federally-backed tuition loans.

    As for the bit about Catholics being forced to accept contraception, this is a slippery slope we should not be wanting to slide down AT ALL. Where does it stop? With the Jehovah’s Witness business owner who insists his employees’ insurance doesn’t cover blood and blood products? What about the Christian Science business owner who only wants Christian Science practicioners covered? The Pentecostal who believes only in prayer and anointing with oil? And I would bet money that these Catholics and others who want to exclude birth control have absolutely no problem with the Viagra and Cialis pills of the world, to say nothing of the flood of low testosterone commercials on television. (Seriously, I watched a lot of sports with Dad yesterday and *blink* wow. What I came away with was that the stuff was dangerous to women and children.)

    I work for an evil too big to fail bank, and this is one of those times when I’m glad I do, because my amoral employer leaves it up to my personal conscience as to whether I’m going to use the prescription drug benefit to buy birth control pills. I cannot see why these businesses (for example, Hobby Lobby) can’t leave it up to the consciences of their employees. The employer is not paying for the insurance directly in any case. *shakes head*

  224. Lambda wrote:

    n the future, I want to work somewhere with more women in leadership.

    Hanging with schools affiliated, either by school or by from where they draw their leaders, SWBTS, SBTS, etc. means you will be seeing fewer and fewer women.

  225. Anon 1 wrote:

    Female students should bone up on his dealings with the pervert pastor, Darryl Gilyard who ended up serving time. But not before Patterson tried to protect him from his victims who started speaking out. In other words, Patterson did not care about the victims and even rebuked them for speaking up. He told them they needed 3 witnesses against an elder! For a pervert! That is how bad it is with Patterson.

    Note that there is an ongoing federal investigation at Cedarville. Now, I wonder how the school would feel if someone was raped on campus and reported it. i wonder if Patterson might advise them to use the Gilyard approach. hmmm….

  226. The problem with the church is that women are seen as the Other.

    God is described in explicitly male terms in the Bible (with rare exceptions). God is described as “He” in the creeds. (I know Baptists don’t say the creeds in church, but their claim to orthodox legitimacy is ascribing to them.) The Christian God’s incarnation is *male*.

    When you hear God described in human pronouns always as “He,” “Him,” and “His,” when you worship an incarnated deity who is very firmly male, when your leaders come stark staring unglued over the possibility of even describing deity in feminine terms at any point (even when the terms ARE feminine), these are all the characteristics of othering an entire gender. What’s happening at Cedarville is only an overt example of what happens every moment of every day in the Christian world as the creeds are said and prayers are read and sermons are preached and women hear how we are not in the image of God because we are she (very firmly lower-case she), not He. Men do not hear the same thing. They hear how they are in the image of God because they share the same gender as God and God was incarnated as a man.

    When I finally came to the conclusion that I couldn’t keep lying to myself about the historical reality of Jesus as a human being who was later made into God by his grateful followers, it was agonizing. It still hurts. But even if the historical issues weren’t a problem, I’d still walk away because I am tired of being othered in the one place where I should be accepted for who I am–which is very firmly female.

    P.S.: In any case, the church does a horrible job dealing with gender issues overall. One of my friends lives in Alabama and is in the process of transitioning from male to female. I’ll be honest, I don’t understand why she’d want to become female because I can’t see myself being male, but I support her because I’ve seen what agonies she’s gone through over the years. However, I can just about guarantee that there would be very few churches willing to accept my friend just as she is, and I don’t think she’s including faith as part of her journey.

  227. dee wrote:

    Note that there is an ongoing federal investigation at Cedarville. Now, I wonder how the school would feel if someone was raped on campus and reported it. i wonder if Patterson might advise them to use the Gilyard approach.

    Or order her stoned as a scantily-dressed Jezebel whore.

  228. dee wrote:

    Hester wrote:

    I’d also want to know if male students would be admitted to the program.

    No

    Of course not. It’s Wimmen’s Work.

  229. Pacbox wrote:

    You are right. Things have changed largely due to societal changes and to the abuse you and your siblings experienced. Unfortunately, there are Catholic fundies (traddies or traditionaliats) who want to go back to that era for its supposed faithfulness anf ignoring the rampant abuse you you described.

    How does this differ from Evangelicals trying to Take Back America and going back to the Godly Golden Age of the Fifties? Except for Hail Marys and Rosaries?

    Incidentally, a main characteristic of a Trad is obsession with the Tridentine Latin Mass. Then you get the fringe for whom every Pope since Pius XII is an Apostate Antipope. Beyond that, you get the REAL flakes.

    Come to think of it, the Tridentine Latin Mass dates back to the Reformation Wars. Are we seeing the Catholic version of Reformation Wars Without End, Amen?

  230. Anon 1 wrote:

    To tie this all together, what I wrote above is what the Cedarville students and faculty can expect. Patterson does not just “sit” on a board. He will change it for his own glory and probably profit from it. He always profits in some way. He has been making bank off SBC institutions for years. Your institution is forever changed.
    Female students should bone up on his dealings with the pervert pastor, Darryl Gilyard who ended up serving time. But not before Patterson tried to protect him from his victims who started speaking out. In other words, Patterson did not care about the victims and even rebuked them for speaking up. He told them they needed 3 witnesses against an elder! For a pervert! That is how bad it is with Patterson.
    And you can read about the Sheri Klouda issue and how deceptive Patterson was on that one. Even getting male students to say how offended they were to have to listen to a female prof teach them Hebrew. Oh yes, Patterson just had to do something about that. And this was after telling the faculty when he came that all their jobs were safe. The man is despicable.
    But he has a “soft heart”. Right.

  231. We alumni tried sounding the alarm especially to women once we “connected the dots.” Most of us had no idea who Mr. Patterson was and were horrified once we started doing research. We wrote, we Facebooked, we emailed, we tweeted. But we were viewed as pesky naysayers who were hurting the “cause of Christ.” What people need to understand is HOW FAST this huge shift happened. Once President Brown resigned, it just snowballed. It all happened in little over a year. Other alum from other Christian universities please take note!

    I cannot believe what I am reading about homemaking classes. Honestly, I am not paying 25k for my daughters to learn at a university what they can learn at home. Quite frankly, this is a complete rip off. My parents paid 10k a year back in the 90s. That was a huge amount for college tuition and room and board. They sacrificed greatly because they thought I and the school were worth it. I received a degree that was credible anywhere and got jobs wherever I moved with my husband who was military at the time -very good paying jobs. I was also about to change and adapt careers with each move – that’s one of the positives of a college degree – it quite simply opens more doors which is what young women and men need because there are no guarantees in life. Things can change on a dime. Why on earth Cedarville is now in the business of limiting these choices is beyond me. And quite frankly,if a guy wants to study homemaking, what on earth is wrong with this?

    These gender roles were NEVER brought up when I was there. Never. Not in chapel. Not in classes. Not in every day conversation. Never. It just wasn’t a part of my education at all. That’s what is so upsetting to so many of us. The Southern Baptists took control in what appears to be a somewhat covert – I don’t know maybe it was overt I just wasn’t paying attention – manner, and the school where so many of us attended and supported financially has vanished.

  232. CC Alum wrote:

    What people need to understand is HOW FAST this huge shift happened. Once President Brown resigned, it just snowballed. It all happened in little over a year. Other alum from other Christian universities please take note!

    This is called A Coup.
    And a Coup is always followed by a Purge.

  233. CC Alum wrote:

    Why on earth Cedarville is now in the business of limiting these choices is beyond me.

    God Hath Said, of course. Biblical, Scriptural, and Gospelly.

    And quite frankly,if a guy wants to study homemaking, what on earth is wrong with this?

    Because God Hath Made guys to PENETRATE, COLONIZE, CONQUER, PLANT, not homemake like a Woman(TM). PENETRATE, COLONIZE, CONQUER, PLANT in such Biblically Manly ways as breeding quiverfulls of Sons, making War (DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA) against all The Heathen(TM), and Ruling with boots on necks by Divine Right. Men Rule, Gurlz Drool, God Hath Said.

    Doesn’t this sound like “The only goal of Power is POWER” with a Biblical Gospelly coat of paint? (And when you’re not the only one going after POWER, well, the Universe cannot have two Centers….)

  234. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    CC Alum wrote:
    What people need to understand is HOW FAST this huge shift happened. Once President Brown resigned, it just snowballed. It all happened in little over a year. Other alum from other Christian universities please take note!
    This is called A Coup.
    And a Coup is always followed by a Purge.

    ……….
    And after the purge, off to new conquests.

  235. @ dee & numo:

    That’s what I thought. Funny because at my mom’s high school in the ’70s, the boys had to take home economics class along with the girls. They didn’t have to take it as long, but it was required. Also funny how many things in homemaking degrees have been historically done by men, in large enough numbers that their occupational surnames (Taylor, Baker, Weaver, etc.) are extremely common not just in English, but in most European languages (i.e., Cuoco = Cook in Italian).

  236. Paige Patterson explains how the SBC was taken over by the conservatives in his ‘ Anatomy of a Reformation’.

    “The key was to organize the two groups of conservatives and edu- cate the intuitive conservatives in the methods available to effect change and of the necessity for doing so. The two groups of conservatives were estimated as comprising about 80 percent of Southern Baptists with the intuitive conservatives as the considerably larger group. Judge Pressler and I parted that evening, having covenanted together to study the convention, its bylaws, and the prospects of actually effecting theological renewal in the denomination.”

  237. I would love to have analysis of the situation from current Cedarville students, employees and alumni.

  238. CC Alum wrote:

    The Southern Baptists took control in what appears to be a somewhat covert – I don’t know maybe it was overt I just wasn’t paying attention – manner, and the school where so many of us attended and supported financially has vanished.

    Oh it was in the backroom works for a while. Patterson is famous for his backroom dealings over his career as he was always one step ahead of the firing ax.He is trying to keep up with Al Mohler. There is a big push to take over SBC state colleges and religious colleges for Calvinism and now we see this at Cedarville (and a few other places I won’t name which are SBC sponsored state colleges). So Patterson is getting in the game with his Gothardite brand of fundamentalism.

    Anyone planning to send their kid to a religious oriented college/university needs to think twice and check things very seriously. I have concerns for their future accreditation as they are ripe for takeover by either Neo Calvinists or the Gothardite Fundamentalists. They are desperate as they are losing the culture war and they know it. And they are competing with each other for market share.

  239. Victorious wrote:

    I apologize if I offended anyone; that was not my intent. But rather to show that not everyone experiences protection and love for the catholic faith. I hope things have changed since the 50′s and 60′s as I don’t have the fondest memories of that era as a catholic.

    We must have attended the same parish! Let me add the following –

    We were trained how to kneel in church using the wooden kneeler without any padding.
    We were given a “holy picture” with Mary on one side holding Jesus and on the other souls engulfed in flames as they burned in hell.
    We were told that eating meat on Friday was a sin. (12:01 AM Saturday morning is O.K., but 11:59 PM Friday is a sin)
    We were disciplined using corporeal punishment. A boy laughed in class because a squirrel was walking by the window; he got a yard stick, which splintered into many pieces, as it was cracked over is back.

  240. I had 7 kids. Starting at age 18. Their ages are from 41 to 19. They are all grown now and I have nothing to do. I’m trying to figure out what I can do, since I’m completely uneducated with no skills for interesting work. I’m only saying this because this is what they (Mohler and Patterson) are asking women to do. I don’t recommend this to anyone. Ever girl deserves to find out what she is capable of.

  241. Joe wrote:

    We were disciplined using corporeal punishment. A boy laughed in class because a squirrel was walking by the window; he got a yard stick, which splintered into many pieces, as it was cracked over is back.

    I’ve always wondered where that cruelty came from. It can’t be described as merely discipline. It was cruel discipline.

  242. Joy–oh my, there are so many things we empty nester moms can do. For starters, you can always get more education now. As for interesting things to do, at least in our town there are volunteer positions abounding at the schools, hospital, library, city hall, even the police department. And if you really enjoyed your years of child rearing, school volunteers are always needed as are foster parents, day care workers, and head start workers. One thing particularly needed today are safe, clean free day care providers for young mothers seeking an education or for single moms. And then there are more hobby things like mountaineering, painting, textile arts, mixed media, music, travel, writing….well, you get the idea.

    My mom was a full time homemaker, my mother in law worked outside the home at a career all the time she raised a family. Both found the empty nest equally difficult, and both had the same struggles with what to do with the last third of their lives.

    I hope you find the peace, joy, and downright fun I have.

  243. @ Victorious: i think it came from people with serious mental health issues who were placed in jobs for which they were completely unsuited. i also wonder how many of them were abused during childhood.

  244. linda wrote:

    Joy–oh my, there are so many things we empty nester moms can do. For starters, you can always get more education now. As for interesting things to do, at least in our town there are volunteer positions abounding at the schools, hospital, library, city hall, even the police department. And if you really enjoyed your years of child rearing, school volunteers are always needed as are foster parents

    I know,and I have a volunteer job at a hospital. And I have done other volunteer jobs. I was just trying to make a point!

  245. I haven’t had a chance to read through the entire thread, and this may be completely off topic, but I have two issues with the conversation about contraception – which means the pill – by Christian conservative men.

    First: the pill has more than one purpose. Not every woman that takes the pill takes it to prevent pregnancy. There are other reproductive issues that are usually first treated by putting the woman on a mild contraceptive. I can attest to this. I was 14 when I was put on the pill, and not because I was sexually active; rather, I had a legitimate medical reason for taking it. This is never discussed when this topic is raised. And the one woman who did raise it before a Congressional committee was called all manner of lewd names as a result.

    Secondly: It is hypocritical at best for these men to claim such high regard for Scripture and yet ignore that God made us male AND female – and that this creation is part of what makes us “image of God”. We reflect the image of God best when we are in community that includes and respects the contributions of both genders. To completely exclude one gender from the Christian academic enterprise is sinful because it does violence to that truth.

    “Your desire shall be for him and he shall rule over you.” It seems they are living up to that result of the fall in spades. It saddens my heart.

  246. Joy H wrote:

    I’m trying to figure out what I can do, since I’m completely uneducated with no skills for interesting work

    Do you like sales? Lack of education won’t hinder you there! Many women are great at it.

  247. @ CC Alum:
    2007 alum and I just want to say this is spot on. I was a youth ministry major and honestly found it much more challenging than any graduate classes I’ve taken since. I learned how to think critically, communicate, and learn at Cedarville. It changed my life for the better – at the time. I realize now that the time I was there (2002-2007) is no longer representative of the school, and it breaks my heart.

  248. @ Eagle:
    Alumni here, this article is exactly right. Poke around the internet a bit, search for “Let There Be Light.”

  249. Evie wrote:

    The Mahaney’s sent their son Chad to Cedarville. I don’t see evidence that he’s still in attendance there. Appears he’s living in Louisville working at a car dealership. Whether he’s graduated or not I can’t say, but given the Mahaney’s propensity to make a big deal out of things, I’d think there would have been pictures posted on Facebook of the ceremony along with the follow up trip to Disneyworld or something lol
    Could it be the Mahaney’s pulled young Chad out and have been involved behind the scenes in some way with promoting the removal of women from teaching positions? Is Chad now safely living at home under the supervision of his Mom & Dad, safe from women who might exercise ungodly authority over him by teaching him in class at Cedarville?

    I think it has only been a few years since Chad graduated from high school so doubt he has graduated already.

    I just looked at Chad Mahaney’s Facebook page and it says he is working at Mitchell’s Fish Market which is actually a restaurant (from Googling the name). Maybe he works there as a waiter and god forbid he would have to take orders from women, especially a table that only has women at them. ;-) Not a good experience for a boy that needs to learn proper “biblical” roles. ;-)

    Before C.J. Mahaney’s “fall” I am sure C.J. could easily have gotten Chad some type of position working for SGM but apparently harder for C.J. to orchestrate these days.

    I would hope that they wouldn’t have interrupted Chad’s education as a way to make a statement about this school and the school having women professors but it really wouldn’t surprise me. Maybe at Cedarville Chad got himself in another situation with marijuana like he allegedly did at CLC when his dad was still SGM’s “pope” but in this case C.J. wasn’t able to cover for his son.

    This is what was alleged about the pot smoking incident:

    http://sguncensored.blogspot.com/2011/02/cj-mahaney-covering-his-sons-sin-and.html

    I can kind of see the point with their viewpoint on women and leadership with not wanting women to teach at the seminary level but certainly don’t understand doing this at the undergraduate level. What a sad situation and report here. It has been a while since I attended college but back then had female professors and they seemed to quite well and many times brought a needed perspective that I doubt most male professors could do.

  250. CC Alum wrote:

    Thank you for writing this. When word got out that the philosophy dept. was getting axed a small group of us alum reacted, trying to get the word out to others. Why? Because taking away a program that teaches logic and reasoning, is the first step of turning students searching for truth and knowledge into mere minions of one certain belief system – whatever that belief system may be.

    Very good point. A lot of these groups don’t want people that think for themselves but want “minions” who do things and accept what they are taught without questioning. You would see that Philosophy in Sovereign Grace Ministries when C.J. Mahaney was the group’s leader.

  251. So why is the SBC’s doctrine so mushy that they will allow Calvinists, but then women in the pulpit are given no such grace?

  252. Steve240 wrote:

    I can kind of see the point with their viewpoint on women and leadership with not wanting women to teach at the seminary level

    May I ask why you seem to agree with their viewpoint on women not teaching at the seminary level? Just curious.

  253. When its the 1930’s and we need the health of a good kind moral society its always the 1930s…..

  254. thethinline, I agree with what you said about male and female reflecting the image of God and that the best reflections happen when we work together in community, with mutual respect. Your comment about reflection of God’s image reminded me of a previous Neo Cal church we had been in, where the pastor went so far as to quote some Reformed author who had said that women should be considered as “indirect” reflections, since Eve was made from Adam. It also sounded as if the pastor was inferring that Eve’s choice to sin before Adam chose to, was related to the fact that she was made second. (as in second class?) Where is the logic in that?, not to mention changing the text. Old or new thinking, this stuff is spiritual poison.

  255. Extreme Gender Roles often lead to dysfunction and disharmony. Despite this being touted as “God’s way” the families I see who function well, don’t get too hung up on what is women’s work and men’s work. They look at their gifts, their situation, and they work as a team. They are respectful to each other. They are kind to each other. They are thoughtful of each other. Service, respect, and love are to flow from both spouses. When you focus on that’s my job/not my job, what tends to happen? When you tell someone they have authority over someone and you tell the other person their Godly duty is to “submit” what tends to happen?

  256. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t buy into “white privilege” thinking, that there is rampant racism everywhere, but because I am not black, I am just so blind to it.
    I was born in the 1970s. Grew up in the 1980s with, went to school, with black kids. Had black teachers, had some white teachers, too. Later had black co-workers.
    It was not an issue for them or for us. People got along. Skin color was not a big deal to anyone.

    It’s nice that you don’t buy into the concept of “white privilege” since you’re the recipient of it, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’ve read the back and forth between you and Numo. It’s interesting and some ways it seems you are talking past each other. Despite the fact that you’ve lived and worked with black people and had had very pleasant interactions does not mean there aren’t disparities in their treatment or how they live their lives. I grew up in Houston and went to fully integrated schools. I’ve still got stories. I could talk about how my father was stopped and questioned by the police in his own neighborhood because they didn’t think he belonged there. The neighborhood is majority black. I could tell you how my friend’s cousin was stopped and ultimately shot by the police for driving a stolen car – only the car was not stolen. It was his mother’s. During the confrontation with the police, she kept telling them the car was not stolen, it was registered in her name. They wouldn’t listen. I agree with you. No one is holding klan rallies in big cities and marching through downtown. It’s a different time, and so much progress has been made. But to continually push back and state black and white people work and go to school together and I don’t see any problems shows a glaring blind spot. I would just encourage you to be open to other’s experiences. Many times you will find they are drastically different than your own.

  257. The Duggars came up earlier. I generally would say if you have the resources and you want a lot of kids, do what you want to do. However, if you have to rely on your older kids to care for your other kids, one could say that you’ve tapped out your resources and crossed over into selfish.

    There is theology behind what they’re doing and I don’t think they are up front about it. Saying that they think children are a blessing is not completely truthful. I would love for Jim Bob to explain militant fecundity to the viewers.

  258. We have to give it all up, not just part of it.

    Now we have black vs white. and male vs female, and rich vs poor, and north vs south, and native-born vs immigrant, and married vs single, and catholic vs protestant, and don’t forget democrat vs republican as a “religious” commitment. And when that is not enough we split up even those groupings to have; for example: traditional catholic vs vatican II catholic and also conservative protestant vs progressive protestant. And then throw in charismatic vs non-charismatic as an independent variable, and away we go. And when that is not enough enmity and division we split up even those groups into, for instance, what one’s favorite bible translation might be. Hogwash.

    We have to give it all up. We have to quit having so many enemies, partly because I do not have enough “love” in me to “love” every “enemy” somebody tries to tell me I have. That will kill me trying to do that. It is easier to just have fewer “enemies.”

  259. The idea that women should have no role in the theological education of men is without Scriptural warrant. In looking at Acts 18:18-28 (Priscilla. Aquila. Apollos) Derek Thomas points out that Priscilla may well have understood the gospel better than her husband. He makes a more general point that a woman is not called on to be subject to every man but only to her husband. Yet they ran a house church together and Priscilla clearly taught Apollos without usurping Aquila’s role. Even the notable Baptist theologian Thomas Schreiner comments in his New Testament Theology that ” the gift of prophecy did not belong to men alone …..because the Spirit was poured out on both men and women.” And he cites the case of Priscilla and Aquila when he says that ” Nor is it the case that men are exempted from learning from women”

  260. Lola wrote:

    But to continually push back and state black and white people work and go to school together and I don’t see any problems shows a glaring blind spot. I would just encourage you to be open to other’s experiences. Many times you will find they are drastically different than your own.

    Sadly, this is way too true. It’s subtle but it’s pervasive. Studies continually show there there is discrimination in the housing and job markets. On a day-to-day level, you need to pay attention to the details to see it. Who get’s watched closely when they go into a department store? Who doesn’t get the pumps turned on for them at a gas station until they pay upfront? In these and other small daily events you will see African Americans treated differently. As far as law enforcement goes, the offence of DWB (driving while black) is no urban myth. African Americans, especially young males, have very high odds of being pulled over for any real or perceived violation (tailight out, etc.) and the more affluent the area the higher the likelihood. When driving through any racially diverse area, note the race of those being pulled over.

    We have such a long way to go in loving thy neighbor, but churches seem to ignore this fundamental commandment in their preaching in favor of their of their own pet doctrines that, in comparison, have so much less to do with being Christian, or, in the case of women, violating that commandment by creating another social underclass.

  261. @ Lola:
    Lola, I’ve been thinking about what I wrote yesterday re my neighbor and the influence of their grandmother on them (a Jamaican woman who was treated very badly by whites in her long history). I realized this morning that the frustration/weariness I feel is small compared to what all my neighbors deal with in larger culture, and I feel embarrassed.

    When the neighborhood kids visit, there are constant interjections of stories about how a white person was mean to them, and then side-long looks to see how I will respond. I have to establish with one little girl, again and again, how my long hair (old lady hair!) is just another kind of cool and certainly no better a cool than her natural hair.

    Three times in the last two years, boys have brought tales of a cousin, step-bro, and uncle who were shot, their eyes big with shock and incomprehension as they talked about what happened, and the funerals. One little guy (10 yrs old) cannot get the idea of guns out of his head and we talk about it every. single. time.

    Also, my other neighbors remain friendly and open in the way of good neighbors. So, it’s actually ok. I was just whining because I miss those who no longer appear—the boy is very good artistically and I felt useful/happy showing him my paints, etc, and teaching him how to use them all, sending him home with his projects, etc.

    Racism in Detroit is alive and well. The separation between the city, where I live, and the suburbs, makes it many times worse. Class divisions are entrenched. There are two suburbs where middle and upper-middle class blacks live. They also want little to do with the city even while they largely remain separated in enclaves. But between people in the suburbs, there is more relational equality give/take than for those who live in my neighborhood.

  262. Victorious wrote:

    Steve240 wrote:
    I can kind of see the point with their viewpoint on women and leadership with not wanting women to teach at the seminary level
    May I ask why you seem to agree with their viewpoint on women not teaching at the seminary level? Just curious.

    Groups like these believe that in the church structure women shouldn’t teach or exercise authority over men such as not being pastors or in leadership. With that being the case I can see why they wouldn’t want women teaching in seminary which could be setting a contradictory example.

    Again on the undergraduate level I don’t understand this position even with their beliefs about church leadership. I imagine the salaries they pay the professors aren’t that much so would be foolish to limit the possible candidates to around 50% of the population not to mention the current trend where a higher percentage of women are now getting college degrees. Also, whether they like it or not and as has been pointed out here, in the secular world chances are that those attending college will have a female boss at some time in their career and better get use to it.

    One other thought I have is that if this college is now going to such an extreme view on women maybe they should go all male. After all if they think that women shouldn’t be teachers maybe women shouldn’t be even getting undergraduate degrees. I am not saying I agree with doing this but just suggesting they fully practice their apparent thinking. Of course I doubt they would do that since it would mean losing potentially 50% or more of potential students.

  263. Steve240 wrote:

    I am not saying I agree with doing this but just suggesting they fully practice their apparent thinking.

    Thank you for your clarification, Steve.

  264. If human beings are superior to all other creatures because human beings were created after those creatures, why aren’t women superior to men because Eve was created after Adam?

  265. JeffT wrote:

    If human beings are superior to all other creatures because human beings were created after those creatures, why aren’t women superior to men because Eve was created after Adam?

    This reminds me of something cited by Steven Jay Gould regarding the history of science and Race, specifically Victorian-era Scientific Racism. (Gould wrote extensively on the history of science — including a lot about how Darwin was cited to prop up that Fundamental Law of Nature, White Supremacy.)

    At one point, neoteny (the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood) was touted as the True Sign of the Most Evolved (and thus Superior) human. Whites, of course, were more neotenous than anyone else. Until someone did the racial measurements (facial angle, skull shape, etc) and discovered that ASIANS (known at the time as “The Yellow Peril”) were MORE neotenous than Whites.

    Only one of the Ethnologists touting the Neoteny Theory had enough integrity to take his theory to the logical conclusion of the time’s Social Darwinism: The White Race was destined to become extinct, replaced by the more evolved Yellow Race. (I’m using the terminology of the time, including the Victorian definition of “evolution” as UPWARD Progress.)

    Every other Race Ethnologist suddenly modified their theory so that the Asians were TOO Neotenous to be More Evolved than Whites. As “Orientals” could not be superior to Whites (even though they scored higher on the neoteny measurement), so Eve cannot be superior to Adam (even though she was created last and thus superior in the Order of Creation theory).

  266. @ Nancy: no, I wasn’t talking about enemies, but about serious social problems that are still all too real. If loving one’s neighbor is about compassion and learning to see through the eyes of others, there is no “war” going on.

    I got angry because I care passionately about all of these issues, and am all too aware that there is *much* that I do not – and never will – understand. That is a hard lesson to learn, believe me, but not nearly as bad hard as it is for people who endure prejudicial actions every day.

  267. If Eve was taken from Adam, did that make Adam less than he had been before, seeing that he lost that part of himself which was differentiated into Eve?

  268. @ Lola: thank you for posting, and I am so sorry to hear about what happened to your family. I cannot speak firsthand, of course… But I have known folks with stories like yours.

    Much has changed, but there’s such a very long way to go… And fwiw, I totally agree about talking past each other plus the fact that the Klan doesn’t behave the poer and influence that it used to. That said, it is here, where I live, albeit underground. White supremacist groups are a frightening reality, in all parts of the country.

  269. Nancy wrote:

    If Eve was taken from Adam, did that make Adam less than he had been before, seeing that he lost that part of himself which was differentiated into Eve?

    I want my rib back! (“side” actually if we all want to be ‘Biblically correct’)

  270. Nancy wrote:

    If Eve was taken from Adam, did that make Adam less than he had been before, seeing that he lost that part of himself which was differentiated into Eve?

    I believe that Eve was the result of something that changed in Adam. God continually said “it was good” following every process of design. All of a sudden, we find something that was “not good.” That something (in my opinion) was Adam’s changing. I believe he was neglecting some of the characteristics and virtues he was created with and God knew he needed those valuable qualities assimilated into his being. He formed Eve as a visible reminder of those characteristics/virtues he was ignoring and fashioned her in such a way that Adam would not ignore them.

    The naming of the animals evidently confirmed to God the need for help for Adam as He formed Eve afterward.

    Far fetched?

  271. Victorious wrote:

    Nancy wrote:
    If Eve was taken from Adam, did that make Adam less than he had been before, seeing that he lost that part of himself which was differentiated into Eve?
    I believe that Eve was the result of something that changed in Adam. God continually said “it was good” following every process of design. All of a sudden, we find something that was “not good.” That something (in my opinion) was Adam’s changing. I believe he was neglecting some of the characteristics and virtues he was created with and God knew he needed those valuable qualities assimilated into his being. He formed Eve as a visible reminder of those characteristics/virtues he was ignoring and fashioned her in such a way that Adam would not ignore them.
    The naming of the animals evidently confirmed to God the need for help for Adam as He formed Eve afterward.
    Far fetched?

    I think you may be on to something there

  272. JeffT wrote:

    I think you may be on to something there

    I can’t take credit for the perspective. I read it in Kathryn Bushnell’s book years ago and never forgot it. “God’s Word to Women.”

  273. btw Bushnell also notes that the correct interpretation of “not good for the man to be alone” is that alone means “separated.” She asks who was Adam separated from other than God Himself?

    Here’s the Hebrew for “alone”

    H905
    בּד
    bad (94c); from H909; separation, a part: – addition *(1), alone (58), alone *(4), apart (2)

  274. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    “Despicable human beings”?

    Yes I noticed this as well. All power to Wade for trying to reign this kind of talk in, and get some perspective on it.

    There is a phrase in James that I have often needed in church situations. It’s not my life verse, but in view of many comments here I commend it as helpful:

    … the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. James 1 : 20.

    It follows the phrase that we should be ‘quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger’.

    People like me who still genuinely believe pastoral teaching in Church is restricted to men and those here (the majority) who passionately believe this not to be the case do not adorn the doctrine of Christ by emoting rather than arguing reasonably and graciously – yet forcibly if necessary – for our position.

    It means discussing the text, and the text alone.

    A woman not giving a sermon on Sunday morning does not equate to the ‘oppression’ of one half of the human race or their denigration into being second class citizens. Well not in my experience it doesn’t. But an attitude problem towards Mohler & Co can be very bit as bad as those who do erroneously do women’s ministry down.

  275. @ Ken:

    Ken, from my perspective, you can say such things BECAUSE YOU ARE A MAN. You can easily have neutral discussions about such topics, since they do not personally affect you. You simply cannot know what kind of reaction you would have to the “NOT ALLOWED” or “CAN’T” or “UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS” unless you are a disciple of Jesus who is also a woman.

  276. @ Ken:

    God, including Jesus, was angry at times and used harsh words toward people in specific situations. It is possible to be angry and not sin (scripture encourages this). Is saying that someone is a despicable human being a sin? Do you know for a fact that these people are angry and in sin? Some of these people explained their perspectives to Wade.

    Wade has some enlightening teaching on women.

  277. Erik wrote:

    @ Ken:

    Ken, from my perspective, you can say such things BECAUSE YOU ARE A MAN. You can easily have neutral discussions about such topics, since they do not personally affect you. You simply cannot know what kind of reaction you would have to the “NOT ALLOWED” or “CAN’T” or “UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONS” unless you are a disciple of Jesus who is also a woman.

    Or, maybe Ken approves of all the abuse and shennanigans Mohler and Patterson have perpetuated over their careers? Who knows. Many who love titles feel that way in Christendom. I go with Jeff. And I think it is a GOOD thing to call out evil and abuse. (some of the abuse is financial, too!) Charlatans is what I think they are.

  278. “People like me who still genuinely believe pastoral teaching in Church is restricted to men”

    What on earth is “pastoral” teaching? Junia was a female apostle (little a). You think that is a “non pastoral” situation?

  279. Ken wrote:

    A woman not giving a sermon on Sunday morning does not equate to the ‘oppression’ of one half of the human race or their denigration into being second class citizens

    With all due respect, Ken, it’s much, much more than a Sunday morning sermon that’s at stake here. Those teachings have all but silenced women in many areas of life/church/family. Oppression, denigration, marginalization, subjugation etc. all describe the effects to one’s soul. They are not edifying nor do they contribute to the growth and maturity of an individual.

  280. Ken wrote:

    Yes I noticed this as well. All power to Wade for trying to reign this kind of talk in, and get some perspective on it.

    Yet another attempt to silence women from expressing their pain and anger?

  281. @ Ken:
    Ah, yes, the man telling the ladies they’re being too emotional and that they’d get so much farther if they just calmed down and discussed things rationaly. Like men. Bexause men don’t have emotions or, if they do, they have the magical ability to never let them affect they’re reasoning or behavior. That NEVER gets old.

    Also, what Eric said.

  282. Ken wrote:

    A woman not giving a sermon on Sunday morning does not equate to the ‘oppression’ of one half of the human race or their denigration into being second class citizens.

    -And not being able to teach at a seminary
    -And not being able to hold any position of authority in the church where men might be subject to that authority, carried by some to the secular workplace as well
    -and not being able to be a voting member of the church
    -And not being able to participate in the distribution of the elements as part of communion
    -And not being able to read scripture as part of worship
    -and not being able to say a prayer as part of worship
    -And being forced to submit to their husband’s control
    -and on, and on

    THAT is oppression, and it is despicable, as is one who practices these to the extremes as Mohler and Patterson and to call them out as being un-Christian with such a term is no more harsh than how Jesus called out the Pharisees at time and how Paul at times called out those who preached a false gospel.

  283. Ken wrote:

    A woman not giving a sermon on Sunday morning does not equate to the ‘oppression’ of one half of the human race or their denigration into being second class citizens.

    As Victorious said, it involves waaaaaay more than this.

    But even if it was just this, a woman being denied the use of her gifts and talents, if they are in this area of pastoral ministries, because of faulty Bible interpretation by men… this IS an oppression to the woman called thus.
    And to add insult to injury, some of those who hold your position would call this woman a liar, a fake, and/or deceived of the devil because in their world, women CAN’T be called to this position.
    Which is further oppression bordering on or fully engaged in bearing false witness against your sisters.

  284. @ Ken:
    Seneca and Ken agree? Who woulda thunk it?

    Ken, if you don’t know how to respond to “passionate” and “emoting”, why don’t you engage those commenters who disagreed while also being “reasonable” and “gracious” and full of “genuine belief”? Or is your fragile sense of superiority getting in the way?

    You write: “But an attitude problem towards Mohler & Co can be very bit as bad as those who do erroneously do women’s ministry down.”

    Well, hypothetically it “can” but certainly it hasn’t been on this thread so I have no idea why an honest person such as yourself would bring it up.

  285. burntnorton wrote:

    the man telling the ladies they’re being too emotional and that they’d get so much farther if they just calmed down and discussed things rationaly

    And you know, if did just try to calmly discuss this, it still wouldn’t be taken seriously. The woman would just get a little pat on the head, an “aren’t you cute”, then otherwise ignored.

    You don’t tear down oppressive regimes by calmly talking about them. In the history of mankind, that has never worked. All that works is a lot of loud protest (on the light side of things) or flat out violent revolution (on the heavier side).

    I’m not calling for violent revolution. But I am saying that nothing short of loud protest will even put a dent in this oppressive system and oppressive view of women.

  286. Mara wrote:

    But I am saying that nothing short of loud protest will even put a dent in this oppressive system and oppressive view of women.

    Amen, Mara! Remember Rosa Parks and those “Iron Jawed” women who were instrumental in affecting needed change.

  287. Mara wrote:

    because of faulty Bible interpretation by men

    Thought I’d back my comment up with an article that addresses this very real and troubling problem that the modern church faces.

    Faulty Bible interpretation, fueling bad doctrine is the source of this oppression against women in the church. And it needs to stop.
    Ken, you need to stop submitting to the bad teaching you hold to. It is oppressive to women and greatly hinders the witness of the church.

    http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=830

  288. Victorious wrote:

    Remember Rosa Parks and those “Iron Jawed” women who were instrumental in affecting needed change.

    Yes! those were exactly the situations that I was thinking of.

    Even M.L. King Jr.’s peaceful protest was LOUD. It was emotional. And, unfortunately, it involved bloodshed, even though it wasn’t the protestors who were violent.

  289. Ken,
    Have you ever stopped to consider your position is based upon genitalia alone? Not “spiritual” alone? Both sides have their biblical interpretations of the proof texts. One side has interpretation they use to teach women they are lesser in the Body of Christ. Of course they always say they we are equal, first. Sort of like the separate but equal that worked so well before. (sigh)

    Problem is the genitilia interpretation (phallocentristic Christianity) could be thought of as men who need a pecking order. Many humans need someone they are “over”. It makes them feel important.

  290. Ken –

    How do we do this –

    “It means discussing the text, and the text alone.”

    ‘What translation’ and ‘who’s interpretation’ will play into ANY discussion. What I have observed is that people who say this tend to function in thr discussion as “Let’s discuss what I believe the text means.”

  291. Ken wrote:

    It means discussing the text, and the text alone

    Speaking of discussing text “alone”…. The very one you quoted is directed to a “aner” if I’m not mistaken.

    anēr
    Thayer Definition:
    1) with reference to sex
    1a) of a male
    1b) of a husband
    1c) of a betrothed or future husband

  292. Ken wrote:

    A woman not giving a sermon on Sunday morning does not equate to the ‘oppression’ of one half of the human race or their denigration into being second class citizens. Well not in my experience it doesn’t.

    It is very good that you put, “Well not in my experience is doesn’t.”

    But we aren’t talking about the negative impact of sexism on your life and your experience. Of course sexism against women isn’t going to equate any sort of ‘oppression’ that you can feel because none of it is directed toward you. You are not the recipient of it. You were never the little girl sitting in the pew wondering why God favors men over women. It was nothing you ever had to think about because you, as a boy, were already ahead of any woman ever born. No one could tell you that you couldn’t be a pastor of give a sermon when you grew up. That “NO” never existed in your life.

    For any and every little girl who is paying attention, the extreme absence of women in the important positions of a church screams that God favors boys over girls. Just because you had no cause to hear it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. These are great big huge “NO”s that girls have had to live with that you will never understand.

    Yes, it is a good thing you added, “in my experience,” because your have never experienced this rejection that men claim God has for women.

  293. @ Ken:

    It means discussing the text, and the text alone

    All texts have contexts. Those have to be part of the discussion as well or we really aren’t being honest about the text itself. This applies to any text, not just the Bible. It’s how we understand that the word “gay” in the 18th century doesn’t mean “homosexual.” If we did not look at the context, we would anachronistically import our current meaning back into the text, which rarely leads to good results. So no, we can’t look at “the text alone” to find the true meaning. Maybe you meant the phrase “text alone” to include context, but if isn’t spelled out many will take it to eliminate context entirely (as you can see I did).

    I mean this as a general critique of your statement, not in reference to any comp vs. egal issues.

  294. @ Bunsen:

    I would love for Jim Bob to explain militant fecundity to the viewers.

    But then their ratings would plummet because the audience would suddenly realize the adorably large family is really plotting to help take over the world. :-)

  295. Ken wrote:

    It means discussing the text, and the text alone.

    Ken, I totally think that you are entitled to believe what you believe and I will defend you when I can. I do not agree with everything you say, but that is a separate issue. The remarks below are not directed at you. I have simply used your comment as a starting point for what I am about to say.

    Here is the defining issue in evangelicalism, sola scriptura. If one wants to take issue with evangelicals about some issue, then the only argument must be only (solely) a scriptural argument. Nothing else is an argument One may be fussing or complaining but that is not playing on the evangelical playing field if the argument is not scripture based.

    Specifically some things which are not argument: times have changed, you hurt me, you don’t understand how I feel, just think about it logically, the church used to say or do this or that, how can you say that, you are not being nice (or fair), God has called me (told me), my previous pastor said or my grandmother used to say or I read somewhere this or that, I am not a Greek scholar but…, you owe it to me to listen to me and take me seriously, the famous scholar or martyr in this or that past century said, I was raised (maybe Catholic) and we were taught…, I don’t see why, how can you say, you let your wife do it, you are only doing this because I am (single, old, young, whatever) and on and on. You get it.

    And what really does not work at all is to say that someone is a meanie or hateful or a bully or poorly educated or uses the wrong deodorant or whatever.

    Let me say why this is so.

    The kinds of comments as in the first paragraph immediately remove the speaker from any consideration of what he/she is saying by clearly showing that they do not adhere to sola scripture and therefore probably may not really be a Christian. The kinds of comments as in the second paragraph are considered to be persecution and just entrench the hearer in what they already believed, since their beliefs have caused the devil to oppose them through you.

    I am not accusing Ken of any of this, but his comment which I quoted is classical evangelicalism, and what I have said is very accurate in many many cases.

  296. Nancy wrote:

    The kinds of comments as in the first paragraph immediately remove the speaker from any consideration of what he/she is saying by clearly showing that they do not adhere to sola scripture and therefore probably may not really be a Christian.

    I’ve seen Sola Scriptura turn into “EES PARTY LINE, COMRADE!” too many times.

    The kinds of comments as in the second paragraph are considered to be persecution and just entrench the hearer in what they already believed, since their beliefs have caused the devil to oppose them through you.

    And thus reinforce the True Belief. Continuing the above Soviet-era terminology, substitute “the Dark Forces of Reactionary Capitalism and Colonialist Capitalist Imperialism” for the devil.

  297. Victorious wrote:

    . I read it in Kathryn Bushnell’s book years ago and never forgot it. “God’s Word to Women.”

    I guess I’ll be the pedantic prig here. It’s not Kathryn and it’s not Katherine, it’s ‘Katharine’. And yes I know the important thing is the value of her works and I heartily agree. And like Hypatia of Alexadria all those centuries ago, she could think rings around many of her male contemporaries.

  298. Patrice wrote:

    Racism in Detroit is alive and well. The separation between the city, where I live, and the suburbs, makes it many times worse. Class divisions are entrenched. There are two suburbs where middle and upper-middle class blacks live. They also want little to do with the city even while they largely remain separated in enclaves. But between people in the suburbs, there is more relational equality give/take than for those who live in my neighborhood.

    I think you’re onto something here Patrice. I’m also of the belief that ‘racism’ has more to do with socio-economic class than the monolithic bogeyman it has been made out to be.

  299. Muff Potter wrote:

    I guess I’ll be the pedantic prig here. It’s not Kathryn and it’s not Katherine, it’s ‘Katharine’

    lol… well, the front of my hard copy spells it Katherine. :)

  300. @ Muff Potter: Which goes nowhere as far as the way many well-off black people are spoken to/treated by others around them, white and not-so-white.

    The same is true of what many well-off, not-so-light-skinned people from East and South Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, etc. run into.

    I can’t deny that socio-economic factors are part of it, but it’s not the whole story. So much of it is about hating the “Other,” no matter who that “other” happens to be.

  301. Victorious wrote:

    lol… well, the front of my hard copy spells it Katherine.

    Hmmmm… this could develop into a sort of how many angels can dance on the head of pin type of thing… to which I think a better question would be: What are they dancing to?

    a) In the Mood by Glenn Miller and his orchestra

    b) Disco Inferno by the Trammps

    c) Madonna’s Vogue

    All in good fun Victorious, all in good fun! ===> (smiley face goes here)

  302. @ numo:

    Numes, we may not agree on all of the particulars and logistics of the racism chestnut, but there is one thing we can all agree upon. It doesn’t have to be this way.

  303. @ Muff Potter:

    The answer is both b) Disco Inferno by the Trammps and d) Play that Funky Music by Wild Cherry. And I wish I was there with ‘em.

  304. @ Muff Potter:
    ISTM, whenever we establish an “other”, a gap in our love is created, and eventually many “others” will fall into that gap: gender, race, sex, class, on and on.

    Both racism and classism are at work and they feed each other but are not the same thing.

    Someone upthread complained that we need fewer enemies because it’s impossible to love them all. Yes! If we would stop “otherizing”(fabricating enemies), there would be plenty enough love because it comes from the Holy Spirit. God IS love. It is only when we “otherize” and then try to layer Christian love over top of it, that we come up skinny because there is no blessing from God in it.

    IMO, when people “otherize”, they have no good reason to complain when their fabricated enemies complain against them. They cannot legitimately call persecution or hellfire or start lecturing about scripture. They made an enemy from thin air, and until they unmake it, they will have no satisfaction.

  305. This is so, so sad. I had a former pastor who went to Cedarville to teach Bible back in the mid-90’s’ and was not only demoted back around 2005-6, but forced out due to his theological stance on some vague issue relating to the doctrinal statement of the university. You can read about the debacle here: http://www.aaup.org/report/academic-freedom-and-tenure-cedarville-university

    It sounds like Cedarville can’t really make up its little mind what it is. Reminds me of Solomon writing in Ecclesiastes 12, “Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.” These guys seem to be making it up as they go. :-(

  306. @ Patrice:

    “If we would stop “otherizing”(fabricating enemies), there would be plenty enough love because it comes from the Holy Spirit. God IS love.

    …fabricated enemies …They made an enemy from thin air,…”
    +++++++++++++++

    This, in the Cedarville-no-women & the Russell-Moore-ERLC-no-women contexts, so totally reminds me of that scene in Toy Story when Woody knocks Buzz’s helmet open, exposing him to the “dangerous” alien environment. These patriocomps are terrified of women, the unclean things (breasts & all). Fabricated enemies, indeed (ridiculously so).

    Note to any woman who penetrates their protective bubble: watch demonstration below of the histrionics you can expect from such men:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djeKjBmi7w0

  307. “Anyone planning to send their kid to a religious oriented college/university needs to think twice and check things very seriously. I have concerns for their future accreditation as they are ripe for takeover by either Neo Calvinists or the Gothardite Fundamentalists.”

    It is a take-over, but Cal has been infiltrating for many years. The chapel pastor is influential, right? Observe who the chapel pastors have been. Are all students required to attend chapel? Hmmm.

    They have nursing accreditation there.

  308. This post is very helpful. Changes have been afoot for a while. I am quite concerned for what women & men are learning there. We are talking about the impressionable minds of our young people & how they will interact in their career fields.

    Gender inequality is NOT what we want our young people to learn at university.

    Neither do we want them to believe fate/unstoppable destiny is Christianity. The more that’s taught, the more Christian spiritual abuse blogs will be needed.

  309. @ elastigirl:
    Paige Patterson, God’s own space hero: “How dare you open a spaceman’s helmet on an uncharted planet? My eyeballs coulda been sucked from their sockets!”

    Elastigirl: “But still breathin’, aintcha, Paige baby? And yellin’, too. Not so bad, after all, see? Ahahahahah. Ahhhhhahahahahah. Now, who’s next?”

  310. @ KayJay:

    It blows my mind that a Christian University has ethical issues and treats people in such a way. How can Christians expect to engage the culture outside their world when so much corruption is happening in their midst.

  311. If Cedarville loses its accreditation what does that mean? If you are alumnus is your degree as useful as a toilet paper?

  312. @ Eagle:
    Roger that!
    They have lost the simplicity that is in Christ. His yoke is easy and His burden is light. I’m just so sorry for the students…everyone loses.

  313. @ burntnorton:
    Thank you for illustrating my point! Your post reads as though I am simply talking (down?) to the ladies, but if you had read my post a tad more carefully, I included myself in the admonition not to emote on this subject:

    “People like me who still genuinely believe pastoral teaching in Church is restricted to men AND those here (the majority) who passionately believe this not to be the case do not adorn the doctrine of Christ by emoting rather than arguing reasonably and graciously …”

    So perhaps I’m not so bad after all.

    There were so many replies to the post from others with whom I have already jousted probably enough on this subject (especially Mara – hope you are well) that I would like to concoct as brief a reply as possible later. The main point I really wanted to make though was the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.

  314.    __

    There is a push to keep women at home, out of the business place, church leadership, and even perpetrating academic gender discrimination, as well?

    hmmm…

    However,

    The noose is tightening,

    What?

    Women presently out-number men in obtaining college degrees, Yes?

    (fast forward…)

      Women will continue to start their own business’, magazines, newspapers, online presence, create houses of worship, build new schools, enter governmental and political office(s), with alarming frequency.

    You go, Girl!

    (grin)

    ha, ha, ha…

    …little minded men, wanking ‘their’ (discrimination) thing, ain’t gonna help um…

    4long.

    But they can try, try, try…

    Sopy

  315. Ken wrote:

    AND those here (the majority) who passionately believe this not to be the case do not adorn the doctrine of Christ by emoting rather than arguing reasonably and graciously …”

    Be careful on making judgements. Many read here who do not comment. They probably represent a broad perspective on this issue.

    What do you mean by “adorn the doctrine” of Christ? I just checked in Grudem’s Systematic Theology and there are many doctrines surrounding Christ.

    I have a different view. In our disagreements, we can be sure that He is going to save people all of all stripes and that speaks to the doctrine of grace since it is not by my might, power or my perfect doctrine.” That grace is what will cause all those through the ages to bow and worship at His love in spite of our theological differences.

  316. A Mom wrote:

    Gender inequality is NOT what we want our young people to learn at university.

    They are learning a lot about secondary doctrine at Cedarville, enough to continue the culture wars within the faith. I feel for the women at that school. i also feel for those who politics do not line up with the current administration.

  317. Daisy wrote:

    People are not marrying today, or not until their late twenties or much older.

    I often wondered whether people not marrying or delaying marriage is secular or also applies to Christians that have attended Christian colleges. I would like to believe that early marriages are more common, the marriage rate higher and the divorce rate much lower for graduates of Christian colleges, but I don’t know for sure. I would appreciate if you could suggest any websites (if you know of any) that keep such statistics by Christian college. Take Cedarville University as an example – what is the marriage age, marriage rate and divorce rate for its graduates? Is it that much different than the secular?

  318. Ken wrote:

    anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.

    The problem with you carelessly throwing this verse around is what you seem to imply. That since the anger of men don’t work the righteousness of God (with no context or other verses to balance this out) then people being angry is wrong, or a sin.

    And the problem with implying this, whether you mean to or not, is that you are basically saying that people don’t have the right to be angry. Or that any form of anger is wrong. Or that because this verse exists (in a vacuum apparently) any anger expressed here is sinful.

    There is another verse that we must add to the mix because the verse you are using and the way you are using it comes across like the silencing technics used in the abusive systems many of these people have left.

    The verse that needs to be included in this discussion is: Be angry yet do not sin. (Ephesians 4:26)

    It is not wrong for people to be angry over the oppression that they have suffered at that hands of those who claim to represent God. And it is not wrong for people to express such anger in places like these for themselves and/or for those still being oppressed.

    We ARE to be angry. But we are not to sin.
    Anger is actually a helpful emotion. It moves us from apathy to action.

    Wrong and sinful expressions of anger would be murder, assault, theft, vandalism, stalking, harassing, etc

    A more acceptable expression would be to speak against the words and actions of those who oppress others making people more aware so that those words and actions are exposed to the light. Expose wrong teaching and wrong doctrine and those who perpetuate it. Debate on public forums and allow those hurt to express anger over it.

    Ken, I’m pretty sure your aim was not to shut down and silence. But using the verse that you did with no other qualifying verses can come across that way to so many who have had such verses used against them in the past.

  319. @ Ken:
    Hi, Ken. Hope you are well also. I have a longer response stuck in moderation.
    I must have used some sort of “no no” word cause I didn’t link anything.

  320. __

    Individuals such as Page Patterson (for example) are apparently spreading a sick form of gender discrimination couched in flowery biblical terms, that can only further spread this detestable moral infestation to the SBC affiliated churches, and end in the further degrading, assault, and possible battery of women in the home.

    One only need look at records of abuse in the SGM affiliated churches to see where all this maleficent behavior and twisted policy is leading: the further abuse of women, and it’s cover-up by men possessing religious power.

  321. Mara wrote:

    Ken, I’m pretty sure your aim was not to shut down and silence

    Yes, you’re absolutely right. I didn’t have the rightness or otherwise of being angry in mind, rather that anger – and venting anger – in itself doesn’t change anything. Some of things some Christians say and do (e.g. in a Baptist church meeting!) can and should make you angry (autobiographical statement), but if this carries on after the sun has gone down (if you get my drift) in the end it only harms yourself. It doesn’t change what is wrong or introduce righteousness into the situation and it can if allowed make a bad situation worse.

    James 1 would make a good motto for Christian forums and church committee meetings :-) :

    19 Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, 20 for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

  322. So, if Dee approves, my general reply to so many posts, with the disclaimer that in keeping it as short as possible, it might sound angry and officious or too blunt. It’s not intended to and I am in a good mood!

    I do not approve of abuse, and it is silly to say so when you don’t know me.

    My ‘complementarianism’ is essentially confined to preaching and leadership, not the list of things Jeff noted. It stems from my current understanding of the NT, not some kind of gender hang-up.

    I quite deliberately said ‘in my experience’ as this comes from a church background with what used to be called ‘body’ or every member ministry, with equality if you like the norm and 1 Tim the exception. I didn’t notice any oppression and I am sure they would have said so if that were happening. One family I knew well Mrs set up and ran her own business once the children were beyond toddler stage. I’m not claiming my experience sets the norm, but not everything that is ‘complementarian’ is patriarchal let alone oppressive. A one-man band church limits women’s ministry far more than 1 Tim.

    This issue does affect me inasmuch as I have a wife and two daughters, and I do not want or expect them to be treated as second class. Same goes for all the various friends over the years in various churches and countries. (My wife attended a church for a while where headscarves were compulsory, so she reluctantly complied but wore one with ‘Tramp’ written on the front. You have got to love someone like that!) God can see the heart, whether a woman is really being rebellious or a man being a control-freak or vice versa.

    When talking about sticking the text in context of the NT alone on this, I mean doing that rather than speculation (often dressed up as psychology) about men believing this due to some inadequacy, desire for power, or similar character trait. That may be true of some, but motives are extremely difficult to diagnose.

    And Mara, as you mentioned this, I very much do know what rejection can be like. Men who assume the worst of your motives. You’re a trouble-maker, like your father before you. The left boot of fellowship. Rumour-mongers. (And I know what it is like for the rejection to be turned into acceptance and the right hand of fellowship as well.)

    But if I’ve learnt anything, it is that for me it is not safe to get into any church where a part of the bible – any part – is quietly dropped in order to keep the relationships all smooth and hunkydory. This is a sure recipe for deception and for things to go wrong.

  323. “My ‘complementarianism’ is essentially confined to preaching and leadership, not the list of things Jeff noted.”

    Ken, you’ve got me thinking. Which is a good thing! :)
    I’m curious. Your complementarianism is confined to preaching & leadership. Is it because of position, or that teaching/knowledge transfer is occurring, or strictly because that’s your interpretation of the Bible?

  324. To clarify, position = title
    Is it confined to preaching & leadership because of the titles:
    title of pastor, title of elder, or some other title

  325. __

    “…it is not safe to get into any church where a part of the bible – any part – is quietly dropped in order to keep the relationships all smooth and hunkydory. This is a sure recipe for deception and for things to go wrong.” ~ Ken

    hmmm…

    There are those in certain American churches that have been experiencing men who posses religious power, who mis-use scripture for their own questionable ends.

    This we know.

    There are those in certain American churches that have been experiencing men who also posses religious power, who side, shield, and support, men who posses religious power, – who have mis-used their positions to limit what women can do, well beyond scriptural support or intent of what Paul the Apostle, (and possibly other New Testament writers as well) intended. This is legalism.

    Plain and simple.

    And now this perpetrated discriminatory atrocity, under the guise of hallowed religion, is being perpetrated in centers of higher learning.

    This we also know.

    Women are becoming (in some proverbial arcane nightmare) subjected to a type of second class citizenry, as if those possessing religious power would turn back the hands of time.

    (…one can only wonder if chains be far behind?)

    [Would that these individuals would emasculate their own freedom(s), and leave others alone.]

    I would kindly suggest that Mothers teach their Sons and their Daughters, that this form of discrimination has no proper place in their lives, or in their schools, churches, businesses, or local communities. That this type of discrimination ultimately leads to some form of gender abuse extending far, far beyond the local church pew, and those religious men of power, who would perpetrate this travesty under the guise of scriptural integrity.

  326. Spowith, I agree. Discrimination is learned. That the Bible has been & continues to be used to teach it is a travesty. “Interpretation” is used like a club (or as you put it, chains) to make it right. Those possessing religious power abuse it. Which is why I don’t believe in religious power over others. We each work out our own salvation, there is no go-between, only Jesus.

  327. @ Sopwith:

    I have no doubt that King James would be most proud of the interpretations that his translation of the scriptures have produced in his honorable name. Kings do want their power.

    Christians should want no such thing.

  328. @ Joe:

    “I would like to believe that early marriages are more common, the marriage rate higher and the divorce rate much lower for graduates of Christian colleges”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    Joe, I’m not up to speed on all your comments (hence your perspective), but sounds like you believe that it is best and right for christians to marry early — that God wants people to marry early.

    Why do you believe this? What is godly about early marriage?

  329. @ Ken:

    “But if I’ve learnt anything, it is that for me it is not safe to get into any church where a part of the bible – any part – is quietly dropped in order to keep the relationships all smooth and hunkydory.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    I reckon a good many parts of the bible are dropped from your current church, in fact from all churches.

    It is not practical or even possible to adhere to all of it at all times, without becoming the weirdest, most dysfunctional, miserable group of punctilious contortionists the world ever did see.

  330. As has been stated elsewhere, parts of Paul’s letters can best be understood as poking fun at a church practice that was inappropriate at the time, e.g., head covering (important if circumcision is not?!?); parts may be argument by showing a straw man and then refuting it (parts of Romans, e.g.,); and parts may be Paul’s advocacy to avoid unnecessary conflict with then current culture, as opposed to directives for all time. If one were to try to comply with all of it, one might well be in conflict with the intent of the writer, whether thought of as Paul, an associate, or the Holy Spirit.

  331. And then there are the translation errors, such as translating “the fat (or soft) ones” as “homosexuals”, assuming that is what Paul meant without strong evidence for that.

  332. And I expect some very HOT responses, even though all of the remarks in my comments immediately above are based on excellent scholarship available in the evangelical literature.

  333. @ Arce: Go for it, Arce! :)

    Thanks for the posts; it helps to see someone bringing accepted scholarly interpretations and readings into the mix. Paul used a LOT of rhetorical devices for effect; people proof-text him to death without ever once looking at the context of his remarks.

    Very sad, imo.

  334. A Mom wrote:

    Your complementarianism is confined to preaching & leadership. Is it because of position, or that teaching/knowledge transfer is occurring, or strictly because that’s your interpretation of the Bible?

    It’s my interpretation of the NT. The restriction I believe this places on women is because this is – quite literally – out or order. It is NOT because women are inferior or second class, nor because they were uneducated (‘let a woman learn’ will deal with that) nor because they need men as a covering. The silence or inner quietness enjoined is specifically targeted for when teaching is occurring or prophecy is being judged. Apart from this, they can and should contribute fully as gifts and inclination allow.

    If this principle of order is ignored I think the church can make itself vulnerable to spiritual attack of the non flesh and blood variety.

    I’m not into any form of so-called complementarianism that adds to this (unless they can show me it in the NT and I’m still waiting). I’m not a patriarch.

    The restriction is ‘in church’, not for activities that occur outside of it.

    Even the most ardent silent women devotees inconsistently allow them to sing the hymns!

    I prefer the word responsibility to authority in this context. I’m not into titles like reverend or see leadership as conferring status.

  335. Ken wrote:

    Even the most ardent silent women devotees inconsistently allow them to sing the hymns!

    Thank God for small favors!! /sarcasm

  336. @ Ken:

    “The restriction is ‘in church’, not for activities that occur outside of it.”

    What does “in church” mean to you?

  337. Bridet – ‘in church’ is when the body of believers is gathered together. If you take the complementarian view, you can get into legalism over exactly how this should be applied in related situations, but extending this to ‘secular’ education or similar is to go beyond Paul’s words.

  338. Ken wrote:

    The restriction is ‘in church’, not for activities that occur outside of it.

    And has anyone ever explained the reason for the restriction at all?

  339. @ Ken: women are clearly enjoined to prophesy, so what’s the deal with them being silent while prophecy is judged?

    Inconsistent much, do ya think, Ken?!

  340. And how about this? Does “each” include women do you think?

    1Cor. 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

  341. @ Victorious:
    “The silence or inner quietness enjoined is specifically targeted for when teaching is occurring or prophecy is being judged. Apart from this, they can and should contribute fully as gifts and inclination allow.” :-)

  342. @ numo:
    @ Victorious:

    Those were issues that flagged in my head as well. Thanks for asking them. I had decided to tackle one flag at a time, but it seems we all had the same bells going off . . .

  343. @ Ken:

    Thanks for your response! Based on your response, it seems to me you believe (& correct me if I’m wrong) the gender restrictive interpretation & foundation for restricting female speech in church is this:

    Female speech is more disorderly (disruptive?) than males, but only in a church setting. This disorderly female conduct includes singing as well as speech, but again only in a church setting. You consider singing hymns part of teaching.

    I’m interested to know your views on the following:
    Does the church setting include the nursery or Sunday school? Teaching does occur there. Male nursery/Sunday school teachers only? Only male children can speak/ask questions? Or maybe you reject nursery/Sunday school altogether?

    What if a male asks a female where the men’s room is? Does the female remain silent & not teach the male where the men’s room is?

    What about praying out loud in church? What about reading the Bible out loud in church? What about females doing both (praying/reading Bible) silently in church?

    When you refer to church, do you mean the officially designated building?

    Is your reference the Biblical Manhood & Womanhood 576 page book by Piper & Grudem? If not, how do you decide / define teaching?

    In all other settings (except church building) with all types of actions (speech/singing/instrument playing/saving a life/ etc.), the disorderly (disruptive?) conduct problem with females is no worse than males?

    Sorry, I had a lot of questions. Interested in your view.

  344. elastigirl wrote:

    Joe, I’m not up to speed on all your comments (hence your perspective), but sounds like you believe that it is best and right for christians to marry early — that God wants people to marry early.

    Why do you believe this? What is godly about early marriage?

    I never stated my beliefs or perspectives. There are ample secular statistics available regarding marriage age, marriage rate and divorce rate. I was wondering whether the same statistics apply to graduates of Christian colleges. Since churches “push” marriage (and don’t think very highly of singles), I would assume that the marriage age would be lower and marriage rate higher for Christians that graduate from Christian colleges. Regarding divorce, I would hope that it would be at a much lower rate because the grounds for divorce should be “biblically based” rather than the secular “no fault based” which I understand means that one party can end a marriage without having any reason other than they want out. But if the statistics are the same, then I would conclude that the church’s teachings about marriage and divorce are either ineffective or are falling on deaf ears.

  345. So it’s okay for a woman to teach a man theology as long as she isn’t tenured. Got it. *eyeroll*

  346. @ Nancy:

    Yes, the federal government should be able to prohibit Cedarville from gender discrimination. The university accepts federal money.

    Bob Jones University lost their tax-exempt status because they prohibited interracial dating.

  347. @ Daisy:

    Now, a degree in child development and parenting would definitely be useful. But they should be open to men, too.

  348. @ Victorious:
    When Paul spoke in Hebrew to the unruly crowd in Acts 22, the same Greek word is used, and this gives a feeling for the word, a quiet demeanor resulting in the ‘silence’ of 1 Tim.

    Acts 22 : 2 And when they heard that he addressed them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet.

    I haven’t spent much time on this for years. I think it true to say most if not all churches in my locality don’t care what it says, they simply have no intention of obeying it. This attitude is by far a greater problem than the precise interpretation and application of what the apostles say on the matter, and it carries over into other areas as well.

  349. @ A Mom:
    It’s nothing to do with disorderly speech, it is refraining from being teachers over men in the way a teaching elder or pastor would be, in a church meeeting. This is what is out of order, insubordinate, not in rank. God has given women the authority to pray and prophesy (note the covering of 1 Cor 11 is a sign of authority, not submission!), but not teach. This I think you would agree makes most of your remaining questions redundant.

    I have read some of the Council for Biblical Manhood etc stuff, but it is not my bible! Also looked at the other side of the question too. I learned most of what I know on this in the UK, where there is no patriarch movement, from teachers who were very much into every member ministry. Needless to say it can be a hot topic in the UK, but it doesn’t seem to raise the ire or generate the extremes over here that it does on your side of the pond.

  350. Ken wrote:

    I think it true to say most if not all churches in my locality don’t care what it says, they simply have no intention of obeying it. This attitude is by far a greater problem than the precise interpretation and application of what the apostles say on the matter, and it carries over into other areas as well.

    I am sorry to hear that perhaps all of the churches in your area intentionally disobey Scripture. How awful!

    However, the issue at hand here is different. We are dealing with folks who believe in Scripture but do not interpret the verses in the same way as you do. In other words, most people here deeply care about the Bible and the church, myself included.

  351. I actually brought up the above linked article both for its own merit AND for a certain comment underneath that I think illustrates Ken’s debating flaws perfectly.

    Link to the comment:
    http://onacracker.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/why-denny-burk-is-wrong-about-egalitarian-exegesis-and-the-functional-authority-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-13

    Quoting Kristen’s comment: “What really gets me is the way Burk (like most complementarians I encounter) feels the need to couch his opponent’s arguments as “unblushing” and “stark,” indicating that the opposing view isn’t just disagreement or even error, but moral failing. The complementarian strategy is usually to assume there is only one possible way to understand Scripture (theirs) unless one is actually being morally dishonest– and then to use term of righteous shock at the immorality of those who read the same Scriptures they do, but understand them differently. Needless to say, this puts the argument on a false footing from the start. The reader is encouraged not to simply examine each argument on its own merit, but to side with the complementarians because to do otherwise is intellectual sin.”

    And I think this assumption that others “simply have no intention of obeying [scripture]” is just such a “false footing”. It is one that Ken believes. But in arguing from this false footing it makes it not a true debate or examining of evidence. It makes it a preaching of the one who is (or assumes himself to be) righteous railing at those who are (he assumes to be) unrighteous. It is not a debate at all. And as long as Ken preaches rather than debates, he will not improve his debating and convincing skills.

    Hey, I’m just trying to help you out, Ken.
    I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.

  352. Mara, I see only 4 comments at the link you provided though your link indicates there should be 13. I’m confused.

  353. @ Victorious:
    I only ever saw 4 comments. I have no idea why the link calls it comment 13.
    Kristen’s is the first of the four. I cut off the first sentence from her comment where she praises the post. Hope that didn’t confuse anybody.

  354. Ken wrote:

    @ A Mom:
    It’s nothing to do with disorderly speech, it is refraining from being teachers over men in the way a teaching elder or pastor would be, in a church meeeting. This is what is out of order, insubordinate, not in rank. God has given women the authority to pray and prophesy (note the covering of 1 Cor 11 is a sign of authority, not submission!), but not teach. This I think you would agree makes most of your remaining questions redundant.
    I have read some of the Council for Biblical Manhood etc stuff, but it is not my bible! Also looked at the other side of the question too. I learned most of what I know on this in the UK, where there is no patriarch movement, from teachers who were very much into every member ministry. Needless to say it can be a hot topic in the UK, but it doesn’t seem to raise the ire or generate the extremes over here that it does on your side of the pond.

    The first paragraph explains much to me about your thinking about leadership.

    From what I gather from scripture, no male or female believer is to have ‘authority over’ any other believer in the body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not about ranks or possibly being insubordinate. It is not to be likened to the military.

  355. @ Bridget: indeed. The whole chain of command bit is from Bill Gothard and his followers. Looks like Ken has imbibed from that (imo, tainted) well.

  356. @ Joe:

    You had said, “I would like to believe that>/b> early marriages are more common, the marriage rate higher and the divorce rate much lower for graduates of Christian colleges”.

    It sounded like you felt that early marriage and marriage in general were desirable and right and to be preferred, therefore more or less in accordance with your beliefs. Perhaps I misunderstood.

  357. @ Ken:

    Thanks for clarifying. Well, okay. Your interpretation of the NT indicates females are out of rank if they are leading or teaching men. But only in church. And no female singing in church in the presence of males since that is teaching men.

    Humor me, Ken. Answer the remaining questions from my last comment & you have the right to call me dense if you’d like. I modified the last question in light of your response.

    Does the church setting include the nursery or Sunday school? Teaching does occur there. Male nursery/Sunday school teachers only? Only male children can speak/ask questions? Or maybe you reject nursery/Sunday school altogether?

    What if a male asks a female where the men’s room is? Does the female remain silent & not teach the male where the men’s room is?

    In all other settings except for church, with all types of actions (leading/singing/instrument playing/saving a life/ etc.), females are not outranking men?

  358. Not ‘intentionally disobeying scripture’ but indifferent to it. Following the secular culture around. In the free evangelical Willow Creek church we drifted out of, the issue wasn’t women’s ministry but some New Age occultism that crept in (possibly inner healing, I can’t remember), and when my wife challenged it on the basis that it wasn’t in the bible was basically told to keep quiet, don’t disturb the relationships in the group. I couldn’t get her to go after that, she rightly said what’s the point of studying a book if we only then ignore it. That, I would have thought you have guessed, is the real issue.

    Believe me we have beaten ourselves up for years over whether we have an attitude problem or just what it is that makes us unable to fit in. We’ve even thought of going back to end our isolation, there are some superb people there, but I just can’t believe we will ever fit in – and we are not the only ones. There is something about it, and I can’t put my finger on it, that makes this seem non-Christianity to me.

    You asked my what I meant about adorning the doctrine of Christ ealier. I didn’t mean to ignore you! I think some patriarchal attitudes towards women can make Christianity decidedly unattractive, and I get egalitarians not liking that. Egalitarians, in turn, can reflect an equal and opposite attitude problem though. In particular the attitude of egalitarian women to complementarian women. Daniel Wallace has if I recall some experience and comment on this, but I have a feeling you intend to address it soon by something that appeared and disappeared.

  359. Mara wrote:

    discusses Ken’s error of deciding that his way is the right way and that everybody that doesn’t agree with him, well, “simply have no intention of obeying [scripture]”

    See my reply above to Dee. I was talking about local churches.

    “I think it true to say most if not all churches in my locality don’t care what it says, they simply have no intention of obeying it. This attitude is by far a greater problem than the precise interpretation and application of what the apostles say on the matter, and it carries over into other areas as well”

    Obviously I think my understanding is correct, or I wouldn’t say it. But what I actually said is not relevant to whether or not others who are not my local churches think differently.

  360. You will have to forgive wondering if you were taking the micky in your questions! I quite deliberately said women are not to ‘be teachers’ over men ‘in church’ in my understanding. This has nothing to do with children (where did Timothy get his knowledge of the bible from?) or asking for directions, which is hardly teaching doctrine. Your final question is likewise dealing with being outside of the gathered church.

    Bridget – thanks for your reply above, but I wasn’t talking about one person having authority over another in the church, rather what God has authorised us as members to do. Ministry is a privilege, not a right. The idea of ‘rank’ comes from the word usually translated submit, be subordinate, and gives the flavour of the word in a different context. You can be of equal status under the law but have different rank.

    There is an authority in the church, and that is for elders/pastors to implement the word of God in the lives of believers, so is hardly a hierarchy. The real authority is not found in the leaders themselves but the word they teach. (That, in one sentence, ought to be the death of shepherding/discipleship and any other unbiblical form of submission.)

    That really will have to do for now!

  361. Ken wrote:

    Daniel Wallace has if I recall some experience and comment on this

    You might be surprised to learn that my husband and I are friends of Dan Wallace. We shared a wonderful dinner together a few years ago.

  362. @ Ken:
    And Dan is not monolithic even thought he swings complementarian.
    Here is a note he sent to CBMW in which he felt his intent was misunderstood.

    “That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church.”

    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/11/07/daniel-wallace-requests-rewrite/

  363. @ dee:
    Actually, I’m not surprised! There is only one Body and we should fellowship and benefit from all of it. Even if this sometimes gets you into trouble with less broadminded Christians …..

    Sorry for my triad of posts, the first is for you, and the last for A Mom, but I chose Post Comment and then it is too late to insert that.

  364. @ dee:
    @ Ken:
    Here is a further statement from that same quoted post.
    “Allow me to clarify my view: Both since my exegesis is not certain and since this is not a central issue to the Christian faith, I cannot be as firm in my position or attitude as I can be on other issues. What is at stake here is one’s doctrinal and pragmatic taxonomy. The way the blogger wrote about my views it sounded as if he had a flatline in doctrinal nuancing. That, in my view, is not the healthiest way to think about scripture.”

  365. @ Ken:
    Finally, Dan considered my husband and I friends even though at the time, I was teaching a mixed Sunday school class. At the time he, along with us, were attending Bent Tree Bible Fellowship with Pete Briscoe as pastor.