Contrary to what the politicians and religious leaders would like us to believe, the world won't be made safer by creating barriers between people.
Michael Palin link
I have found the whole complementarian ( to be aka "comp") debate confusing. However, I have come to the conclusion that my confusion is not due to my lack of study and contemplation. It is possibly due to what appears to be a hidden agenda on the part of some so-called complementarians. On the surface, it appears that the basic belief structure of this movement is:
1. Only men as pastors and elders
2. Men as the head of the family with the tie breaking vote.
Poorly defined gender roles
We were criticized by one pastor who said, from the pulpit, that we "do not believe in male leadership in the family." This was most confusing to us since the two of us have been married for decades and we have lived what many would think are traditional lives. In fact, I would be happy to put my family life up against any supposed complementarian marriage and ask the observers delineate the differences. I would predict that they would have difficulty since I subscribe to the "servant to one another" model.
I have asked complementarians of all sorts to give me examples of what makes them complementarian and different than me. The usual response is "I can only tell you what it looks like in terms of my family." This is a problem because it says that there is no model for such behavior that is recognizable. It is ethereal and unable to apprehended but simple examples. If we cannot show it then how do we do it?
I believe it is difficult because the examples by men like Piper and other pastors are often times almost silly. For example, Piper's advice for women to avoid becoming muscular link. I recently received an informative email from a reader who shared some documents from his well-known church. This example is another strange way to show "submission." No wonder many are loathe to give examples.
Women are not to initiate important conversations. They must wait until the husband brings them up.
Female leaders appear to be talking out of both sides of their mouths
The self identified founder of the complementarian movement, Mary Kassian, laid out, along with Dr. Dorothy Patterson link, what the comp movement is not:
- Homemaking
- Jobs outside the home
- Stay at home moms
As her husband fired Sherri Klouda at SWBTS, Dr. Dorothy Patterson, under her husband's covering and wearing her hat link, implemented a degree program in homemaking at SWBTS link.
In the modern day when we marry, we choose to marry, and as Christian women we want to say that we are under the headship of our husbands as we understand God to have prescribed in His creation order, we wear a wedding ring, and that says to anyone who sees us that we have chosen to marry. But at that time it seems to me from what I have seen in Biblical background and other things that it was not the wedding ring so much as it was this covering of the head that indicated the fact that a woman had chosen to marry and chosen to stand under the authority of her husband.
Mary Kassian tried to "pooh pooh" the idea that "Mrs" Patterson's demeanor was anything more than a gentile gesture of a Southern lady, but she is either wrong or obfuscating link.
(I call her “Mrs” because she’s a Southern Belle—and the venerable Steel Magnolias of her generation who were raised in the post-war 40s and 50s have some pretty strong opinions about proper titles, matching shoes and purses, silverware patterns, and things like that.
Also, she takes pains to "nuance" a quote by Dr. Dorothy from the 1990s link.
(Dr Dorothy writes) “Keeping the home is God’s assignment to the wife—even down to changing the sheets, doing the laundry, and scrubbing the floors.” (p. 23) “We need mothers who are not only family-oriented but also family-obsessed.” (p. 178)
Kassian claims to be irritated that that Rachel Held Evans used 20 year old material written by Patterson but kind of forgets” to remind her audience that CBMW republished the article in 2006 in the Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Book! “Link
Kassian says
“Mrs. Patterson told me that she would nuance the first quote by clarifying that “though she may not do these chores herself, she senses the responsibility to see that her home is kept in order.” (Ed. note:No nuance needed back in 2006 but seems to be needed now).
So, are they just "naive" or are they jumping through hoops to obfuscate the trajectory of contemporary complementarianism. Why do I say this? Read this comment by Kassian.
My complementarian colleagues do not embrace the term"patriarchy." And like you, I am gravely concerned about some of the abuses and oppression of women arising from that ideology."
Once again, is Kassian a grossly misinformed "leader of the comps" or is she purposely muddying the waters? She has given us contradictory information and then seems frustrated when women like Rachel Held Evans do not understand. But, the fault sits squarely at their feet. They are giving us confusing information. Let's look at her colleague in gender confusion.
Introducing Russell Moore: Patriarch and President of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
I am beginning to think that there is a group of men (and the women who love and follow them) who are dedicated to reducing the role of women in any sort of leadership role within evangelicalism, and in particular, the SBC. Last Friday, we discussed the fact that female professors are leaving (or being encouraged to leave) Cedarville University. Are the issues at Cedarville and the issues of the ERLC connected? If they are not, then there is a huge coincidence occurring.
Moore as patriarch link
“Russell Moore is the dean of the School of Theology and Senior VP for Academic Administration at Southern Baptist Seminary. He is also an apologist for complementarian relationships but here is what he has to say about the word complementarian:
If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy. This claim is rendered all the more controversial because it threatens complementarianism as a “movement.”
Not all complementarians can agree about the larger themes of Scripture—only broadly on some principles and negatively on what Scripture definitely does not allow (i.e… women as pastors). Even to use the word “patriarchy” in an evangelical context is uncomfortable since the word is deemed “negative” even by most complementarians. But evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God and Father of Jesus Christ.”
“Then, in an interview with young and restless pastor Mark Dever, Moore also states: “I hate the word complementarian. I prefer the word patriarchy…… because complementarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles. Everyone agrees that we have different roles, it just a question of on what basis you have different roles.”
Russell Moore is a hardcore patriarch in his own words. He also says this link.
What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off “complementarian” on a box but who really aren’t living out complementarian lives. Sometimes I fear we have marriages that are functionally egalitarian, because they are within the structure of the larger society. If all we are doing is saying “male headship” and “wives submit to your husbands,” but we’re not really defining what that looks like . . . in this kind of culture, when those things are being challenged, then it’s simply going to go away………If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical,
Russell Moore is afraid. He also believes that most complementarians are not living out "real complementarian" lives. Uh, oh… Something is about to change.
Moore is now the President of Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission link.
Russell D. Moore is President of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s official entity assigned to address social, moral, and ethical concerns.
SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
What is the goal of ERLC link?
The ERLC is dedicated to engaging the culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ and speaking to issues in the public square for the protection of religious liberty and human flourishing. Our vision can be summed up in three words: kingdom, culture and mission.
Since its inception, the ERLC has been defined around a holistic vision of the kingdom of God, leading the culture to change within the church itself and then as the church addresses the world.
Let's look at their mission statement link
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission exists to assist the churches by helping them understand the moral demands of the gospel, apply Christian principles to moral and social problems and questions of public policy, and to promote religious liberty in cooperation with the churches and other Southern Baptist entities.
Did you know that only pastors are qualified to determine issues of ethics and religious liberty?
Promoting religious liberty sounds like a broad category. Applying Christian principles to moral and social problems sounds fairly broad as well. However, this group immediately seeks to restrict the membership in the group that oversees its activities. For some reason one must have been a pastor in order to serve on the Council. Why is this necessary for the broad goals as defined by the mission statement?
What is the Leadership Council link?
Read the last sentence carefully
The ERLC Leadership Network Council is a collection of SBC pastors and leaders who serve as an advisory council for the Network and receive intentional investment from the ERLC team. During their annual term, these council members enjoy equipping through conference calls and events while providing direction for the Network and occasional content for erlc.com. From coast to coast, from mega church to country church, and from a variety of backgrounds, these pastors and leaders represent a cross section of evangelicalism in general and the SBC in particular. All Leadership Council members either currently are or have previously served in pastoral ministry.
How to marginalize women without having to say "no women allowed".
The reason for the restriction seems rather clear. Women are not allowed to serve on the Leadership Council link
What’s the difference between the Leadership Network and the Leadership Council?
The Leadership Network is the broad group that the Leadership Council serves. The ERLC Leadership Network Council is a collection of SBC pastors and leaders who serve as an advisory council for the broader Network and receive intentional investment from the ERLC team. While any like minded Christian can choose to be a part of the Network, the Council is an annual invitation-only opportunity for SBC pastors and leaders. The reason there are no women on the Leadership Council is because a requirement for membership is that members have previously served or are currently serving in pastoral ministry.
Why was it necessary to make service on this council restricted to those with pastoral experience?
Think about it. Christian women in public life and service are not qualified to serve on a council that determines SBC public policy. Why are women not equipped to speak to issues to public policy? I thought that the SBC supported the role of women in the public arena. Many of them supported Sarah Palin's run for vice president (this is for example only, not for a discussion of politics) for example. Yet, the ERLC has established guidelines which would limit the role of women in this area.
Will future committees only appoint those in pastoral roles in order to freeze out women?
Could it be that this will be the method with which the uber-complementarian/patriarchy crowd will eliminate women who serve in leadership roles within the SBC? This could have far reaching consequences. Will other organizations take a lesson from this group and start using "pastoral experience" as a qualification to serve on any national or local committee?
I believe that this is just the beginning of increasing efforts to freeze out women from any positions of influence within the SBC. The patriarchs have arrived… One thing is certain. This sort of maneuvering will lead to more people are getting the heck out of the SBC.
PS: I know that "anyone" can join the Network. The Council is limited to appointed men and many of them have connections to SBTS link. What a surprise!
Lydia's Corner: Isaiah 54:1-57:14 Ephesians 6:1-24 Psalm 70:1-5 Proverbs 24:8
Why they think it’s a good idea to close their ears to what women serving the church have to say is beyond me. Did you notice that they could easily invite both men and women along and still keep decision making restricted to men only? Not that I think that’s a good idea, but they could easily do it and that way not lose out on the information and insight women have to contribute.
What are they so afraid of that they won’t even invite women to the discussion? Is the mere listening to a woman describe her experience or needs prohibited, according to their reading of Scripture?
They’ve really gone off the deep end with this one. I’d rather include people in the Body of Christ than exclude them: http://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/why-worry-about-women/
Cheers,
Tim
For years I believed the SBC line of no female ministers, no female deacons. Now that I have “grown up” I can’t follow this teaching…..if they push for this second class citizenry of the female members even farther, they are going to start losing even more members.
I was SBC basically for 60 years. I need to find another church in which I would be happy. Any suggestions?
( I have not attended in years, but Baptists never purge their rolls.)
I’ve been in SBC churches where women were outrageously marginalized. And I’ve been in those where women served in all capacities except for senior pastor.
There are those folks that will never be satisfied as long as women cannot be ordained in the SBC, and there are those folks that would quickly walk out the door should that ever happen.
Just my personal opinion, but both the guys turf protecting against any female input and the women determined to force the ordination of women in the SBC (or LCMS or RCC, all having issues) are diverting time, resources, and attention away from the main job of winning a lost world to Christ.
Which last time I checked, did not require ordination of anyone, male or female. Or a fat check. Or the perks of being on countless committees.
Once again, both sides of the debate rearrange deck chairs while the Titanic sinks.
Teehee. My mom is in rebellion then. Her wedding ring needs to be resized so she can’t wear it.
I’m beginning to think that people who already understand how marriage should work, don’t need all these legalistic prescriptions about gender roles. The only people who need these, are the people who couldn’t make it work anyway. This would explain all the increasingly detailed weirdness, and why so many marriages that previously worked begin to not work after the introduction of legalistic gender material.
The next Big Box is up, BTW. Forgot to post this yesterday.
http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/what-to-expect-from-a-twelve-year-old-tbb/
@ Hester:
Hester, I don’t even wear my engagement ring half the time and don’t plan on wearing my wedding band all that often due to arthritis in my hands. These guys love to make up so many rules and symbolism where none is needed that they have lost sight of what is truly important.
From New BBC blog: “Who talks like that?! Such flowery language to describe a do-nothing bunch of self-righteous, back-slapping good old boys! (No women are allowed on the council.)”
http://newbbcopenforum.blogspot.com/2014/01/if-you-were-victim-or-have-any.html?m=1
linda wrote:
Jesus took time out to correct the false teachings of the Pharisees as did Paul. It’s never a waste of time to correct error. Bringing new converts into a sinking ship (if they will come aboard) will only assure they will jump ship fairly quickly when they find out it’s out-of-order.
Just another front in the SBC’s War on Women. The SBC powers that be operate like a plague of locusts, swarming over every organization they can get their hands on, they proceed to carry out a ‘gender cleansing’ of the organization, purging it of any women with any authority and any men who would tolerate such a thing.
@ Hester:
Read it earlier on my blog feed, Hester. Great job!
Guess who was yelling the loudest for a military coup and dictatorship during the Obamacare Shutdown Idiocy deadlock in Congress last year?
The way these guys refer to Patriarchy does NOT even line up with the way we see it used in Scripture to identify family lines. I’ve grown to detest the word and the abuses by those who claim they are doing things the “Biblical” way, ya know penetrate, colonize while the woman surrenders and accepts blah blah.
@ Julie Anne:
And don’t forget that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’s patriarchy, meant they got to be the head of their extended families too. Most casual patriarchy fans don’t go there, but Bill Einwechter actually said, in a talk on multigenerational faithfulness (which I reviewed at SL back in May), that Christian families should leave a double portion of their inheritance to the son “chosen to lead” the extended family. God only knows what it means for him to lead his extended family – of course Einwechter never got into the nitty-gritty details. So some people really are trying to implement true, old-fashioned, nomadic/tribal patriarchy in these groups.
I live around this bloviating stuff from seminary guys and after a while you just gotta have some fun with it. Next time you are around this just say empathetically that you are so sorry they view their wives this way and why she must have a husband leader. (less intellectual, lacks reasoning skills, incompetent, etc). Oh they will claim it is biblical but it makes their hair catch on fire and they go to ridiculous extremes to defend her intellect and competence. Which is hilarious because they end up qualifying her for grand leadership then have to admit she can’t but that makes her MORE spiritual!
The gymnastics employed are mind numbing.
I am astonished even the CR woman warrior immortalized in stained glass at SWBTS would not be allowed on the Leadership committee. :o)
These are the same type of people who said that slavery was mandated by the Bible! And were so afraid of Lincoln that, months before he was inaugurated, they seceded, opened fire on U.S. forces, and started the war that ended slavery. BTW, none of the churches that I was in as a child or youth would have EXISTED had it not been for women holding VBSs, canvassing, etc. And the total missions effort of the SBC would have been a mere wisp had it not been for the WMU. There would be NO SBC today had it not been for the women.
As linda pointed out, what about evangelism? Show me the verse which says only men can share their faith, share the good news of Jesus Christ. These folks, men and women, are treading on very thin ice in God’s eyes, I think. God looks at the heart, not the appearance.
I am sorry, but I cannot read the material from Ms. Kassian and Ms. Patterson since I understand that I am not to be under the teaching of the ladies. I am therefore glad you also included Brother Moore’s explanations. I am grateful for learning all the dangers of leadership of teh womens from the authors of this blog… oh, wait….
On a more serious note, I have not been in many complementarian congregations but the ones I have been at seemed to have a side effect of making the gals a bit manipulative. I suspect it is because they cannot direct things overtly and so must act covertly. Is this something others have noticed?
Thank you for reporting on these issues – it is always educational (if cringe-inducing) to learn what is going on in some corners of evangelism.
Next thing they will say that not only does the president of the US need to be a natural-born citizen and at least 35 years old but he also needs to wear knee breeches and a wig. Talk about raising the bathwater to the level of the baby.
Tim wrote:
According to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), women are not allowed to speak because they might influence how the men vote, and the men consider this to be “exercising leadership”.
Arce, I so agree. Very few men serve on altar guild, cook for and wash dishes at potlucks, serve in the nursery, dust, clean toilets, bring meals to the sick, be on prayer chains, work at VBS and teach children all year, etc. The few who do, are the real men, the ones who “get” it. All of these things require commitment of time, humility, often wisdom and a good working knowledge of the Bible, not to mention people skills.
Teri Anne wrote:
Because ignorant and uninformed voters are better? Wow.
Lately, I’ve been reading the beautiful writing of Sarah Bessey. I only wish I could engage the hostile ideas of patriarchy with her grace. It is evident that Sarah loves Jesus, and she loves her husband. Her “third way” of mutual submission to Christ as head is how my wife Jessy and I have always lived. She just wrote an excellent piece refuting the “biblical marriage” ideas of Mary Kassian and the like. Please read:
http://sarahbessey.com/disagree-bure-biblical-marriage/
@ linda:
On the last thread, we had the “ladies, stop being so emotional and just talk about the things that prpfoindly hurt you like you were having a philosophical denate about a theoretical world.” Now we have the “calling attention to the injustice a large group of you suffer is undermining the mission/movement/institution/country.” It’s the same line women, minorities, the poor, and abuse victims always hear and have always heard whenever they start to voice their concerns.
I’m a lot tired of the way U.S. churches operate, especially the above expected aspects of what constitutes a healthy church in our mindset. So much busy-ness and business.
@ RB:
” Very few men serve on altar guild, cook for and wash dishes at potlucks, serve in the nursery, dust, clean toilets, bring meals to the sick, be on prayer chains, work at VBS and teach children all year, etc.”
++++++++++++++
(never heard of altar guild, but…) What are they doing then?
In stark contrast, my thoughts are with our own Baptist church, where yesterday we ordained two new deacons, one of whom was a young mother, whose family is heavily involved throughout our congregational leadership. These new deacons are joining a deacon group which looks to both women and men for leadership in every way. The entire church was invited to lay on the hands of blessing, young and old, men and women, ordained or not, we commissioned these young leaders for their new place of service. In case you wonder, our church is heavily involved in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and only nominally so in the SBC. Since the church was begun in 1967, we have always ordained women. We presently have five full-time pastors, three of whom are women, all seminary trained, and all ordained to the Christian ministry.
I’m probably one of the few “comps” that regularly reads TWW. I cannot speak for all comps, nor am I going to defend my position here. This is not a good medium for an exegetical debate. All I will say is that I landed as a complentarian because I took the time to do exegetical work, not because I have an agenda or a war on women or anything of the sort. I have a fairly good working knowledge of koine greek. After my study, I compared it with others who came to a different conclusion (for example Wade Burelson or F.F. Bruce I believe. A bit hazy on that one). I was not convinced. I looked at church history because I value the work that has been done before me by men who were much smarter than I. I landed where I did because it’s a matter of conviction and conscience. That is a far cry from agendas and hatred towards women. I don’t think anyone who lands on a different position here is not a believer or compromising the Gospel. It is a significant enough difference that I probably could not join a church that differed. The practical applications will be just to different.
@ PP:
I have the same experience as you, but in the reverse.
I was raised to be a gender comp by a gender comp mother and believed in it for years, but upon reading and re- reading the Bible and seeing numerous examples of women who did lead and preach (who did not fit the gender comp idea of what a woman’s role should be), I started having doubts about gender comp when I got to my late 20s.
I am right wing, social conservative, and do not agree with most views of secular feminism and never have.
But, a lot of gender comps will insist women like me are feminists, or were influenced to abandon gender comp by feminism.
Given that much of garden variety gender comp usually revolves around baby making and getting married, it doesn’t speak to never married, childless women who are over the age of 30, either.
@ PP:
“I don’t think anyone who lands on a different position here is not a believer or compromising the Gospel. It is a significant enough difference that I probably could not join a church that differed. The practical applications will be just to different.”
++++++++++++++
Hi, PP. I appreciate your comment and respect your point of view. I’m wondering what practical applications would be too different, thus precluding attending such a church.
@ elastigirl: being Above It All…
elastigirl, it depends on who they are. MD, for example, is seeing things and saying lots of uncouth things, Doug Phillips is trying to get the South to rise again, some of them are edging out female teachers who may be more qualified than they, the list goes on, but there are still many men in leadership who really do have servants’ hearts and love and respect women and each other. I disagree with gender polarization, the trendy wave of Neo-Cal, the resurgence of patriarchy, including other popular trends in Western churches, mainly because I think those are seriously missing the point. The main thing for me as a believer should be to share Jesus and the gospel in agape’ love, in word and deed.
I just read aloud to my husband the two sentences that stated a woman should not bring up important topics to be discussed, but let the man do that. He burst out laughing and said, “Women have to bring it up because men usually won’t!” We met at an Evangelical seminary that had various viewpoints about all this, but what strikes me about the SBC and patriarchy stuff is how fear-driven, legalistic and exhausting it must be to believe one has the obligation/right to police others’ Christian lives. My seminary prof, James Houston, was right: Many Evangelicals are the modern-day Pharisees who believe they alone are the keepers of the Word of God, with the only correct interpretation of that Word, and hence are the only true leaders of the people of God. (He also said that our North American culture raises men to be intellectual giants, but emotional pygmies — but that’s another conversation.)
PP wrote:
Neither do I.
I have a couple blogs on my blog list that are comp. I don’t have issues with most live-and-let-live comps.
But I see red when certain ones come along and accuse me of all sorts of things if I don’t agree with their narrow interpretation of gender roles, patriarchy, and whatever else. When they attack my integrity, decide I just have issues with authority, and/or don’t take scripture seriously, then I will let them know in no uncertain terms how wrong they are. Their position is no more scripturally sound than mine. For every verse they have to prove their view, I usually have two or more that disprove it.
I don’t mind disagreement or agreeing to disagree. But when someone questions my character due to disagreement… I come out, blasting both barrels, with a take-no-prisoners attitude. I pity the fools that think they have some sort of corner on the truth that they must shove down everyone else’s throats. That sort of thinking is just not healthy and smacks of phariseeism and legalism.
Carole Ryan wrote:
Great point! I fear for a younger generation that is buying such unwise advice. I believe open communication is one of the keys to a healthy marriage.
You are right they will implode. Most of what I see with this so called resurgence is inability to be relevant and a failure in connecting with a very post modern culture. The problem is they don’t consider the resources that are available to people to have such a defined ability in those roles they consider as men as leaders in the home. Sherrie Klouda’s husband was disabled. Meditate on Matthew 23 you neocons. Think about what you say teach and live.
what they teach, “
Wesley wrote:
No mention of being a White Man of Property (including certain Animate Property)?
@ RB:
well, i’m wondering what are the specifics about a church environment that does not preach, talk about, encourage, require(?) complementarianism that would make it too difficult for a complementarian person to attend.
I cannot fathom complementarianism being so vital that a person’s beliefs would be compromised by attending a churh that didn’t emphasize it.
Reading from the pages of Dorothy Patterson’s website, one is left to wonder why her husband was once in favour of women doing theology degrees, but now thinks it better that they learn how to bake a cake.
“The First Lady Dorothy Kelley Patterson serves as professor of theology in women’s studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The wife of President Paige Patterson, the mother of Armour and Carmen, and the doting grandmother of Abigail and Rebekah, she finds her duties as the First Lady of Southwestern to be challenging and fulfilling. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Hardin-Simmons University, a Masters of Theology (Th.M.) from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, a Doctor of Ministry (DMin) from Luther Rice Seminary, and a Doctor of Theology (D.Theol.) from the University of South Africa. She and her husband have traveled in ministry to more than 125 countries. Despite the successful completion of these degrees, Dr. Patterson’s theological education was not her idea: “My husband is responsible for my studies in theology. I did not have the inclination to do it. My health challenges and responsibilities in our home as wife and mother just pulled me away from an interest in the pursuit of graduate and post-graduate studies. I owe my graduate education to my husband’s encouragement and determination to put me through these programs in order that I could be a better helper to him, especially in the area of woman-to-woman teaching.”
When I can actually drive my own kids easily somewhere, then I’ll have something to say. For now, I almost live in the “old days” before Christianity even came to our area. Isolation and no church gathering of any sort. And guess, what, I’m happy with it that way.
Or second check, I just read the words that Christ wrote, call “his words” the head of our home (rather than plato, aristotle and jazzy men like that) and that works pretty good……”I think” says a woman.
Daisy wrote:
This describes me as well. And I am moving to the gift based leadership ideal from a comp position based upon the Word of God, and influenced to change because of the bad fruit of patriarchy.
The ERLC has a Facebook page with recent posts about the LN Council. I commented there and others could do so too. I also submitted a comment through their contact form on the ERLC website.
srs wrote:
I don’t recall ever witnessing it first-hand, but I’ve heard about it from another source. It’s a book I’ve read by a psychiatrist, one who specializes in family therapy and gender issues. In one chapter, he posits that when one side loses their voice (their capacity to be heard) in a relationship, it leads to them “managing” and manipulating their partners. In modern Western society, this is typically women, since they have been denied their voice in so many settings, and feel the need to assert themselves somehow.
I can definitely see how this dynamic could play out in church.
Yes, yes, yes. And if anybody thinks that what these people publish is disturbing, you should hear what they say over the dining room table. Curdled blood, anyone?
AHA. I get it, clear as day. Thank you Mary Kassian and Russell Moore for explaining it to me.
These ideas and attitudes are still here as remnants of our past in this country. I remember an experience I had one time as a tourist to either Williamsburg or Jamestown (I forget which). We gathered in a former meeting hall (as in political meeting) which was a restoration. The guide asked us all to stand up. We stood. The guide then told all the women to sit down. We sat. Then the guide told all the males younger than 21 to sit down. They sat. Then the guide told all the men who were not property owners to sit down. They sat. The next group to sit was every male who was not a member of the Church of England. That left about two or three of the crowd still standing. The guide then said that only these few would have been eligible to vote back in the day. In the not too distance past such was the law of the land, at least in the English colonies.
Now take a look at who held the power in the pre-civil war secessionist states. Hint: it was not the women or the poor white farmer or the slave. Now look at the residuals of that thinking in Christian Reconstructionism, the KKK, the south will rise again “movement”, the white supremacist movements, etc. Now look at how Kassian has described Dorothy P–silverware and china patterns, gloves and hats–old south fantasies of the wives of the privileged in the old south who maintained their places in society exclusively based on who their daddy was and who they married. I knew a girl like that once in junior high. Her mother was feeding her that foolishness. She had not clued into the fact that she should have left that behind in SC when they moved to Louisville so her Daddy could go to seminary. Oops
And why would this spread to the frozen northern areas of this land? Because it appeals to the sinful pride of humanity, and that means all humanity. It says: I am special because God chose me (but not you) and because I have some privilege or money or status (and not you) and because I have nothing else to show for my life and must therefore pretend like this.
This will not prevail. It did not prevail in Europe in the last century. It has not prevailed in the current south and has not prevailed in the laws of the land and has not prevailed in much of christianity. This is not of God, and it is doomed. The sooner the better.
srs wrote:
srs, This is exactly what I saw. Not only did they learn to deftly manipulate their husbands (and brag about it in women’s groups without even realizing what they were bragging about. Such examples are: make him think it is his idea, be sexy when you suggest___, etc) but there also becomes a “pecking” order among the women emulating the exact same thing. It is all silly game playing to prop up a caste system that is nothing of Christ.
It is like these women can never really grow up. And the problem with comp doctrine is that the ceiling never stays at the same place but then there is always some exception for some special women. One well known case was Mrs Criswell who taught a very large mixed SS class that was even on the radio! The explanation? She was “under her husbands covering”. So what about the doctrine of comp? Well, they just make up some other doctrine like “covering”.
Comp doctrine always brings with it confusing Talmudic rules. So, she cannot preach/teach men but then you see she can “speak” from stage but it is not called teaching. It is just a testimoney or informational. Huh? Or, she did not speak from the “pulpit”. The sacred furniture. Then you have guys like Piper who say she cannot read scripture aloud in worship. That is teaching. Oooookaaay.
The whole thing ends up with so many rules, hoops to jump through, exceptions, mental gymnastics that it becomes ridiculous. And NOT biblical.
And there are plenty of excellent scholars out there who had made the exegetical case for mutuality and women being free to minister to anyone. It boils down to a “choice” we make. No one has to feel in sin or “not biblical” because they accept women as totally equal in the Body (equal inheritence of gifts! There is no pink or blue Christianity).
So there is some other reason they choose to limit women from participating in any gift they were given by the Holy Spirit. (Ironically, these same people usually have had no problem with women teaching/preaching to ignorant Third world men on the mission field.
PP wrote:
Yikes, Church history is a bloody evil mess! I am always concerned when we appeal to it! Goodness, our country would not even exist if we had not defied what “Church history” taught but still beleive in divine right of kings and princes that protected both Catholic/Protestant rulers over people.
Go back further and guys like Augustine taught that women were stupid and vile. The examples are endless of such thinking. Mostly pagan that was merged with Christianity early on.
It seems the only real Advocate and acceptance women ever had on this earth was Jesus Christ. And it was spiritual! Not biological. No wonder they stuck to him like glue!
@ Wesley:
He will also need to have been a pastor.
Arce wrote:
Yet they would argue that they are in to “racial reconciliation.” But they do not see that their arguments stem from the same sort of verses.
Tim wrote:
🙂
Anon 1 wrote:
🙂
PP wrote:
I will agree with you on that point. You are not evil if you come out on the comp side.
But the point of this post is something far more than that. I get why you might not want a woman as pastor or elder from a Biblical POV even if I disagree with that interpretation. What i want to know is if you feel, as does Moore, that women cannot even serve on committees to discuss ethics and religious freedom? Are women to be fired as professors from Christian schools?
In other words, in your theological construct on comp, where does it stop? That is the most pressing problem here.
@ PP:
Just so you know, my views on gender roles do not prevent me from attending a church in which a woman could not be a pastor. In fact, I do at this juncture.
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes.
Anon 1 wrote:
What do we appeal to is the great question. The history of the church is the history of sinful men making sinful decisions. If we look at the early middle and late church history doe examples we see many who owned slaves, many who oppressed the poor, many who were discriminatory to the Jews (Martin Luther), etc.Women have been oppressed- not allowed to own land, vote, etc. Heck, women couldn’t be doctors for a long time because it was a man’s profession.
We are left with the problem of determining what is a “godly” representation of the faith and how do we decide what to overlook.
Once again, I am left with an understanding of radical grace because the church throughout the ages was deeply flawed and an example of no matter how much one knocks Christian “behavior” into the equation, we see much that is not. What is good and eternal versus what is manmade and really screwed up? I struggle with this a lot.
Anon 1 wrote:
And when this spins off into how ‘muscular’ a woman should be and how women need to approach men carefully so as not to upset the extremely fragile male ego (such as the proper way to give directions to a man) while saying nothing about addressing women with a measure of respect, maybe something is terribly wrong with the underlying premise.
Just an added point to someone’s observation above, i.e., that Mrs. Patterson has a doctorate from the University of South Africa. Having retired from a long career of teaching in Baptist universities, and possessing a hard-won Ph.D. from a state university in my field, the acceptance of a non- resident doctorate for graduate teaching is more than strange. She joins at least one other “prominent”” Baptist educator with a doctorate from South Africa: Ergun Caner.
Nancy wrote:
As a frequent visitor to Williamsburg, I can attest to hearing the same thing in the Capitol Building where the House of Burgesses met.
@ dee:
Me too.
dee wrote:
After many years of studying it, I came to the conclusion very little of it is “godly” except those who dared defy the state church on freedom in Christ issues and gave their lives doing so. I think we appeal to the Holy Spirit and study church history for what NOT TO DO. What else is there but the Holy Spirit when all the differing exegetical arguments are made? I am one who does not believe consistent rotten fruit is representative of Christianity but the opposite of it. I don’t believe having “correct doctrine” overrides violent evil behavior toward others in the Name of Jesus. There is something really creepy about that. Scary.
I’m pressed for time, so I’ll be brief. I believe it was elastigirl who asked what practical applications. Well, the most clear one is I could not join or support a church where a woman is in the office (yes I know that term is debatable)of pastor. I would find that a violation of Scripture and I could not in good conscience support it. I think there was one comment about church history. Yes, church history has it’s dark side. Good grief, just read the history of the middle ages. But are we so arrogant as to think we understand the Scriptures better than them? Church history isn’t infallible truth, but it should be at the very least consulted. Dee, I don’t have the time or space to go to much into much in regards to application in the life of the church, but I will say that I do think the Bible teaches the office is pastor is reserved for men who meet the qualifications of I Timothy 3. I do see a difference in a woman teaching what she is learning in a church setting verses teaching/preaching a thus saith the lord/authoritative type approach (yes, I know that is probably not helpful but its the best I can do in 5 minutes. This just isn’t a good medium. THis conversation needs to be had over a cup of coffee in person.) A woman and prophecy i’m still wrestling with. Everything else at this point, I am open to including sitting on a council and even the office of deacon.
Gav Whi wrote:
The First Lady . . . . ?? This turns my stomach. No offense to Dorothy Patterson, but the titles of pomp are overbearing.
The ending of this bio where she quotes herself ?? makes it sound like she was forced to do things she didn’t want to do. Am I supposed to be impressed with her husband that he forced her (I owe my graduate education to husband’s encouragement and determination to put me through these programs) and impressed with her because she submitted to his desires? No where does it say that ahe felt called and gifted by God to do any of these this. I guess her husband IS her authority . . . or so it is made to appear so.
JeffT wrote:
Also while asserting that a woman should submit to abuse for a season without concern for her feelings or dare I say trauma… And while asserting that a woman should ‘joyfully’* submit and press upon her that she should consider male leadership ‘sweet’ while again not giving two flips about any trauma or PTSD she may be suffering…
(No, it is not enough for a woman to submit as they define it. But he adds to the scripture and commands that she ‘joyfully’ submit. “sorry about you trauma, lady. s*cks to be you, but your lot in life is to be a doormat AND LIKE IT!”)
elastigirl, think you were asking for a reply from me by mistake further up the thread.
Speaking of joyfully submitting, here is a link to Shirley’s series “Desiring to be God”:
http://bwebaptistwomenforequality.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/desiring-to-be-god-part-1/
The “comps’ and Patriarchists are trying to impose the culture of the fall on the church that is supposed to worship the risen Christ. And the instructions to the church in the first century were to a very small group of converts in a culture of pantheism, emperor worship, temple prostitutes, laws against sex outside of marriage due to the large number of births out of wedlock, serial marriages (for the weekend, to make the sex legal) followed by divorce, wealthy pederasts (actually gets translated as “homosexuals”, but wasn’t), etc., etc. So being low key about cultural divergences was important but not necessarily religiously significant. And now some are trying to make us anathema in today’s culture.
Huh. If I were in this church I would just start asking ridiculous questions…
1.) What if he caught his clothes on fire and didn’t notice? Is she not allowed to tell him?
2.) What if she gets pregnant? Should she wait until he says something about it?
3.) If she crashes the family car should she not say anything?
4.) What if a child is ill or the bank account is low or any number of important issues come up…?
PP wrote:
Yes. No king but Jesus seems to be a good start. And not burning heretics anymore. Why do we think that punishment for heresy sinful and brutal now? What changed? How we understand scriptures, perhaps?
And thatcludes the Protestants who shared power and had the protection of Princes/Electors.
Yes, we HAVE moved on from that. Why? Why do we assume God only communicates/educates us through theologians to understand scripture?
Moxie wrote:
Ok, that is funny!
PP wrote:
Uh oh. If you are not married to ONE wife with kids, you are not qualified, either. :o)
Anon 1 wrote:
Exactly!
@ Richard: Rumor has it that there is some deal with the UNiv South Africa that you get all sorts of credit for writing a book or “serving” in some ministry.
I know the university is good for actual attendees. But the offsite PhD is a different matter altogether. It makes good money for the university.
Guess who has picked up the scent of money in Dubai?
http://www.bennyhinnindubai.com
First John Piper threatening that the Burj Khalifa would be coming down and now this quack. I don’t think Muslims in Dubai will be embracing “Christianity” anytime soon.
Anon 1 wrote:
I wonder, I am friends with a couple, long married, no children for whatever reason…I wonder how they are viewed by the hierarchy?
@ dee: All of history is a mess because it is about human beings. Very much including church history.
It’s hard to swallow, but there it is…
@ numo: Besides, the Bible is full of examples of people mistreating one another and sometimes of people committing horrendous evils. Even the NT has its share of conflict, recorded in Acts and in some of the pastoral epistles.
To assume that there was or ever will be a “golden age” is, imo, fallacious. It will only happen once there’s a new heaven and new earth, methinks…
@ linda:
I think there is a great deal of truth and common sense in that post. Obedience is always important, but in my own life and most of the churches I have been part of over the years getting the good news out has not always had the effectiveness it should have.
@ numo:
So burning heretics was Christian after all?
@ raswhiting:
The only reason I mention my political views from time to time in the context of gender complementarianism is to counter one of their stereotypes that the only reason they think a woman raised as a Christian to believe in their interpretation of “biblical womanhood” (gender comp) would abandon it must be due to secular feminism is false. I to this day don’t adhere to most views of secular feminists, but I rejected gender complementarianism.
As far as I remain a Christian at all, I still believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally and is inerrant. That also goes to show that rejecting gender comp does not lead one down a path of liberal theology, as they often claim or believe.
@ Arce: Oh, I think the “anathema” part was accomplished some decades back, and has only grown since. Because the culture wars were/are about attempting to impose the will and ideas of one group of people on the entire populace, not the other way around. It kills me when people complain about being “persecuted” when they have umpty-ump media outlets for doing so.
something’s just a *bit* off with their reasoning….
@ anon 1: No fights allowed.
I’m going to ask elastigirl to get her feather and start a tickle “fight,” as she often does when things begin to get a bit heated.
@ Serving Kids in Japan:
I’m sorry to beat a dead horse, but it’s called codependency.
Starting from a very young age, American females are taught to be codependent, which involves many qualities and mindsets, one of which is, it is un-ladylike and wrong for females to be assertive and direct.
If a woman is direct and tough on a job, she is called a b-. If a man acts the same way, he gets the label “manager material,” “decisive,” or “tough.”
Which means American girls learn at a young age to be sneaky, passive aggressive and manipulative to get what they want.
Instead of punching another girl in the face to express anger, they will refuse to invite that girl to their birthday party. (Social games are played, rather than the use of raised voices or fists). This behavior carries into adulthood.
It is why many wives don’t straight up tell their sweetie what they want, and expect the man to read their mind and get angry when he does not.
It’s why a man can tell his wife is angry, but when he asks her, “Are you angry” or “Why are you angry” she screams, “I am not angry!!” and then she spends the rest of the day slamming cupboards and doors. Yes she is angry but was raised by culture that it is wrong for a female to show anger.
Many evangelical and Baptist churches/versions of Christianity re-enforce this by teaching women that the Bible says Christian women should not be assertive but should always be quiet, sweet, put other people’s needs first all the time.
Gender comp takes it all one step further and prescribes codependent behavior as being “biblical” for women to live by and strive for.
As I said on Julie Anne’s blog, make a list of typical qualities of codependency, and one of typical so-called biblical womanhood traits (as defined by gender comps), and both lists would be almost identical.
PP wrote:
Well, we ought to understand the scripture better after centuries of research and scholarship. Why would knowledge or understanding of scripture plateau and stop at a time of serious ignorance like the middle ages?
numo wrote:
When you define Persecution(TM) as not being allowed to persecute everyone else…
Anon 1 wrote:
Many Christian blogs and books say that a single woman’s husband is “the Lord,” so that would mean per their rules, an unmarried woman could preach/teach anywhere, any time, under her husband’s (wh is the Lord) covering. 😆
Not that I believe that women need “male covering” (that sounds more like some branches of Islam who teach a woman must always be in the presence of a male relative if leaving the house), but if going by their rules, any single woman can preach/teach anytime, anywhere.
Bridget wrote:
“First Lady” is not that accurate a term.
A better translation would be “QUEEN BEE”.
@ Nancy: The Middle Ages span a *long* period of time, and unfortunately, have the reputation of being a time of, as you said, “serious ignorance.” But the actual reality of things is much different than it’s often made out to be.
The “dark” in “Dark Ages” is about the fall of the western part of the Roman empire – which was mainly accomplished by the Christianized Roman Empire itself, not by internal decadence or even terrible barbarians. The eastern part of the Roman Empire still stood (in Constantinople).
The Renaissance was a time of great change, but partly because many classical texts (on philosophy, art, architecture etc.) became more widely available. And there was new money, new art patronage (by families and private individuals), and a rising merchant/middle class.
I’m admittedly broad-brushing here, but medieval history is really fascinating (to me, anyway!) Did you know that the 1st western universities began during that time? Ditto for western medical schools? (And many other things.)
It’s not as if most Roman citizens were literate, and that mass illiteracy somehow descended once the central authority of the emperor (in Rome) was no more. In a way, “dark ages” is leveled at people who are Not Like Us who made conquests – political as well as military – during that period.
Anon 1 wrote:
That also reminds me, as I said on the previous thread. There was one gender comp church that taught that women cannot preach, but they made an exception when some famous lady speaker dropped by.
They removed the large, wooden pulpit and replaced it with a small table and she was allowed to speak to the congregation.
So… it looks like a large piece of wooden furniture (and maybe in conjunction a person with an Adam’s apple) is what qualifies a person to speak in such churches, NOT God and/or NOT the Scriptures. 😆
Authority comes from furniture in some churches, not God. 😆
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: Exactly.
dee wrote:
I agree.
I don’t believe the Bible teaches women cannot preach/lead men, but I understand some Christians interpret one or two verses to believe that, so they say women cannot be preachers. Okay, we will agree to disagree on that, fine.
What bothers me is when gender complementarians try to extend beyond that, to say women cannot even so much as teach Sunday School, or do other things, all based on gender. They go farther with gender rules than the Bible itself does.
Sometimes these teachings about gender bleed over into other things and are very harmful, like Piper teaching that Christian wives are mandated to endure abuse from a husband “for a season.”
Anon 1 wrote:
I already have a deep distrust of women. That would make it even worse, to the point of self-protection by boot-on-neck Male Supremacy.
I also grew up with a master manipulator. (“Dance, Monkey! Dance!”) To this day, nothing triggers a berserk rage in me than finding out I’ve been manipulated.
Do these women WANT to cultivate gendercidal hatred and distrust among males? An inifintely-increasing synergy of Male Supremacy and Female Covert-Aggression, each justifying the other, fueling each other like lithium deuteride fusion and uranium fission in a detonating thermonuclear bomb?
@ Moxie:
You would be permitted to mime about it all.
Pointing is also acceptable: if his clothing is on fire, point at it madly while jumping up and down. 😆
@ Anon 1:
Notice that the Bible does say something about kids in plural, IIRC. So, a man who is married to one wife, if he has but ONE child would not be permitted to lead/teach/pastor (whatever) either.
Nancy wrote:
And how many n*gg*rs Daddy had working the fields under the overseers’ whip, creating the wealth enjoyed by Daddy’s family in the Big House.
But then, as long as YOU’re the one Personally Benefiting from it all…
http://youtu.be/gOJUJ4Jzakk
@ Anon 1:
And never had sex with anyone before you married the wife you now have, as the OT rule was sex = marriage to the other person.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It’s the males who promote this behavior in females, though.
(Christian males are really bad, the gender comp ones insist that all females be that way under gender comp, it is said to be biblical for a female to be indirect, quiet sweet all the time. We ladies are taught it is unBiblical and unChristian to be assertive and direct.)
Then the mothers teach the girls to be that way.
Trust me, I would have much preferred to be direct with folks, but was brain washed from youth by dear, sweet mom and Christian Culture that it was not proper.
Secular culture is also bad about this, it sends message to females from young age in movies, school yard, magazines you are to be Pretty and Quiet especially if you want a boyfriend.
@ numo:
Why do you consider serious questions a “fight”? That is the response I get from fundys! They think any question that might disagree is pickinga fight. Don’t get it. Where do we draw the line in the sand for “Christian behavior”? Burning heretics?
I do not believe in a ‘golden age’ but I do think we are to be the “kingdom” on earth as the prayer says that Jesus prayed. I am not sure why we cannot look back at history and see how Christians loved one another instead of institutions vying for power over people in force in the Name of God. Killing those who disagreed with them. I find it astonishing we actually call it Christianity and promte their scriptural understanding. Not saying there is nothing to learn but it seems more like what NOT to do. Lessons learned?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I agree it does just that in the long run and very subtly.
@ Arce:
Jesus was not qualifed. Sigh
@ Daisy:
RK McGregor Wright, who wrote a response to the Danvers Statement years ago, said that one church he knew of played an audio tape of a woman talking. This meant she was not “teaching” men for some reason. So, not seen but heard means no teaching occured.
Amazing isn’t it? These are grown men, usually with education, doing these things.
Daisy wrote:
Ha Ha!!! Mimes never carry authority. :o)
Daisy wrote:
They base this on Sarah calling Abraham, lord. (small l) without even thinking of ancient cultural context. Nevermind, Sarah can mean “princess of the multitude.
Anon 1 wrote:
Or “Queen of the multitudes”
@ PP:
Thanks, PP, for the response. A few thoughts.
“…church history…But are we so arrogant as to think we understand the Scriptures better than them?”
++++++++++++++++
–I think any “Christian” modus operandi that affirms personhood (rather than discriminating against it, not recognizing it, torturing it, killing it) is a better understanding of scriptures.
Affirms personhood, meaning believes in the equality & dignity of all human beings, thus informing one’s heart choices, word choices, actions, decisions.
————
“…I do see a difference in a woman teaching what she is learning in a church setting verses teaching/preaching a thus saith the lord/authoritative type approach”
++++++++++
–It would be a sad thing if a woman’s source of learning is simply what her church serves up and makes available to her.
What constitutes teaching/preaching a thus saith the lord/authoritative type approach?
Would only a man with the “pastor” title be allowed to teach/preach a thus saith the lord/authoritative type approach? Would a man without the title be allowed?
——————-
“This just isn’t a good medium. THis conversation needs to be had over a cup of coffee in person.)”
+++++++++++
–agreed. but since that’s not possible, can we give it our best shot anyway? for the sake of understanding? Complementarianism is inherently about rules, and rules don’t mean anything unless all understand them.
———
“A woman and prophecy i’m still wrestling with.”
+++++++++
–what, in your mind, is prophecy?
@ Anon 1:
A lot of Christians also get it from,
Isaiah 54:5,
That one (and similar ones) get quoted at Christian single women every so often.
Christian singles are told that “God is your husband” or “Jesus is your husband/boyfriend.”
@ RB:
Hi, RB. You said,
” Very few men serve on altar guild, cook for and wash dishes at potlucks, serve in the nursery, dust, clean toilets, bring meals to the sick, be on prayer chains, work at VBS and teach children all year, etc.”
If this is your observation, then what do you observe the men doing? Making a fine art of chair straightening just until the dishes are all done and the church kitchen floor all mopped and a woman is carrying the mop to the utility closet? At which moment a man will say “Oh, here, let me get that for you”.
@ RB:
Ah, yes, my comment/question was in response to
PP UNITED STATES on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 10:21 PM
…but RB showed up instead. Thanks for noticing.
Daisy wrote:
But always careful to do it in a way that doesn’t undermine his manliness or indicate that one is instructing him on what he should do about it. Wouldn’t want to “press” on him, or anything.
@ anon 1:
anon1….I look forward to a blogpost when you leave her alone.
Daisy wrote:
And the Christian single women internalize it. That’s one of the main reasons I learned NEVER to trust a Christian dating service or any of the Christian Single Women listed therein. Their profiles all went on about how devout and Christian they were, to the point they ceased to be human. And their “Personal Relationship with Christ” which left no room for a mortal boyfriend.
Why were they listed on the dating service when they already had a perfect Boyfriend/Husband/Edward Cullen named Jesus? Like the “bride of Christ” syndrome you found among extreme cloistered nuns in the Middle Ages (including the “Bridal Mysticism” erotic imagery of Christ), except without the outward signals. How is a messed-up mortal like me expected to compete with THAT?
Moxie wrote:
Am I the only one who reads a sexual overtone into the term “press on him”?
TW wrote:
With that one-two punch, I’ll be surprised if nobody starts calling for Jihad.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Nope.
I hope Piper is not accidentally talking about issues with his own personal life.
@ elastigirl:
?? I don’t get it?
Anon 1 wrote:
Anti-instrumental churches struggle with what to do at weddings. Some stick to A Capella only. Some allow recordings so long as no physical instrument is brought into the church building. Some allow an instrument so long as it’s removed prior to Sunday morning. Some put the piano/organ just outside a window where it can be heard but not seen! No music occurred!
I’ve heard that some of these same churches require elders to step down if their wife dies. No longer qualified… 🙁
@ anon 1:
let numo make her comments without picking on her so much.
I think the Piper link at the top of this page is important (btw thanks for putting in the post. Unless I missed something the Bible nowhere addresses a woman’s muscles. My wife and both of daughters work out. They’re not bodybuilders but we have a friend who is and I never thought once that the Bible prohibited her from this pursuit. The real issue here with Piper is AUTHORITY. He had not a molecule of authority to address women working out. It simply isn’t in the Bible. A woman’s muscles are her own business. He just has an opinion on this topic and was unwise enough to make it public. Likewise, Mrs. Patterson has NO AUTHORITY to say that changing the sheets is the woman’s duty. Just her opinion. My wife and I do it together like we do alot of other things around the house.
Daisy wrote:
I was once told, “God can be your date,” when I was one of only two women at a church Valentine’s function without a date.
In the OP, Dee described comp. as “ethereal and unable to apprehend but simple examples”.
She also talked quite a bit about Russell Moore, who’s not been discussed much in comments yet. So, I give you the following quote from his “Moore to the Point” blog:
“For too long, we’ve refused to discipline a divorce culture that has ravaged our churches.”
Since he doesn’t explain this ethereal statement, we should speculate about just what this discipline might look like!
@ Steven:
Why does Piper think he has any authority at all? Or any of them. All they could do to me is kick me out of their church. If you can’t enforce authority, then do you really have any?
Steven wrote:
Great points! I have been working out most days for 30 minutes, and it really does make a difference. One of my goals for 2014 is to be able to do 10 consecutive push-ups (like guys do). I can now do 4, and that’s quite an accomplishment for me since I’ve NEVER been able to do more than 1 or 2 in a row. Fighting against the flab. 🙂
dee wrote:
As do I. However, I also see the damage that this system perpetrates at my church, and others. And I do see a trajectory (slow but steady) toward that changing.
Many “biblical” abuses have been justified with “much study” only to be revealed as complete error down the line.
If PP hasn’t read them, I recommend:
Finally Feminist by Stackhouse
Blue Parakeet by McKnight
How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership by various authors (edited by Johnson)
Deb wrote:
Deb, great for you! I’m still trying to understand why Piper would address such a topic. His wording is strange. Just plain weird. I never cease to be amazed that Jesus sets us free and then we’ll let some human enslave us with the most ridiculous shackles.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Well, HUG, there is a way to filter a lot of those people out. In your profile, just mention that you like dancing. The ones you’d want to avoid will not respond…
Joy Huff wrote:
Unfortunately, celebrity Christians get their authority from their large number of followers. Sell a bunch of books, say whatever you want (even preposterous things about a woman’s muscles), the mass of unthinking followers believe it, and presto you can now hold a conference on why women should stay out of the gym. The authority is an illusion; the effects, however, are real and often painful.
Seneca
I have thought about your unapproved comment for awhile. I highly object to those who call others who disagree/agree with a secondary issue as being on the wrong side of God and in danger of being actively opposing him which, of course, is heresy. No one here, unless they are a Satanist, actively seeks to oppose God.
This is a stupid discussion tactic, as silly as calling someone a heretic who believes in an old earth. A heretic, of course, is one who will go to hell.
I have decided not to approve your comment.
Anon 1 wrote:
You have got to be kidding.
@ TW:
Hinn, Piper, Dever and Mahaney (via books) are all in Dubai??? Wow, what a choice.
PP wrote:
The Inquisition, the beheading of Servetus, slavery, Holy wars, racism, the hanging of witches, the jailing of scientists like Galileo who stood against the Bible when he said the earth revolved around the sun… the arrogance might belong to those who think they “know” exactly what the Bible says in each and every situation. 50 years ago there were Southern Baptists preaching against interracial marriage and advocating the separation of the races based on the Bible.
That is why I view the Bible through the lens of radical grace as ween in Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection. The Bible and Christian history is the story of sinful men and women and the story of a God who rescues us in spite of ourselves and in spite of how we interpret things poorly in order to benefit our positions.
Tina wrote:
Blech….
Joy Huff wrote:
Jeff Anderson, the well-known plaintiff attorney in clergy sex abuse cases made this point to me many years ago. he told me to always tell what I believe to be the truth. The only thing they can do to me is kick me out of a church. And if I am upset about something that is going on in a church, why would I want to be there anyway?
E.G. wrote:
The Briscoes were involved in that book. Their son, Pete, was my pastor in Dallas (after I got the heck out of Ed Young’s church). He has a female pastor who is excellent-Joanne Hummel. The Briscoes prove one does not have to be a leftist to accept women in the pastorate.
dee wrote:
Double blech. What prevents me from filling in the blank with ANYTHING? God can be your ______. Is someone tampering with church’s water supplies? Women’s muscles, women’s dates, changing the sheets, homemaker courses in seminaries….
dee wrote:
My heartfelt condolences :-). Jr. has a campus here now. We get it all here in S.C. (Sr. was here years ago.)
Tina wrote:
Tina, HUG, Daisy –
I’m sorry that people treated/treat you so idiotically — really I am. Sometimes people should just hold their tongues — literally if that’s what it takes. 🙄
Joy Huff wrote:
I asked this same question once on a patriarchalist’s blog. I asked how a husband enforced his authority in practical terms. What means did he have to make his wife comply? The answer … *crickets* … and then they kicked me off the blog and banned me from posting again.
Leila wrote:
Well, do we assume that they were exercising the same type of authority with you as they do in their homes? If so, how incredibly sad for their families.
Leila wrote:
You all are extremely dangerous because you’ve discovered their dirty little secret! In this country, Thank God, they can only rule through indoctrination and fear – if you refuse to buy into what their selling they have no power.
If not for the Constitution, though, they would become like the Taliban and have many more tools with which to instill fear.
@ Moxie:
I shall have to make note of that.
Women may also communicate with men using smoke signals. Though it’s a lost art and may need to be re-learned.
Steven wrote:
…….
So true. And the effects are happening to young women now. I expect some of these women will become sick and tired of being man handled and ditch hubby and home. Unfortunately, many of these young women will have lots of children and just lives quiet lives of desperation and much physical work. Then when they are about 50, (not having any marketable skills) their creepy husbands can go have an affair.
Banging head. So much want these young women to not be manipulated into believing God regards them as vessels of abuse.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Not all Christian women are like that. I was not.
I always found the “Jesus is your boyfriend” stuff from other women strange, and I didn’t like other (married) Christians telling me “God is your husband.”
It is used as another cheap cliche’ to give to single Christian women who want marriage but have been unable to find a partner.
Occasionally, I came across the male equivalents on forums for Christian singles, single men who say they want a woman who looks like actress Angelina Jolie but who lives the life of Mother Teresa.
Dave A A wrote:
Yes, it’s happened. I’ve read in books and blogs by and for Christian singles such stories.
One was a guy who was a married preacher for 15 or more years. When his wife died, they made him quit.
He asked to be teacher of singles Sunday School, they said nope, it has to be led by a married person. He went around interviewing at other churches to get hired as a preacher.
Despite the fact he had been a preacher for 15-20+ years nobody would hire him because he had no wife. They did not even care that he USED to be married but that his wife died.
dee wrote:
Servetus was actually burned at the stake. Calvin did ask them to be merciful and behead him instead, bless his little heart.
Tina wrote:
My condolences. 🙁
I’m sorry.
Dave A A wrote:
Maybe he longs for Old Testament stoning laws?
I’ve read enough blog pages and comments by divorced folks who say the churches they went to were so hostile or mean to divorced people, that they just stopped going to church.
This is even true in cases where a divorced woman gets shunned by the church she was going to, even though the husband left her and she did not want the divorce… these women still get treated like dirt.
In one story I read, right after one such woman got re-married, her church treated her like gold again.
Daisy wrote:
Should be added to the homemaking curriculum.
@ Bridget:
Thank you. 🙂
I understand when married people say that stuff to singles, their hearts are usually in the right place, but I wish they understood that such comments can hurt or sound condescending.
A simple ‘I’m sorry’ is more than sufficient if a single person tells you they are feeling sad about being single.
Steven wrote:
Well, considering the fact that Ed buys property in nice areas (see Miami) and needs an excuse to be able to deduct flying there aboard his private jet, I would venture to guess that Ed has property out on Kiawah, HIlton Head or in Charleston where Lisa gets to play rich Southern bell. Look for property purchases under one of his many trust names.
Leila wrote:
Some of them apparently use spanking.
The Christian Patriarchy Movement’s Dark Secret of Wife Spanking
I don’t know how common that is.
elastigirl wrote:
I’m going to second this. There seems to be a constant clashing, and it’s stronger from your side. I get loads out of your perspective, apart from this.
Daisy wrote:
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, the spectre of domestic discipline rears its ugly head again * sticks fingers in ears & runs around singing la la la*
dee wrote:
Yep. I mean, the very last thing we need in Columbia was another church. Especially an Ed Jr. one. Lisa’s sister lives here and goes to FBC where Jr. grew up. You can read about this “church” at http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2009/08/it-was-hey-no-big-deal.html.
Dave A A wrote (quoting one Russell Moore):
The thing is, disciplining a divorce culture is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. For too long, we’ve refused to teach and exemplify God’s miraculous and un-reproduceable love, settling instead for a set of religious laws served up with whatever human love we can comfortably generate.
Deebs…can I recommend you link your blog to Phoenix Preacher and Warren Throckmorton? Those two would be a good resource for you and people reading here.
“When a woman prophesies, she should cover her head.” elastigirl:
@ Deb:
Deebs…will we ever see you in bodybuilding? The future Ms. North Carolina as sponsored by TWW? 😛 We’ll need to work your abs, biceps, etc… Better start loading up on whey protein! 😀
@ Eagle:
Thanks for the advice. Bought some of it recently. 😉
@ Bridget:
The term “husband” has meanings other than “marital partner”. It has meanings similar to shepherd, etc., that is, one who tends to a flock or herd, who takes care of animals. So God can be our husband (even for those of us who are males) in the sense that Christ is our Shepherd.
@ Daisy:
Daisy wrote:
I am curious – is it stated that explicitly? I take it that the guys making those comments do not correspondingly look like Brad Pitt.
However, not all of us are looking for an Angelina Jolie. Some of us are looking for a Juliette Binoche. (ducks)
@ Daisy:
And if his clothes are on fire, smoke would be readily available.
@ JeffT:
It should be “bless his evil little heart”. I do not believe Calvin was anything but evil, a wolf who sometimes appeared in shepherd’s clothing.
Daisy wrote:
Don’t forget the 44DD bra size on the A-Jo clone.
Or the *Sparkling* in the Sunlight Skin of the genderflip equivalent.
Ever thought they should just pre-print it on the “what I’m like” and “what I’m looking for” sections of the dating service application? Would save a lot of hassle.
@ Arce:
Maybe so, but that is not how married Christians use the word when they are awkwardly attempting to console single Christian ladies.
@ Daisy:
Having their heart slightly to the left of the centerline of the chest is irrelevant. They have been sold a bill of goods and are busy spreading that trash around. If they were of good intent, they would think a bit more before spewing that.
Lin wrote:
Like Doug Phillips ESQUIRE.
@ Daisy:
No, but the Bible reference may be to the shepherd meaning, not the marital one.
For those who don’t keep up with this sort of thing, Tunis is currently undergoing significant political turmoil as the country adopts a new constitution. Long a secular state, the “Arab Spring” brought islamist government to the nation, and now they seek a return to a more secular and equitable state. There was a minor uproar earlier when the islamist party sought to replace the word “equality” in the constitution with “complementary”. Not irrelevant to the current thread.
E.G. wrote:
Finally Feminist by Stackhouse
Blue Parakeet by McKnight
How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership by various authors (edited by Johnson)
Have read the first and just finishing up the third. Both were really great reads. Thanks for the suggestion on the one by McKnight.
@ srs:
They (single males on Christian forums for singles) didn’t use those exact words, but yes, that is what they are shooting for. That was what they conveyed.
One guy on one singles forum (self professing Christian) said he refused to date any one but blondes, and he considers ten pounds over a woman’s stated ideal weight to be “fat.”
I first thought he was trolling, but the longer I was there, to my horror, I realized the guy was serious, he was legit.
Some of the single Christian men on the forum would describe their female physical ideal (who usually sounded like 23 year old, air brushed magazine models), then go on to list someone who is the female version of Jesus in personality and life style.
Some of the strangest criteria I saw from males were the ones who would say things like (this is my summary of some of their views, not exact words),
“The woman has to love Jesus so much, that she loves Him way more than me. She would have to tell me she doesn’t care about me at all so set on Jesus that she is.
She has to spend every minute chasing after Jesus, and handing out Gospel tracts to the natives of third world nations….”
(Actually, some of them did word it pretty close to that, the part about them wanting a woman who thinks about Jesus 24/7, about her loving Jesus more than wanting to be married etc.)
They sounded like they wanted to pursue women who would show no signs of wanting them in return, because those women prefer a relationship with Jesus to a RL BF (real life boyfriend). I did not understand that at all.
Not all the single Christian guys were like that, but there was a sub-set of them who were like that at one or two singles forums I used to hang out on.
@ Arce:
My only point is that married Christians really should stop telling single people who want to be married that they are “married to God,” “The Lord is your husband” or “dating Jesus” and so on.
There are some single Christian women who find that comforting (they like to say on forums that “Jesus is my boyfriend”), but a lot of us single ladies find such analogies depressing or insulting.
Daisy wrote:
“23 year old, air-brushed magazine models” or Internet Porn downloads?
I assume “female version of Jesus in personality and lifestyle” is what I call “A Spiritual Giant so Uber-Christian even Christ Himself couldn’t measure up”?
THE STUPID! IT BURNS!
I did want to say I agree with the original post.
I used to think that gender complementarians did not really know what they want or think about a woman’s role(s) (other than the agreed upon “women shalt not preach in church”), but maybe they do.
I suspect that they want all women to be SAHMs(*), to be throw backs to 1955 “Leave it to Beaver” re-runs, but I suspect they realize if they are explicit about that belief, they will get a lot of heat from the public and from other Christians.
The SBC has been losing members for I don’t know how many years now.
I realize that Christianity is not a popularity contest, and I’m not saying that Christians should always contort biblical teachings to keep people appeased, but since 60% of most church attenders/(members?) are women, and we’re living in a day and age when women are not all expected to conform to SAHMism, they are probably going to lose even more members.
Then you have all the married Christian ladies who might stop going if the SBC keeps pushing the gender role view. If they stop attending, you know their husbands will too.
Barna wrote a book touching on this I’ve been thinking about reading. Here’s a site about the book:
“The Resignation of Eve”
—————-
*There is nothing wrong with women being SAHMs, if it is their informed choice to be one.
I am only in disagreement with Christians presenting SAHMism as being a woman’s only or only acceptable/’godly’ choice in life.
Daisy wrote:
Begs the question about why a woman like that would WANT a guy in the first place. Jesus is her Edward Cullen (Shekinah sparkles), not you. At best, you’re an ATM paying the mundane bills so she can “spend every minute chasing after Jesus”. Never mind how she could have ANY time for you in the first place when she’s “spending every minute chasing after Jesus”.
You know what that type of non-negotiable “What I’m Looking For” reminds me of?
A “Fag Hag” — a woman who is ONLY attracted to homosexual males.
Arce wrote:
Don’t disagree with the sentiment-I was being sarcastic
Eagle wrote:
Do women drink whey protein shakes? 🙂 What’s the world coming to?
dee wrote:
Yeah, the Scripture I quoted is a problem.
Dorothy Patterson’s whole hat wearing deal and her reasons for it strike me as disingenuous. It’s especially egregious to say she’s doing it in a symbolic gesture, to demonstrate her husband is her head or whatever.
Her hair is thinning on top and in front.
Notice her hats always cover the front of her hairline. She doesn’t prop any of her bonnets toward the back of her head, tied with a ribbon, like a nice southern belle.
Are there pictures of her when she was younger, full head of hair, wearing hats?
I mean OK, nothing with wearing hats if they make you feel better and you’ve got some pattern baldness to cover, no big deal.
But please, don’t start doing it and say it’s for spiritual reasons when that’s not the real reason. Lame!!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Anything more than a Champagne glass full is too much.
Hey Dee, speaking of resurrecting bad ideas from the past, someone’s at Scarlet Letters trying to explain to me why it could theoretically be okay for a 12yo to get married. At least that’s all I’m hearing from him. You get all sorts I guess.
Daisy wrote:
Hard to fathom Daisy, and yet I believe what you say is true, that some guys can actually live in such a bizarrely off-kilter Dr. Seuss world.
@ Muff Potter:
I’m with Muff. B is enough.
It won’t.
Thousands of years of history/culture is proof.
And there are enough Bible verses to back it up.
Pure hubris to believe otherwise.
PP’s comments above will anger many.
But his position is the most biblically defensible.
Other arguments seem to ignore history and take great liberties with the ancient texts.
Hester wrote:
OK-this is officially weird. I am writing about this tomorrow.
Anon wrote:
I am not sure women in today’s churches will voluntarily give up sitting on committees. I think they are hurting themselves by extending their hand.
Anon wrote:
Nope.
Not the MOST biblically defensible.
Just the one that has been made the most by men in history and in the present using a certain, short string of overused bible verses while ignoring vast fields of other verses that refute it.
@ dee:
Come on over, he’s still commenting. Seriously, go read them. They’re under the latest post about 12yos. He appears to think I’m “fearmongering” by pointing out that it’s dangerous for a 12yo to carry a pregnancy to term. And if that’s not what he means, then he’s communicating terribly.
@ Daisy:
…or “Billy Graham in Brad Pitt’s body,” as I once heard that sort of thing referred to at a courtship seminar. At least that speaker had the good sense to condemn this kind of hyper-idealism.
Addendum @ dee:
Also, I sent you (last week I think?) my completed guest post about that homeschool convention I attended back in April. It’s post-ready whenever you want to put it up.
@ Hester:
Just ask Henry VIIs mother. Her guardians, like all prudent guardians, tried to prevent her consummating her extremely young marriage, but her young husband managed to get around their safeguards during a visit. She successfully brought her son to term, but almost died and her body was so ravaged that she never bore another child. They knew even in the middle ages that such young pregnancies were unsafe.
@ Anon:
Everything you have said, just like you said it (except the reference to PP) could be said and was said by Baptist preachers in the south concerning slavery back in the day. And, in fact, there still exists slavery in the world. But most of us see no justification for it in Christianity, regardless of how some biblical statements were understood in the not too distant past.
These are not unrelated issues, since similar attitudes and understandings concerning scripture are in play in both issues.
Are we to believe that Almighty God, Himself, in using the analogies of “marriage” and “husband” is trying to reduce HImself to the level of somebody’s date?
It is a waste of time to try to determine what somebody “thinks” when they say stuff like that. They are not thinking.
Daisy wrote:
The flip side of this is what boys are taught — that it’s “unmanly” to show honest emotion, or to admit any pain, suffering or weakness. To do so carries the risk of being called “wimp” or any number of homophobic epithets. And that means boys learn early to hide their weakness and numb their pain with anything that works… including rage.
This is the main thesis of Dr. Real’s book: some (not all) anti-social behaviour typically committed by men can be traced back to covert depression, exacerbated by the biases of modern Western culture, in which men are often shamed (explicitly or implicitly) for seeking treatment for emotional scars. He makes the case that preventing abuse by husbands and fathers will require, in part, a large-scale rethinking of “traditional” male and female roles.
You mentioned:
And prescribes abusive behaviour and attitudes of entitlement as “biblical” for men. That’s the other side of the coin.
So pathetically ironic. Some of those who claim to be the most counter-cultural — making a stand for Jesus — in fact may simply be absorbing the worst gender prejudices of our age, perhaps even without recognizing it. And then giving those prejudices the added weight of divine sanction.
Serving Kids in Japan wrote:
Yes, this.
Both Daisy and Serving are bringing to the forefront how sick this structure really is and how it isn’t the freeing grace and knowledge that Jesus taught.
Serving Kids in Japan wrote:
They are, in fact, NOT counter-cultural, because they affirm every stereotype and every prejudice of their OWN group. Being counter-cultural and making a stand for Jesus would mean something completely different:
– trying to understand and transcend their own group’s prejudices and stereotypes
– not repeating and actually speaking out against their own group’s prejudices and stereotypes.
– making a stand with Jesus against abusers of any kind
– speaking out against silly legalism
– speaking out against self-aggrandising pastors
Hester
Thank you for reminding me. I am thinking about putting it in as part of a post today on kevin Swanson and young marriage.
Nancy wrote:
A dying skill.
Steven wrote:
Post of the thread….
I don’t like labels because if you think for yourself you won’t be comfortable with any label. Having said that, for many years I would have been called an evangelical, a Calvinist, Reformed, baptistic, conservative, etc. However, some of my opinions have always been contrary to the label. Additionally, some of my views have changed through the years.
I remember years ago hearing and reading about the growing underground church in China. These churches were pastored by women. The “conservatives” wiggled off the hook by saying that God made this allowance because there weren’t enough men to lead the church in China. I thought that sounded reasonable although it seemed insistent with the same “conservative” view of scipture because God did not mention any such allowance in the Bible. I was younger and just accepted this at the time.
I would like to now argue the same case for America. There simply aren’t enough true spiritual shepherds to pastor the flock. Furthermore, those holding themselves out to be shepherds have rendered the church irrecognizable. There is no point of contact with the contemporary church and the NT.
My conclusion is that it’s time to turn the church in America over to women. It actually may be our only hope. The time has come.
BTW, virtually every friend I have witin the church would say that I have gone off the deep end for this opinion. Maybe I have because I also let my wife go to the gym this morning. Sorry, Piper.
Seneca
Baloney,and you know it.
@ Steven:
I suspect several people feel as you do. Unfortunately, church culture is to be luke-warm water (“I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water.”–Derek Smalls in Spinal Tap).
Whatever fire and ice you’ve got, I hope you manage to let it out. In a smart way. Are you good at diplomacy?
@ Steven:
That was a profound comment that I have never considered.
Good for you for 'allowing' your wife to take care of hersellf physically (and mentally) by going to the gym. I, too, worked out this morning at Curves. They have just teamed up with Jillian Michaels, who instructs us via video. Jillian has us doing push-ups for 30 seconds during the workout, and I was able to do TEN! First time ever! Guess it's time to set a higher goal for 2014.
Wesley wrote:
The A Beka Books government textbook (produced by Pensacola Christian College) 1986 edition (which I was required to teach from in a Christian high school in 2000) says that the president must be “happily” married, Protestant and have at least two children.
elastigirl wrote:
elastigirl, That depends on who you ask; I think I’m very diplomatic :-).
Deb wrote:
Deb, 10 pushups! That’s huge! Congratulations! My wife used to not be able to do one. Now she does way more than me! Keep up the great work!
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
Can you explain why you post here regularly?
If you think we are all opposed to God (and because we don’t agree with gender complementarianism(?)), are you here to convert us and save our souls? Are you assuming everyone who posts here is really un-saved and needs the Gospel?
Convince us to adopt your views on doctrine?
Or what?
I don’t know if it’s okay for me to ask this stuff, if Dee was not comfortable above with you going in this direction, but I do wonder why someone who doesn’t seem to like anyone at all here would keep posting here.
@ burntnorton:
I’ve tried to explain that to this guy like, 8000 times. He’s still insisting it’s not a sin to marry off your 12yo, even though it essentially amounts to playing Russian roulette with their body. Headbang.
@ Muff Potter:
One of the most frustrating things for me was watching a Christian show where a guest was interviewing middle aged single Christians about being single.
The host had on a female Christian relationship guru who explained that the reason a lot of singles stay single are too long lists of criteria, or unrealistic expectations.
For the men, she said many of them (even Christians -and yes, spend time on singles forums and dating sites, and you will see some Christian males who are like this, not all, but a big enough percentage) all expect, want, and demand perpetual 23 year old women with perfect bodies and long, blond hair, even the men who are 785 pounds, bald, missing teeth and 53 years old.
She reminded them to get past being too obsessed with looks.
Despite going on about this problem, the male host turned to to a 50 year old divorced Christian guy and totally cancelled out everything the female guest just explained when he said to the male guest: “But looks DO Matter to men, do they not?” And the guest said, “Oh yes! Men judge each other based on the attractiveness of the wife.”
Again, these guys both claim to be Christians and sounded no different than 95% of Non-Christian guys who are fixated on youth and beauty.
@ dee:
Maybe I should bump up that Doug Phillips lecture I lifted off the NCFIC (before it was scrubbed) about early marriage… 😉
I am going to write a post about this guy though.
@ Anon:
And Christian egalitarianism is also biblically defensible. Actually, more so.
Gender comp is based not on the overall teaching of Scripture and the teachings of Christ, but on two cherry picked verses by Paul aimed at a particular woman and particular church 2,000 years ago.
The longer gender comp is observed to contain a host of contradictions (eg, gender comps cannot come to an agreement on exactly when, where and how, women may teach at all; for example some churches say women may teach mixed gender Sunday school classes, other churches say no way), and that it’s based more on an agenda – keeping male gender supremacy – is also causing a lot of people to question it if not abandon it.
Daisy wrote:
This is rampant. This one practice enslaves, intimidates, and abuses many. Another example of this is tithing. I cannot believe this is practiced so feverishly in spite of the fact that it is simply isn’t biblical.
@ Steven:As a man, I do not have the authority to “let” my wife (I prefer “spouse”) do anything, other than when we are talking about my employment. And while, given the authority that I do not have, I would “send” or “take” her to the gym, that is not within my authority either. However, I do encourage her to get exercise as that is good for her health and the longevity of our abilities to enjoy each other in certain ways.
The only times I have authority, other than wrt my employment, vis a vis my spouse is when she is ill and cannot act on her own, and I have a POA from her to do so!
@ Serving Kids in Japan:
I agree with your assessment.
The only other thing I would add is that evangelical and Baptist churches, IMO, shame both genders equally when admitting weakness, or in admitting they are using medicine or therapy for mental health problems.
I think secular culture may be more lenient on women admitting weakness or having depression or whatever than they are on men, but a lot of churches are dead set against anyone, male or female, seeing a psychiatrist or (a non nouthetic) counselor.
I also noticed after my mother’s death, when I went to other Christians for comfort (i.e., admitting weakness), I got instead blame, judgement, criticism, unsolicited advice, etc.
Some people – Christian people, even – seemed angry, upset, or annoyed I was admitting to needing help from them or asking for help, and I am a woman.
I don’t know if it’s because such people are afraid my weakness spells out that their interpretation of “Jesus is sufficient for all your needs” was not ringing true.
Such Christians tend to think all you should need to make it in life and through rough patches is
1. yourself / 2. faith in God / 3. prayer. / 4. Bible reading /5. going to church
Arce wrote:
@ Steven:
How many push-ups does she do at one time? Maybe that could be my new goal.
@ Arce:
I knew right away that Steven's comment was tongue in cheek. 🙂
Happy New Year, BTW. Sorry I missed you and your wife when you were visiting over Christmas. Next time…
Deb wrote:
I’ve seen her do 30. She built up very slowly. Nobody in the family knew she was doing this and all of a sudden she showed us. My two daughters (32 and 23) are jealous!
gus wrote:
I find it amusing when gender comps claim they are being counter cultural when they have been reading the Bible’s passages about women and marriage through a 1950s, American cultural pair of glasses.
Gender complementarians are wanting people to adhere and conform to what they perceive as a golden age of marriage and women’s roles as portrayed in American, 1950s situation comedy programs where a couple was married, had two kids, Mom stayed at home all day and Dad went to a 9 to 5 job. That is not counter-cultural.
They define counter cultural as being anything that can be perceived as being against secular feminists.
If secular feminists came out tomorrow in favor of women dying their hair orange, the gender comps would insist that purple is the biblical hair color for women.
I just know some gender complementarians would twist some Bible verse from Paul or something as proof that all good, godly, women would dye their hair purple.
I honestly think a large portion of motivation of gender complementarians is more a reaction against feminism, liberalism, and the culture’a overall acceptance of homosexual marriage, than it is in support of biblical teachings about gender or traditional marriage.
Gender comps are not “pro woman,” they are anti-feminism. It seems to me they’re trying to think up stealth ways of keeping women down, of opposing feminism.
Steven wrote:
Gender complementarian leaders also do this with females in the Bible who led men, such as Deborah in the Old Testament.
I’ve heard several such preachers claim she was an exception, and that God only allowed her to lead because the males were cowards, and God was trying to shame the men. They try to explain away and rationalize examples of women leaders in the Bible all the time.
@ Deb:
Congrats on the ten push ups. I’ve been thinking I may join a gym at some point in the future. I usually run on an elliptical machine at home and go biking.
If I ever join a gym, I might sign up for a female only type, otherwise be subjected to this….
What It’s Like To Be A Woman At The Gym
You’re there to work out and get in shape, but some of the guys are checking you out the whole time or hitting on you. No thank you.
ar wrote:
😯 Was there also a requirement that the POTUS family have one pet cat, and two pet dogs (and one must be a golden lab)? 😆
Hester wrote:
Other than the health problems, don’t most states prohibit marriage under the age of 15, 16?
I don’t know what all the age limits/laws are concerning consensual sex, but I’m betting not a single state in the USA says age 12 is okay.
If health means nothing to the guy, maybe the law would?
I hate to say it, but there are men who argue that adults should be allowed to have ‘relations’ with children (and other groups who argue adults should be able to have relations with animals).
If he’s one of those, I don’t think any amount of arguing will convince him that he is wrong.
I’ve seen these sorts of topics discussed in news articles and on Christian sites that cover the news and culture.
These sorts of guys will come up with any rationalization at all to convince themselves and others there is nothing wrong with child-adult “relationships.” They will even argue it benefits the kid in some way.
ar wrote:
I remember learning that! My mother (I was homeschooled) could not explain why I couldn’t find those requirements in the Constitution.
Looking back, the blatant indoctrination in the A Beka books was astounding. The Wonkette recently did a series on the lies and misrepresentations in A Beka and BJU textbooks. Not dissimilar from how the Gospel is often misrepresented and tortured to fit into a pre-determined ideological mold.
Daisy wrote:
I’m thankful for the posts from Seneca. Frequent reminder of why I fled the 9Marks boyz.
Daisy wrote:
You need a judge’s signature, but it happened in Louisiana all the time. I am sure it still does. Who knows what in the world goes on in some Parishes over there…..I went to college with a girl in the 70s from St. Landry Parish who married at 12, got to old at 18 for her husband who divorced her. Lucky for her, no kids, passed her GED, moved to Texas went to college….
@ Daisy:
That was definitely a factor in why I chose Curves. It's for women only. 🙂
Uh oh, now I sound sexist. 😆
@ Daisy:
Tried that too. Doesn’t even make a dent.
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
Coming from the man who criticised us all for being snarky this is absolutely priceless.
Steven wrote:
… which seems strange in the light of the fact that today, conservatives tend to brook no pragmatic excuses for disobeying “God’s Word”. (By which – just to be clear – I mean their favoured tribal interpretation thereof.) There are no exceptions on compassionate grounds, so it must have been God’s will that those underground churches struggle along without leaders in order to be faithful to the Biblescriptures.
Though, to be scrupulously fair, the “conservatives” who tolerated women leading the underground churches in China, to whom you referred, may not be the same conservatives who today would require a woman to remain in an abusive marriage.
P.S. I’m inclined to take your sentiments a step further and say that, in New Testament times, Paul enforced male-only leadership because there weren’t enough educated women to provide proper mixed-gender leadership!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Funny you should say that, HUG. The word “implode” in the thread title reminds me inexorably of the standard insertion mechanism used in fission bombs (and, of course, in the fission primaries of the multi-stage weapons whereof you spake). Though, strictly speaking, the fusion phase is thought to be triggered by plutonium fission in most cases. All of my knowledge here, btw, comes from nuclearweaponarchive.org, which summarises such information as is non-classified or de-classified, or else can be deduced by applying the known laws of physics.
Deebs – here’s a wee challenge. Having used the word “implode” in a title, why not try to use the phrase “explosive disassembly”?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, thanks for your insights.
“seems strange” seems strange because it is strange.
>i>”conservatives tend to brook no pragmatic excuses for disobeying “God’s Word”.>/i> (By which – just to be clear – I mean their favoured tribal interpretation thereof.)” You are exactly right. The problem is in the handling of the text. For example, I was made aware of a church constitution in our city that commands tithing of its members. It uses Romans 1:17 to support this demand. That’s more than a stretch in my mind. This same constitution requires attendance of 24 Sunday services each year. Without an excuse such as being in the hospital or fighting overseas in the military you are subject to church discipline. This is absolutely arbitrary with no text cited for its support. It is certainly one thing to disobey “God’s Word” and another matter entirely to disobey man’s word. Most of what we hear today is merely man’s word (reference Piper’s words on women and muscles; I’m still having a hard time swallowing that one.)
“There are no exceptions on compassionate grounds, so it must have been God’s will that those underground churches struggle along without leaders in order to be faithful to the Bible scriptures.” That is one option but I would be inclined to think that maybe my initial interpretation might be wrong regarding exactly what God’s will is.
“Though, to be scrupulously fair, the “conservatives” who tolerated women leading the underground churches in China, to whom you referred, may not be the same conservatives who today would require a woman to remain in an abusive marriage.” One can only hope; but I’ve heard some strange things in church.
Steven wrote:
How true!
These posts have gotten me wondering: What do the patriarchal / hierarchy crowd who are against learning scripture / theology from women do when it comes to passages in the Bible such as The Magnificat in Luke 1 (by Mary), Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 1 and the stirring ‘I will sing unto the Lord for he has triumphed gloriously, the horse and rider thrown into the sea’ by Miriam in Exodus after the Red Sea crossing? Those are three I can think of without looking up, I’m sure there are others. Plus, Jesus seems to spend a lot of time getting women to speak up (at the well in Samaria, the Syro-Phoenician woman, the woman who touched his robe for healing, Martha and Mary, Mary Madgalene that we know of).
Regarding there not being enough men in China to lead underground churches, from what I am aware, the problem in China today is that there are disproportionately more men than women as a result of the one child per family birth policy. So, if God has women leading in His Church in China it is not because of a dearth of men.
lemonaidfizz wrote:
If we are going to hold Driscoll to a standard of citing sources, shouldn’t we at least expect the same from ourselves? Where is the citation on this? If we repeat an allegation enough times does that make it true? The alleged teaching above sounds outrageous. But how can we determine whether it is true, or what the context of the quote was, if it is not properly attributed and cited?
For instance, if the context of the quote was that in 1986, when the textbook allegedly made the statement, it would be difficult to be elected president if one were not white, protestant, and married with children, how would that not be a true statement? But we cannot know what the actual statement was, or the context, without proper citation. If you are going to imply that certain texts make foolish or bigoted statements, you’d better properly cite them. Otherwise, you lose all credibility and should not make the allegations in the first place.
Loved this discussion! So many good quotable quotes. You guys rock!
If I had to pick a favorite, I would pick Daisy’s insight. You may have hit on something!
“If secular feminists came out tomorrow in favor of women dying their hair orange, the gender comps would insist that purple is the biblical hair color for women.
I just know some gender complementarians would twist some Bible verse from Paul or something as proof that all good, godly, women would dye their hair purple.
I honestly think a large portion of motivation of gender complementarians is more a **reaction against feminism, liberalism, and the culture’s overall acceptance of homosexual marriage, than it is in support of biblical teachings about gender or traditional marriage.
Gender comps are not “pro woman,” they are anti-feminism. It seems to me they’re trying to think up stealth ways of keeping women down, of opposing feminism.”
Dee has gotten the ball rolling by stating that:
“She [Kassian] has given us contradictory information and then seems frustrated when women like Rachel Held Evans [and probably the rest of us! 🙂 ] do not understand. But, the fault sits squarely at their feet. They are giving us confusing information.”
If you keep the target moving, then it is harder to hit!
@ Daisy Another stroke of genius. Just follow the logic!
“Many Christian blogs and books say that a single woman’s husband is “the Lord,” so that would mean per their rules, an unmarried woman could preach/teach anywhere, any time, under her husband’s (who is the Lord) covering.” Brilliant!
@ Daisy A great summary! Agree: Christian mutuality, that is, egalitarianism is biblically defensible. I chose to highlight two of your words for emphasis.
“And Christian egalitarianism is also biblically defensible. Actually, more so.
Gender comp is based NOT on the overall teaching of Scripture and the teachings of Christ, BUT on two cherry picked verses by Paul aimed at a particular woman and particular church 2,000 years ago.
The longer gender comp is observed to contain a host of contradictions (e.g., gender comps cannot come to an agreement on exactly when, where and how, women may teach at all; for example some churches say women may teach mixed gender Sunday school classes, other churches say no way), and that it’s based more on an agenda – keeping male gender supremacy – is also causing a lot of people to question it, if not abandon it.”
Right on!
Barb Orlowski wrote:
Yep, no one seems to be able to define that made up word – COMPLEMENTARIANISM.
Great to hear from you!
In other news, I realised last night that you probably all think I’m paranoid.
The other issue is that egalitarians (and people in general) know that in marriage, there will naturally be some complementary capabilities, strengths or interests of one that will offset a lack of capability, strength or interest by the other, in BOTH directions. And, of course, in a heterosexual relationship, there is some physical “complementarity”! They use those things to their advantage in the public at large to argue a purpose by God for them that they cannot find in scripture.
And the word for “helpmeet” in the OT, applied to Eve in relationship to Adam is also applied to God in relationship to David!!!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
❓
😕
@ Nick Bulbeck:
@ Bridget:
I agree with Bridget.
I’ve not picked that up.
Mara wrote:
It was a joke. (A play on the fact that a paranoid person is convinced people are out to get them in some manner.) As in, “everyone thinks I’m paranoid!!!!”
I don’t really think you all think I’m paranoid. I just couldn’t think of any other Other News at the time.
I shall now observe a minute’s silence to mark the passing of that joke.
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
… amen.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Okay.
In other new…
The sun sets at 5:00 pm today where I live.
This means the days are getting longer and I no longer have to drive home from work in the dark.
(YES!)
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Laughing out loud.
@ Mara:
Sun sets at 4:30 here, getting about 2 minutes later each day, though we’re somewhat to the east of the time zone. Hard to tell today, though, as the cloud-base is about 800 feet a.s.l. and it’s well gloomy out there!
Arce wrote:
Perhaps I should celebrate the joke’s rising from the dead? 🙂
Nick, most of my heritage is Scot and English, with a little Native American (refugee from the Trail of Tears) thrown in. And my spouse’s mother was a Burns, and you know where that hails from generations ago.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
🙂
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
We probably all are Really out to get you. 🙂 😉
Half past eight and it’s almost dark here. Soon be time to say good bye to our long (but not as long as yours, Nick) summer evenings. Good thing as the next couple of months are the hottest.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Ahhhh! I suppose something went missing in tone, voice inflection, and facial expressions 🙂
In other news, sun setting at 5:07p in my parts.
Bridget wrote:
That’s entirely plausible. The joke had worn off a bit at this end by the time I came to type it.
In actual other news, my tomato, pineapple and smoked paprika sauce tonight was superb.
Elsewhere, the minor hamstring tear I sustained over Christmas (don’t ask) seems to be recovering nicely, so I’m optimistic my physio will un-ban me from running by February.
Here’s what I need help with: how to calmly and lovingly show someone how this movement can be harmful. For example, several friends of mine are “excited” for a Gospel Coalition conference taking place in Boston this year. This includes both men and women who are encouraging others to attend. Have any of you experienced those kinds of conversations? I want to passionately discourage others from supporting this movement, but I need help with my passion! I often come across too hard, or, worse, as easily called “divisive”. What is helpful?
http://www.centerforgospelculture.org/2014/01/save-date-tgcne-14-wcarson-tripp-tchividjian-horton-moore-um-guthrie/
Erik wrote:
Well, at least you are male and aren’t judged as “more easily deceived” when you question the merits of TGC and like groups.
@ Nick Bulbeck: true where I live as well, though the sun did put in an appearance yesterday afternoon.
@ numo:
Indeed – yesterday was very pleasant here (summit views from the Ochil hills).
@ Mara: That is true, Mara, and if I can use that to my advantage with them, I most certainly will. Just a few weeks ago, a women told me that exact same phrase! She said that “women are more emotional, and Eve was the one who was deceived because Adam wasn’t protecting her.” My jaw hit the floor. Then she said, “Women can be teachers, lawyers, executives, but when it comes to such a delicate matter as faith, they should not be leading men.”
Erik wrote:
…………
I am from CT. Promotion of the conference has made the rounds here too. I don’t know how to discourage people from attending either. I have tried to open the door with conferences being expensive, not very personal,etc. but no luck on being able to explain why one should be wary of these men’s teachings.
Bridget wrote:
Sunny day here…sun sets at 4:43 PM
@ Erik:
Erik – apologies in advance for a fudged answer, my only defence being that it’s not as content-free as it might look. In a nutshell, the spiritual manifestation (as per 1 Corinthians) of wisdom is for just this kind of occasion. The best approach depends greatly on the circumstances and the people involved.
There may even be some people for whom it is safe to go to a Gospel Coagulation conference, for instance. (I thought highly of Park Fiscal, based on his reputation, until I listened to 5 sermons of his!) Generally, we do know that groups like this are often themselves divisive; they tend to believe that the Bible agrees with them only and lead others into the same trap of pride. But even so, they’re not incapable of doing good nor is it beyond God’s ability to use them positively, and your friends won’t necessarily come back demon-possessed. The only broadly applicable approach I’d suggest is to point out to those concerned that:
* the Gospel Coagulation push a very narrow doctrinal line;
* they may do so with proof-texts that sound very persuasive when heard out of context, but that doesn’t make them Torah;
* the Gospel Coagulation are at liberty to teach from the Biblescriptures but they’re not the only people who’ve read them;
* apart from that, by all means have a good time, and make sure you don’t go over budget.
Hope this is useful!
@ Lin:
Hi Lin! Sadly, because these teachers are so “biblical”, people see the cost as an investment into their holiness. What I’m hoping, is that as people really listen to our Shepherd and King, they will realize that He really doesn’t show favoritism. I know that I cannot play “Scripture Battle” with proponents of the gender gospel, because they already have a game plan for just about everything. And, also, I just don’t play that game. I know that anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say, and it just becomes a weapon.
What I pray for, is for the BIG PICTURE to be able to be discussed. I want to engage in rational conversation about the very nature of our Heavenly Father. As Creator of humanity, why? What is the overall reason God has revealed to us why people were created? If we are indeed eternal beings, created for fellowship with God, and if indeed Jesus made a way for any believer to be restored to that unity, why do some humans insist on putting anything between us and God? That is my heartfelt question. Because, to me, no matter what specific verses seem to say, the entire Bible speaks of a redemptive story for children to know and be known by Creator. There just cannot be a different story for some, and not for another.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Thanks Nick. I can so relate, as I actually went to the 2012 conference here in Boston. Although I was still recognizing then what sorts of hidden agenda there was, I could still sense some unsettling vibes. However, on that particular day, John Piper preached a message that wonderfully encouraged me to be a critical thinker and engage God with both my mind and heart. And, also Tim Keller shared some stories that also built up my spirit. My wife also went with me, and both of us had similar experiences. Funny, we both remember listening to about of half of D.A. Carson’s session and nearly falling asleep. I still cannot even account for what he talked about. So, I get it. There is a mixture of unoffensive ideas along with the patriarchy and theological pride. I think that is why it really does take spiritual revelation for people to escape from that world.
Thanks for responding to me. 🙂
@ Lin:
Thanks for the reply Lin! I have a comment in moderation in response to you. I think I wrote a trigger word, but I meant it to show the foolishness of those who use it.
hmm, farther up the thread, Erik included something a woman had said about leaving teaching on spiritual matters to men. As a Christian woman, I have to say that spiritual matters are one of the areas I must take a firm stand on, for my own spiritual integrity, and in order to mature as a believer. I will listen, research and pray about something new introduced to me by any believer, but “to my own master, I stand or fall”. No one else created me, died for my sins and called me to new life for eternity. The Holy Spirit is guiding me into all truth through God’s words. Yes, God uses others to open truth up or fill it out further, but to “come under” another human’s take on interpretation and application under the umbrella of “covering”? Yikes.
RB, exactly.
Thanks, Estelle, appreciated your comment above, also. The leadership qualities in many of the women brought out in Scripture are more than enough to refute the patriarchy movement; courage, honesty, integrity, obedience, patience, diligence…
I think Mary would have a lot to say if she were here, for instance how many women would remain in their hometown to try to raise a family after the gossip of the townspeople there? I don’t infer more to Mary than I believe is warranted by Scripture, but what a strong woman she was, and her lord was God, not Joseph, although she was probably a kind, helpful wife who showed him respect.
@ Erik:
“.. What I’m hoping, is that as people really listen to our Shepherd and King, they will realize that He really doesn’t show favoritism. I know that I cannot play “Scripture Battle” with proponents of the gender gospel, because they already have a game plan for just about everything. And, also, I just don’t play that game. I know that anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say, and it just becomes a weapon.
What I pray for, is for the BIG PICTURE to be able to be discussed. I want to engage in rational conversation about the very nature of our Heavenly Father. ”
…………………
Yes, it seems to do no good to exchange bible verses, it becomes just a matter of “correct” interpretation. Although I confess, I have in anger, argued around selected verses myself, with some.
Opening up dialog on the nature of God, from Genesis – Revelation , (staying away from rules/roles) but emphasizing the spirit of God working in/with His creation, might open up the heart/mind to the idea God is not male.
I did a personal study on women in the NT. Just began in MT. notating the who, what, where type of comment/questions. Very rewarding to me and useful in engaging other women to explore how the NT presents various female characters.
RB, and Joseph, I’m sure, had great respect for Mary and supported her in parenting Our Lord. I guess one could call him her ‘ezer’ in this respect.
@ RB:
Amen.
@ Lin:
Erik: “I know that I cannot play “Scripture Battle” with proponents of the gender gospel, because they already have a game plan for just about everything. And, also, I just don’t play that game. I know that anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say, and it just becomes a weapon.”
Lin: “Yes, it seems to do no good to exchange bible verses, it becomes just a matter of “correct” interpretation.”
++++++++++++++++++
Let’s be honest and recognize that this is all largely recreation, masquerading as something gospel and godly (& I’m someone somewhere is calling it “leadership”). It is a hobby. “The Great Christian Pastime!” (I think you both have implied as much.)
Meanwhile, my 100% “unchurched” friend is busy collecting blankets, socks, jackets, and tote bags and takes them into a nearby inner city and hands them out to people on the street. Just her. No fanfare, no duping herself into believing she’s a courageous counter-cultural warrior with a cape on a very important mission. ‘I see that you’re cold. Here, this will keep you warm.’ Simple as that.
I couldn’t have said it better: “Subjugation of women, in fact, is a symptom of man’s fallen nature.” (F. F. Bruce) From my understanding of the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the Epistles, I do not see that the message to women in the NT is suppression of women’s voices in ministry.
According to the biblical text, women were active in ministry in the first-century church. Women and men, together, were recipients of the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus Christ.
In the Christian public place of worship, women prophesied, prayed, and taught. If married women wore the appropriate ‘head covering’ in Corinth, they were culturally ‘suited’ for any of these ministry tasks. Paul referenced some women as his “co-workers” in the work of God at that time.
If you ask what a complementarian position is, as to what women can or cannot do, unfortunately, you get a huge variety of answers. In fact, some of the things that women can or cannot do in the church end up being quite ridiculous. For example: Should women “share” or “teach” with men present? How young or how old do these males have to be before a woman can or cannot speak/share with them? Can sisters simply share a testimony or must they keep “silent?”
Can women read Scriptures behind a pulpit, or do they need to use a lectern, or are they permitted to even read the Scriptures in a public meeting at all? That is just the tip of the iceberg. The lists go on and on. It is all rather quite confusing. And, as we can observe today, why do so few women wear a hat to church anymore—isn’t that ‘biblical’? What changed?
Back to the record of the ministry of Paul and his co-workers, there is no evidence anywhere that Paul, or any of his male companions, ever excluded anyone from ministry on the basis of gender.
People who put the sole emphasis of their argument on the two problematic passages, one being in a personal letter to Timothy, are making huge assumptions. The fact that competent evangelical scholars disagree regarding the meaning of what Paul was communicating should cause us to tread more softly with a ‘black and white’ interpretation that continually stifles women in church ministry and curtails giftedness by the Holy Spirit.
@ elastigirl:
a missing word added: “(& I’m sure someone somewhere is calling it “leadership”).”
–what a difference a word makes.
PP wrote:
But are you sure you aren’t just one of those “functional egalitarian” comps who is so busy respecting his wife’s opinions and giftings that he fails to exercise proper patriarchal dominion over his home? Hanging out on this blog and not accusing unrepentant feminists like me of heresy and compromising the Gospel is a bad sign, my friend.