"There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident, though, that 'God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood.' There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain."
Relationships and Roles in the New Creation (CBMW)
Screen Shot – 3/14/14
UPDATE AT END OF POST
Yesterday Dee and I were discussing what we should write about today. She mentioned a post over at Spiritual Sounding Board (SSB) that took to task a 'certain' CBMW article. For those who are not familiar with CBMW, it stands for the Council on Biblical ™ Manhood and Womanhood. Just the name should serve as a clue as to what was being discussed in said article.
Our friend Julie Anne Smith is the blogger who posts over at SSB. The CBMW article she highlighted is entitled Relationships and Roles in the New Creation. After reading it, Julie Anne posed this question in the title of her post: Is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Drinking Mormon-Flavored Koolaid?
As I understand it, Mormons believe the husband will retain a kingly role and the wife a queenly role in eternity. This is reminiscent of the gender roles specified in the ESS doctrine. ESS is the acronym for the "Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father". If you are not familiar with this controversial doctrine, you might want to consult the following article: Is the Son Eternally Submissive to the Father?
I perused the CBMW article yesterday morning and was preparing to tackle the ESS doctrine in today's post; however, something very puzzling happened…
In the wake of Julie Anne's post and an onslaught of negative opinions being expressed toward the article in the Blogosphere and Twitterdom, it was suddenly driscollized © – a newfangled TWW term meaning 'scrubbed'. Remember, you heard it here first. To see for yourself that the article vanished, go here.
We find it interesting that Al Mohler spoke at Brigham Young University on February 25. It may be relevant to note that the T4G (Together for the Gospel) conference is fast approaching, and registration closes on March 31. We are left wondering whether this action was foreordained. How can there be any other explanation from the Neo-Cals?
Frankly, it isn't hard to see why CBMW got so much pushback. Here is how the driscollized © article concludes, as featured in the Spiritual Sounding Board post:
There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident, though, that “God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood.”52 There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain. The social fabric of gender-based distinctions of roles was weaved in a pattern that accords with the prelapsarian decree of the Creator. In the new creation, that fabric will not be discarded or destroyed. The stains will be removed and rips mended. The fabric will be cleaned and pressed. But the pattern established in God’s “very good” creation will remain.
For those of you who are disappointed that the article got scrubbed before you had a chance to read it, take heart. It first appeared in the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (JBMW) back in the Spring of 2006 and can be read in its entirety at this link:
Relationships and Roles in the New Creation (pp. 4-19)
The re-publication of this article on the CBMW website eight years after it first appeared in the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a clear indication that this controversial doctrine continues to be embraced by the Neo-Cal crowd. And it's no wonder because Owen Strachan, the Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief of CBMW, is the son-in-law of a vocal ESS proponent – Bruce Ware. You may remember that in 2008 Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem debated Tom McCall and Keith Yandell regarding the Trinity. Here is the specific question that was addressed by each side: “Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?”
Not surprisingly, the re-emergence and then sudden disappearance of ESS on the CBMW website has spawned its own satire, which begins as follows:
To our dear sisters in Christ,
Greetings to you in the name of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who has bought us with His blood, purchasing for Himself a people reflecting the richness of biblical manhood and womanhood.
It has come to our attention, dear sisters, that some of you have questions about what your place will be in the afterlife, when the Kingdom comes in all its fullness. As you wait for the glorious appearing of our Savior, it’s only fitting that you may ask – “What will biblical womanhood look like in the New Jerusalem? How may I best serve my God and my brothers in that wonderful place?” It is right that such questions should come to us, your brothers who have given our very lives to serving God by explaining what your responsibilities are as women in the created order. The duty to answer such questions and set your minds at ease is part of our responsibility – the great weight which comes from standing before God as biblical men.
For decades we have been teaching you the great gift of hierarchy with which God has ordered his creation. We understand the inflammatory nature of the word “hierarchy”, but we will not insult your intelligence, dear sisters. This word that we proclaim to you, rooted in scripture, is most plainly acknowledged to be a top-down authority in which we, your brothers, carry the heavy burden of headship. And you, in your radiant femininity, have been given the light task of submission. We do not wish to pussyfoot around the issue, using politically correct terminology when we speak of the very will of God. This is why some of our brothers are urging a return to the use of the word Patriarchy to describe the system we promote.
But we digress. Your question, put most simply, is this: “Will I be called to womanly submission to my brothers in heaven, as I am on earth?”
One of our faithful colleagues has answered this question at great length, but to settle your concerns quickly, the answer is “Yes.”
And here is my favorite part of the satire:
Dear struggling sisters, we know that you are hurting. We think, however, that it’s to your benefit that we be frank. For 90% of you the problem is rebellion, a stubborn self will to “be like God.” It is the same sin to which your ancestor Eve succumbed, setting this ghastly fallen world in motion. Don’t you want us, your brothers, to protect you from repeating the mistake of your first mother?
“But it’s not rebellion!” someone will insist. “I most earnestly want to please and obey God, and I feel His call in my life like a fire in my bones – and yet, I am denied because I am a woman.” We are sympathetic, sisters, but we are also puzzled. How could an unbiblical longing come from anyone but the Evil One? And yet, we do not judge you, for we, too, are sinners and easily deceived (thought perhaps not so easily as Eve). We believe God is good, and we offer you this hope: after tens of thousands of years in the heavenly city, we trust that the “call” you have felt will wear off and be forgotten. In the meantime, your painful obedience will rise up before the Lord like a fragrant offering.
Lest we be misunderstood, we assure you that we do not see you as inferior by virtue of your femininity. We know that some of you are wiser than some of your brothers in the Lord; more knowledgeable about scripture; deeper in prayer; more gifted in public speaking. But God’s ways are higher than our ways, and in His eternal purposes He is glorified by your submission to His will and to your brothers…
Next week Dee plans to take a look at another CBMW article entitled Pursuing Your Wife: Embracing a War-like Posture. I wonder if this will be one of the topics to be discussed at the upcoming CBMW National Conference, which serves as a prequel to the Together for the Gospel Conference. The theme of the CBMW conference is A Brave New Movement: CBMW and the Gospel. Now before any scrub-a-dub-dub / driscollizing occurs to this CBMW article, we want these 'brave men' at CBMW to know that we have already taken screen shots…
****************************
UPDATE (3/21/13): On March 20, 2013, TWW sent a Tweet to Owen Strachan stating that the CBMW article that disappeared because of a purported 'glitch' had not yet been restored. We just discovered today at 3:00 p.m. EST that the link to the article now works. We are glad that CBMW has solved its technological issue.
Lydia's Corner: Jeremiah 39:1-41:18 2 Timothy 1:1-18 Psalm 90:1-91:16 Proverbs 26:1-2
Sorry Eagle. 🙂
Sorry, Eagle x2 🙂
Love that this story is getting more publicity. It’s ridiculous. These men need to Act Like Men and give their wives a gift certificate to get their nails done while they do the dishes.
@ Julie Anne:
So glad you challenged these 'brave men'. Actions speak louder than words…
OP: The theme of the CBMW conference is A Brave New Movement: CBMW and the Gospel. I clicked on the link to see the page. On the schedule of events is this:
CBMW 2014 NATIONAL CONFERENCE
Schedule:
9:10-9:30 Kevin DeYoung: “The Beauty of Differences — In Heaven and on Earth”
That sounds like more of the same, that they are teaching that the female submission stuff doesn’t end here on earth, but goes on in Heaven too. I’m just guessing that is what that talk is about.
The only people who would find un-ending female submission heavenly are women who have unfortunately been brainwashed into buying this stuff here on earth, and of course, the men who enjoy power, benefit from female submission and the status quo.
There is also this:
11:10-11:40 Women’s Panel: GraceAnna Castleberry (moderator), Trillia Newbell, Kristie Anyabwile, Melissa Kruger, Jodi Ware, and Candice Watters
One wonders what they will speak of, what a joy it is to submit to men? There’s a moderator listed, will there be serious debate, like what shade of lipstick is most flattering, or, who is most un-winsome, Christian egalitarians or secular feminists?
Zondervan and Thomas Nelson are listed as sponsors, among several others (at the bottom of the page).
Julie Anne wrote:
Well, it would take a lot more than a gift certificate to appease the anger women are feeling about their treatment and marginalization in the church among the brothers. Recognizing their erroneous scriptural teaching and admitting it would be far more difficult than simply pacifying the little lady with a gift. 🙁
@ Daisy:
Great points! I haven’t spent much time analyzing this conference, but the title certainly jumped out at me – Brave New Movement.
What’s so new about it?
It’s puzzling to me how they can be in their fourth decade of operation if CBMW was established in 1987.
Regardless, they ARE NOT a ‘Brave New Movement’. If CBMW is going to use Aldous Huxley's work Brave New World (written in 1931) as the inspiration for its conference theme, they should have gone with Brave New Movement Revisited (after Brave New World Revisited published in 1958). Twenty-seven years went by before Huxley wrote the second book, and CBMW will turn 27 later this year…
Looks like Mark Driscoll may have been “scrubbing” up his Facebook page too….
Alright, I read the Pursuing Your Wife link at the end. I think a lot of the practical advice in the article is good (especially the questions in the Conclusions section), but I really don’t understand a lot of the surrounding words.
For example, what EXACTLY is a “war-like posture”? I’ve seen pictures from Iraq, Syria, Rwanda, etc. and WAR LOOKS F****** AWFUL!!! What exactly does the author mean?
I have a date this weekend. Can someone here give me advice on how to treat her? I’m pretty sure any interpretation of “Shock and Awe” just isn’t all that appropriate….
driscollized © – a newfangled TWW term meaning ‘scrubbed’
LOL !!!
You may want to start getting screen captures from the websites of these (and others) charlatans. I am sure more stuff will get chased down and deleted from the internet in days to come as they attempt to hide their true selves.
Blessings to you as you continue to shine the Light into the darkness.
Re: War-like posture article
Given the “conquer and colonize” language of this movement, this article completely freaks me out. Men need to “get serious” about perusing their lives and adopt a “war-like posture?” God this is really scary. I don’t know if they realize they are using rape language, or don’t care, but I find this disgusting.
I have lots of friends who are complementarian. Some people to my left would call me complementation. But I want to be crystal clear – ESS is a heresy. Period. The people involved in this theological limbo are twisting scripture to fit their desired sociological goals. Kind of like they did for slavery back in the day.
CBMW? Brave New Movement? Why all the coprological allusions?
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of ESS.
Deebs!!!!
So you mean that I could have been baptized Mormon, which means I became this close (holding finger and thumb an inch apart) and been endowed in the Mormon Temple, AND then become a member of goodstanding in Bethleham Baptist or attended Southern Seminary! 😛
If Neo-Reformed are going to have Godly marriages in eternity that what comes next? Is they Neo-Reformed going to practice blood atonement like the Mormons did in territorial Utah in the 1850’s – 1880’s? Was what happened to Michael Servetus a precursor to what will happen in some Southern Baptist or Evangelical Free Churches that are Neo-Reformed?
Is John Piper or CJ Mahaney OR Mark Dever the modern Brigham Young. Is the trailer below an indicator of what is to come! 😛
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0qxsaBkAiU
This is definitely a “jump the shark” moment… among many.
I guess my self identification as a Neo Cal in my first post may have been premature, because now you identify ESS as a Neo Cal doctrine. I think I need some jargon help.
I’m a Calvinist, inerrantist, evangelical, and I (sorry) haven’t been able to follow egalitarianism all the way. But I believe the CBMW is awful and sexist, their arguments are exegetically weak, I despise celebrity pastors and mega churches, I actively hate victim shaming and authoritarian pastors, and I don’t think it’s bad that my church’s elders cordially disagree with one another on soteriology and whether we can select women for elders. I guess I believe in going as far toward egalitarianism as I can, and I just am not convinced, exegetically, on elders.
And I love TWW.
So tell me: am I a Neo Cal?
Oh, specifically, I think ESS is crazy.
A New Problem wrote:
Nope. You need to talk to Wade.
@ A New Problem:
I believe you are just your run of the mill Calvinist, not unlike Pastor Wade.
Loren Haas wrote:
I swear all authoritarian systems sound alike. They are channeling Brave New World.
@ dee:
You beat me by mere seconds!
@ dee:
Did you see my commentary about Brave New World? Who do these guys think they're kidding?
@ Deb:
They just driscollized Driscoll’s statement at Dave Kraft’s blog. This is getting weird. However, Warren Throckmorton is making sure it doesn’t disappear.
http://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/20gg40/mark_driscoll_addresses_mars_hill_church/
@ dee:
I finally had a chance to read it a few minutes ago (as I was watching the Duke/Clemson game). GO DUKE!
Maybe we will get some sort of explanation soon about what's really going on…
@ Julie Anne:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
I’m losing to women…THIS is so un-Biblical. John Piper would really disapprove Julie Anne! 😛 If polygamy is coming next from the Neo-Reformed crowd…will you marry me? 😀
@ Eagle:
BTW… I promise!! I’d let you get your nails done. We would share house duties and cooking. I have no problem with folding your laundry. AND I’d let you and your girlfriends have a night out on a regular basis.
Plus you would also get a dart board in your kitchen with a grinning CJ Mahaney that you could use when you get a bill in the mail that upsets you. 😀
“Brave new movement?” I remember that “Brave new world” was about a society where everyone was indoctrinated from a young age to stay in the “roles” they were taught, with some on top and others below.
Individuality has no place in that (Brave new) world. (ed.)
And despite taking a soma the moment you feel distress, the story does not give the impression of a good world, but a soul-less dystopia.
They get cues from that? Interesting.
@ Retha:
I meant "Individuality had no place in that (Brave new) world." when I wrote: "Individuality has no place in this world"
I think you guys are REALLY making a difference. 😀
http://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/20gg40/mark_driscoll_addresses_mars_hill_church/
@ Retha:
I think these 'culture warriors' are using a play on words with the satirical name, but I think they made a mistake by attaching "brave new" to "movement" (which I interpret to mean their movement).
If our readers are interested in an overview of Brave New World, here are the SparkNotes. Better yet, go read the book.
While Mohler and gang are trying to warn us about the dangers of an all-powerful state (government), as depicted in both Brave New World and Orwell's 1984, I am greatly concerned about the Neo-Cal authoritarian religious 'system' being created by these guys.
I find all of this terribly ironic.
I read the whole article in its PDF form because ACFJ shared it on their FB (in a negative light, of course!). Here are my concerns after reading.
1. Any historical comp (to my knowledge) would never have dreamed of hedging so much about whether or not there was marriage in heaven. Jesus made it very clear – there’s not. Walton, however, seemed to want to chop marriage up into a bunch of tiny little pieces and then start telling us which parts are in heaven and which aren’t. He even went so far as to imply in passing that the idea that there’s no marriage in heaven might be “in error.” One of his main justifications for this (at least this is what I got out of it) is that he thinks we’ll be able to recognize our spouse in heaven. That may well be true, but that doesn’t mean it follows that we’ll continue to relate to them as our spouse. Put another way, the woman with seven husbands in the original question posed to Jesus, wasn’t just not having sex with any of her husbands, she wasn’t affiliated with/attached to any of them as their wife. She may have known who they were, but that doesn’t mean she was still their wife on a functional level anymore. So the fact that Walton is willing to go so far in subverting what looks like a clear statement by Jesus, without any halfway decent theological/historical/grammatical reason except that he wants a trump card to play against egalitarians, is disturbing to me. But hey, that’s why they originally came up with ESS too…
2. In a lot of the arguments he made, you could replace “marriage” with “slavery” and they would read the same. One I especially remember is his claim that because male headship/patriarchy wasn’t explicitly outlawed in the NT, then it must still be in force today and there must still be male headship in heaven. Well, sorry, slavery wasn’t explicitly outlawed in the NT either. In fact it was explicitly regulated. So does that mean there are slaves and masters in heaven? If so, somebody better tell all those Christian slaves in the Old South that they won’t really be free in heaven after all, because their masters will be there at the pearly gates waiting for them.
3. He relies way too heavily on C. S. Lewis. Now I’m fine with Lewis, but you can’t just pull him out in a theology paper and think that that finishes the discussion. He’s still just a person, not the Bible. In other words, just because Lewis agreed with you in a pretty poetic-sound way, doesn’t automatically make you right.
4. The entire paper is peppered with statements to the effect of “I’m completely speculating here and we can’t really know any of this for sure at all, but stay with me and oh yes you’re going against God’s Word if you disagree with my wild speculation.” It’s that speculative, it’s pretty useless as an argument, isn’t it?
5. God help any child born with ambiguous sex organs in a CBMW-influenced environment. Their life will be a living hell because of theology like this. Are they “really” male or “really” female? What will be their role in heaven? Some of these guys won’t even be able to figure out how much they are or are not in the image of God, because they’ve already chopped it up into a male half and a female half. This was actually a chronic problem in comp theology before we got to the heaven question, but this just makes it all so much worse.
Whoops, forgot one.
6. Given that Piper has (basically) defined masculinity as leading and femininity as following, and gender is clearly something central to our being (since it follows us into the resurrection in their system), doesn’t this make gender roles, which they swear up and down are only functional, actually ontological? I can’t see any way out of this. They can’t simultaneously claim that gender roles are only functional and that gender is something at the core of our being, but then define gender itself as a role.
Hope you enjoy my rant/novel above. 😉
@ Hester:
I really appreciate your commentary!
@ Hester:
I did indeed.
Eagle wrote:
Actually, Eagle, you would be Julie Anne’s second husband which makes it polyandry. This is a problem, you see, because you both have to compete for her submission, and each of you might have different ideas about how to sanctify her. 🙂
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Who.Woulda.Thunk.It.
There *WILL* be reality TV programs in heaven!
Good to know. And great to know it will all be oh, so “biblical,” BTDT.
My day is complete. And it is not yet 6 AM here.
@ Hester:
Hester, I freaking LOVED your Rant/Novel above. 😀 😀 😀
Deb wrote:
Regardless of who’s trying to convince us of the dangers of an all-powerful state, we all know only too well the dangers of an all-powerful church. There is, of course, not difference between the two. It’s one of the things that concerns me about the theology that prompts professional clergymen (those who earn their living from preaching, selling Christian motivational CD’s/DVD’s or from their ecclesiastical office) wanting more power and control for “the local church”. As I mentioned in Part 2 of 3 yesterday, they invariably mean their own sect within the local church. Until we see more local congregations become transparent and accountable to other local congregations, few Christians will be ready for collective power.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
🙂
Eagle wrote:
Sorry, Eagle, but polygamy is a one-way street. Men can have multiple wives, but women aren’t allowed to have multiple husbands. The old double standard, ya know. (And I want to know, why does TLC have multiple shows with men with plural wives, but NO women with plural husbands? What about equal air time?)
It’s become apparent that most of these neoCal ‘leaders’ are cowards. They make all these bizarre ‘theological’ pronouncements of oppression but when called on it, they won’t come out and defend it (maybe because what they’re saying is indefensible?). Instead, they just try and make it disappear. All they’re doing is making up a bunch of toxic pronouncements of oppression, throwing them up on the Internet to see what sticks and what doesn’t stick is removed without a word.
my guess is that Mohler and co. are not seeking to accept LDS students Into seminaries or churches. they are on record calling them cults too many times. Evangelicals joined with Catholics to oppose abortion in the political arena. I think they want to expand that partnership to LDS people and they are emphasizing “post-death hierarchy” to highlight the doctrines they have in common. They want political support as they try to elect politicians who will fight for patriarchy, less access to birth control, reduced rights for women, and less secular government. Its not about accepting LDS people, but using them.
@ Mother:
Agreed, but as my hubby often says, extremes are always dangerous.
“And it’s no wonder because Owen Strachan, the Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief of CBMW, is the son-in-law of a vocal ESS proponent – Bruce Ware.”
A huge groan came out of me when I read that sentence. It just figures. Way back in the ’80’s I attended the seminary where B. Ware was teaching at the time. I had one systematic theology class with him, fortunately that was all, and one lecture where he biblically tried to explain to the class that Margaret Thatcher (at the time prime minister of Great Britain)should not be prime minister because of being female, stands out in my mind.
@ Taylor Joy:
located beneath the letter:
“This communication is for the exclusive use on the Mars Hill Church version of The City, and contains proprietary, confidential or privileged information intended for a limited audience. Any disclosure, use, copying, dissemination, or distribution is strictly prohibited. Thank you.”
Nice Try.
@ Taylor Joy:
Actually, I am glad to see that people no longer “trust” pastors just because they are pastors. I have a feeling that there were about 10,000 screen shots of the apology since Mars HIll is the group that spawned “driscollization.”
A New Problem wrote:
You sound classical reformed. Having spent many years of my life in a reformed school as a kid (heh, not reform school 🙂 I can say that I respect that position while I don’t but the theology. It’s a way different stance than the current neo-Calvinist crew.
@ Daisy:
We need to watch this very carefully. We will be happy to let the world know about this nonsense. De Young and friends in charge for eternity? Gives me the jitters.
Leila wrote:
.
Yes. I wonder if anyone remembers the TV series “Quantum Leap”, where the character Al (Played by Dean Stockwell) said: “That’s why you can’t truest women: they don’t understand the double standard.”
gus wrote:
Should have been “trust”.
Mother wrote:
Great comment.
@ gus:
Need coffee.
Life in the new earth/new heaven: infinite time, finite number of people.
This means that each person, by necessity, will have to spend an infinite amount of time with each other person. Including interestingly, me with John Piper, and John Piper with Greg Boyd.
This also means that, unlike on the old earth, no one will be able to focus most attention on any one person throughout eternity. Thus, unlike in the present finite moment, marriage does not make any sense. I will, by necessity, have to devote as much of my time to each of you as I devote to my wife.
So, even beyond Jesus’ obvious words (I thought these guys took the Bible ‘literally’), you can mathematically prove that marriage is – if not impossible – completely moot in eternity.
(It also means that I need to treat each of my sisters and brothers, and all image bearers in general, well in words and deeds in this life because I’m likely or at least potentially going to be spending a heck of a lot of time with them in the future.)
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! I like a lot of the suggestions in Pursuing Your Wife! I think the “war-like stance” BS was created by some clever woman to get men to “buy-into” the whole concept. Actually, as a sister to four brothers, I can see how women can manipulate the hell out of their husbands by guilting them into this mandatory pursuing relationship. I see them play these “roles”, but the women are more clever in getting what they want. However I don’t see much authentic mutual serving. Mostly it seems they are all trying so hard to “stick to their script” as opposed to truely communicating their desires and needs to their partner! This “role-playing” seems to be mostly to impress other church members or even more, to avoid the hard work of having an authentic loving relationship with your spouse! ( to Hell what other churchies think). Ann
@ Mother:
…………
Agree Mohler and friends are looking to expand their political clout. Suspect the LDS are also jockeying for the same political turf. Seems a natural alliance to me even in their financial enterprises. The question for me is who will succeed in consuming the other?
@ Mother:
That is, in fact, part of what Mohler said in his talk at Brigham Young U. recently.
A New Problem wrote:
Provided you’re not just throwing conciliatory words around to get along here, provided you really mean what you say (and I will never again just assume this without critical examination with anyone who presents themselves as a Christian), I’d say you sound like a real deal believer in Jesus. And if I were you I’d stop throwing all that bilge nomenclature (e.g., soteriology, inerrantist, Calvinist, etc.) around and stop associating with those who do and get back to a simple faith.
Eagle wrote:
Wait . . . . . so I would have to let 2 husbands rule over me and submit without question?
I guess it would be good preparation for what CBMW was endorsing with that article – – that women would be submitting to all men.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
HAHAHA, BTDT. I think I’d require Eagle to submit (oopsy) a written proposal on his ideas of wife sanctifying.
Eagle wrote:
Mountain Meadows?
Nancy wrote:
BYU? Given the parallels between CBMW and Mormons in the recent series, I’m surprised they’d go public with so blatant a link.
Mother wrote:
Though that DID change in 2012 when Romney cinched the GOP nomination. After a take-a-number system of God’s Anointed Next POTUS in the primaries to the baby dinosaur chorus of “NOT THE MORMON! NOT THE MORMON! NOT THE MORMON!” But when Romney went over-the top, suddenly Oceania had always been at peace with Eurasia and Mormons were NOT a Cult. (I don’t know if this reverted back after Election Day 2012.)
Hester wrote:
They can always chop up the kid.
No more kid, no more problem.
And their Perfect Theology stays Pure, eh, My Dear Wormwood?
Loren Haas wrote:
Because they’re full of it?
If it was Mr. Driscoll or someone doing his bidding who posted the tepid apology letter on Mr. Kraft’s site, then no amount of legal mumbo jumbo will keep anyone from posting it for a legitimate fair use or keeping on their site, including Mr. Kraft. Any legal rights to keep this private were waived when Mr. Driscoll posted it on a public forum. Mr. Driscoll is ignorant; those giving him legal advice are stupid.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Me too, but on Al Mohler’s website there is a copy of his speech, and he even notes that this was not his first time at BYU. My guess is that there is more to the story.
srs wrote:
They’re thinking of WAR as shown in gunpowder jerkoff movies, with themselves as the Action Hero. Remo Williams, The Wingman, CADS, all that “Men’s Action” genre of the Late Cold War (to which Schwarzenegger added a much-needed dose of black humor in “Commando” and subsequent “Arnie Films”, the original gunpowder jerkoffs took themselves with all the Dead Seriousness of a True Believer).
Or they’re channeling Warhammer 40K. Same difference.
Julie Anne wrote:
In the CBMW crowd, how much distance is there between “wife sanctifying” and “wife spanking”?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
They aren’t all that far apart.
Hester wrote:
Their bizarre gender role views also do not factor in people who never marry (single celibates who want marriage but who never find a spouse), asexuals who don’t particularly care about sex/romance/marriage, Christian people with SSA who choose to remain celibate, nor do their teachings figure in Jesus’ words of Matthew 19: 12.
They seem to define man as in “guy who is married with a kid,” and woman is defined as “female person who is married to a man / motherhood.”
As I’ve said on more than one occasion, other than the “we don’t want women to be preachers,” gender complementarian gender teachings only pertain to marriage and parenting and are non-applicable to the never married, the divorced, to a degree any married couple who is infertile, or anyone else who does not fit the “married with children at home” scenario.
Post Script.
Daisy wrote:
Some gender comps add on even to that basic definition.
IIRC, gender comp Driscoll once taught that a “real” man owns his own car and does not use the bus or any other public transportation. (That is odd for so many reasons, one but that he loves throwing people under the bus, so you would think he would be cool with men taking a bus.)
Other qualifiers I’ve seen tossed around by other gender comps: a “real” man (again, according to some gender comps) should never be a “stay at home dad.” Has to earn enough so that the Mom can stay home and raise the kids. Must be the “spiritual leader” to the wife. Cannot be into pursuits considered feminine (art, writing, ballet, poetry, theater) and/or must be into cage fighting, boxing, football, wrestling.
@ LawProf:
This is typical Driscoll. Say something and then make it go away. That is why we invented the term “dricollize.” It goes on and on and on and on.
And, since he marketed his “stuff” to the world, his apology should include the world. Didn’t he say they used the marketer to reach the world with his schtick?
If anyone thinks that this is sincere, then they haven’t been paying attention.
Hester wrote:
Excellent catch.
I’ve seen in the last few years on a few other topics a lot of Christians in certain denominations / churches / schools of thought often speak out of both sides of their mouths, and this is one more example.
Zinnea wrote:
Although I still identify as a social conservative this is one of my peeves about other social conservatives. Instead of dealing with people as they are, a lot of Christian social conservatives spend a lot of energy complaining about how they think things or people should be.
It doesn’t matter if he was not happy with a woman being a politicians, the fact is, she is whether he likes it or not. He needs to deal with the reality of life instead of complaining it’s not to his liking.
I also am troubled by gender comps who try to make female submission apply to all women everywhere, when the Bible only speaks of wives submitting to husbands. The Bible does not teach that women cannot or should not lead in government or elsewhere.
I at least have to give some gender comps credit, such as Driscoll. I did read him say that the submission thing applies only to married couples, so that single women, for example, should not let anyone tell them they must submit to any and every male they meet or are related to.
The guy is at least sticking to the bible on that one, and not trying to expand it past what the text in the Bible actually says.
(Not that I agree with his interpretation of what it says, but he’s at least sticking to the text and no more than that.)
You have some extreme groups who not only teach a married lady is subjected to her spouse, but they now teach a single lady is under her father until she marries. Some want to limit a woman’s life outside of marriage/ church to include employment, government roles, etc.
I read the CBMW post before it was removed. The whole thing is premised on the way things have been since the fall. The writer nowhere pointed to any verse pertaining to the way men and women are described in the new creation to come. That’s because any passages on men and women in the age to come say there is no difference in their standing with God, and none of them even hint to a difference in roles either.
Frankly, this teaching about gender roles having a continuing distinction in the new creation is not only contrary to Scripture, it also contradicts what the Bible says about our roles in the present age in the kingdom of God. We are not called to pursue biblical manhood and womanhood. We are called to Christ.
Cheers,
Tim
JeffT wrote:
Jeff, it is very obvious that these men and their political allies are TERRIFIED of the power of women. Why else would they continually make up rules to “keep us in our place”?
gus wrote:
I remember that show! I believe there was an episode or two where Sam leaped into the bodies of women and had to put up with all the usual garbage women do, from gross men hitting on him to having to figure out how to walk in high heels.
For more of that, see Tony Curtis and Marilyn Monroe in the movie “Some Like It Hot,” and more recently “White Chicks” and “The Hot Chick.”
These two more recent films contain some racy material and one or two gross out references/jokes, but I found them amusing, especially “The Hot Chick,” where a male and female exchange bodies.
@ Daisy:
This is what George Knight III first proposed, then CBMW ran with it. Jesus is ontologically subordinate, so women must be. The only Divine Person with a physical body and a penis is put in a dress? They did that to strengthen the argument for women to be eternally submissive, suffering servants, making women once removed. But then, they just repeat the mantra that this isn’t what we’re saying as a disclaimer, and people believe it — mostly because it’s one of the few straightforward things they say. Everything else is convoluted and hard to understand, and people just turn off their brains as they explain the opposite of the disclaimer.
Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father, lacks the authority to hear and answer prayer, so all Jesus can do is carry prayer (in His own Name) to the Father. Jesus lacks the authority to make decisions and does not have liberty to ask. He’s like a Jehovah’s Witness Jesus. Or the Mormon Jesus — just one of our spirit brothers along with Satan. ???
If Jesus is the eternal Son, and women are likened to Him, we women are the eternal children of our husbands or fathers??? Sure, boys. Sure.
LawProf wrote:
I cannot express how happy I was to read your words – they are liberating. I have had no desire to learn what those terms mean, but always wondered if I should…
@ Daisy:
I noticed Zondervan and Thomas Nelson as sponsors – who published Rachel Held Evan’s book? Hmmm. I thought it was a Thomas Nelson branch.
@ dee:
I think there may also be parallels between gender complementarianism as taught by some Christians with some forms of Islam, not just with Mormonism,
Women in islam: part III: Marriage, Death and afterlife
I found that after a very quick google. There are probably a million more pages out there about it.
Though another site claims that, in the afterlife, wives of Muslim guys get female servants or something,
(Source: Death and Islamic Understanding of Afterlife – Heaven And Hell – Koran, Muslim, Hur, and Earthly – JRank Articles)
@ Ann:
I wouldn’t necessarily blame the women for that, though.
I was brought up in a gender comp Christian family and taught to be a biblical woman mean to be manipulative – not directly, but I was taught things like nice, loving Christian gals are not assertive, do not show anger, cannot openly disagree with other people, are always passive (especially with males in the picture), women are only giving, women are never to get their own needs met.
All of which left me only with a limited number of options for dealing with conflict or getting what I want: passive aggressiveness, manipulation, or stuffing anger down (which later breeds mountains of resentment).
If churches want women and girls to stop being manipulative, then stop supporting gender role teachings.
Stop telling Christian girls it’s wrong to be assertive, to speak up and to go after what they want, and stop telling them it’s selfish for them to put themselves first and get their needs met.
The Bible’s teachings about forgiveness and love are over-exaggerated in churches, especially as presented to females, at least in my experience, my mother’s and with a lot of other Southern Baptist women I’ve run into.
The examples in the Bible of Jesus and Paul biting people’s heads off, confronting people strongly, and being forceful and assertive are ignored for females… we’re told to role model only the “sweet nice side” of Jesus, but not his “tough” side, no, that’s for men only (I never understood that as a teenager, especially).
Really, Christian culture only has itself to blame as to why so many women (from evangelical / Baptist and other gender comp) churches are catty and manipulative, it is an outcome of how they are socialized to be proper Christian gals.
Christian men in those types of churches insist this is proper, biblical, godly behavior for Christian gals, and the females enforce it among each other. I hated having to be coy, sweet, passive, and nice all the time growing up, but I was taught that is how one acts if one loves Jesus and wants to be a good Christian and please God.
Eagle wrote:
Eagle! The kind of polygamy that patriarchs might advocate is only for one man marrying plural women – not the other way around!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Even though I’m right wing, I don’t always understand other right wingers on some issues, why they act as they do, and off and on, I’ve seen some right wingers (even Christian ones) who cozy up to TV personality Glenn Beck, who is right wing and a Mormon.
dee wrote:
Probably Driscoll’s legal team isn’t stupid, but just advising him to engage in a typical bit of legal gamesmanship, i.e., include scary disclaimer that by its very nature carries a connotation of litigation if not adhered to (but with the full knowledge by the authors that it’s not worth the paper/cyberspace it’s written on) and with the sure knowledge that a high percentage of those reading it won’t see through the bluff and will back off.
No one who knows a scintilla of copyright law would do anything but chuckle at the warning at the bottom of the letter. It’s equal parts bullying, bluster and disinformation–in other words, it’s written in the quintessential Driscoll Style.
@ A New Problem:
The better question to that crowd would be what sort of Calvinist you are. Here are some famous Calvinists: Karl Barth and NT Wright.
What was your immediate thought when reading those names?
a) fear
b) loathing
c) fear and loathing
d) who the heck are those guys?
e) I like them a lot
If your answer is (e) I like them a lot, then you aren’t a neo-Cal. If you don’t know who they are, reading them could be very beneficial – start with one of NT Wright’s easier books, not one of his tomes. If you knee jerk reaction to those names is “reject, reject, danger, danger” yet you haven’t even read them, then I’d suggest you are a Neo-Cal. The problem with being a neo-Cal (in a nutshell), is you ignore the last 350 years of Reform tradition and filter your entire understanding of Calvinism from Calvin to the Confessions of Dort, but since the popular Neo-Cal leaders, can’t understand most of the confession, they just use the an-acronym TULIP but haven’t even read the rest of the confession.
So, Neo-Cals think they only need Calvin (and only “read” Calvin via the Confessions of Dort’s TULIP an-acronym). Neo-Cals don’t realize that to Reform means to constantly change over time, and try and nail the faith to only what Calvin wrote. Except most of them haven’t read Calvin, so, it is just what they think he wrote. Neo-Cals are fatalists. Sure, they will tell you they aren’t, that they are pre-determinists, but, don’t be fooled. They are true-blue pagan fatalists. I have never seen a Christian come closer to the views of Karma, so prevalent in India and Nepal, than John Piper and his ‘tornado tweets.’ Everything bad happens for a reason type mentality, we should thank God for the bad thing. Which brings me to something I think all Calvinists, to one degree or another suffer from. So omniscient, omnipotent and om everything else is their God, that God also becomes the Devil (Evil). Since God is so super-powerful he kills little babies in tornados, he kills innocent children in school shootings, etc. In non-Calvinist circles, there is more room for evil to be at the root of a tragedy, rather than God.
But, that is it in a nutshell. From there, a Neo-Cal is almost always a complimentarian, and sees men as more logical, women as more emotional. Being emotional seems to make Neo-Cal’s squeamish. Not sure they realize how emotional Jesus was, but anyways.
Put it this way, some extended family members of ours go to a mostly Dutch-Canadian reformed church. Women can hold any position in the church. They host NT Wright seminars. Everyone values a high level of education for both men and women in that congregation. Contrast that to the Neo-Cals who want all their daughters married off by 19, no post-secondary education, are shielded from theology, etc.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I have observed that gender comps simply ignore people who don’t fit their paradigm, usually.
It’s rare I see them address concerns of single adults, for instance, or write much about divorced people who don’t re-marry, or widowers.
They are concerned about regulating marriage and talking about people who are already married (with children) than anything else (excluding their anti- women- as- preachers fixation).
I think they should change their label from gender complementarian to “Marriage, Parenting, Anti Women Preacher Dogmatists” or something. That would be more accurate.
Daisy wrote:
I had a friend a couple decades ago in college who loves the Lord but due to certain psychological issues was invariably drawn to these types. They were persuading him that it would somehow be sinful for him to take a course from a woman prof! His church also believed in that marriage-in-heaven heresy. I tried to drag him away but he persisted.
Thank God he fell in love with a young lady who was strong enough to put him in his place a la Zipporah. When took her to his church and they found out that when very young (and before she became a believer) she’d been in an abusive relationship which ended in divorce, they started throwing words around like “who–” in reference to his fiancé. That finally opened his eyes and the Pharisees lost a convert.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Surely some perverse teacher who thinks he is ingenious has essentialized it all into “Spanktifying.”
But then, it wouldn’t be too surprising to see that on the horizon, as emotional and social acts of gender-terrorism on the soul/spirit are quite akin to physical violence on the body, aren’t they?
brad/futuristguy wrote:
According to what I’ve read that is a real phenomenon, and amongst some fundamentalists, wife spanking for sanctification is allegedly practiced.
LawProf wrote:
That doesn’t come as a surprise. I just hope no one publishes a book on Spanktification.
It’s.Just.EVIL.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Google Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD)
My half-educated horseback opinion is many of those who practice this use CDD as cover for their fetish, slapping a Christian label on them, unwilling to just admit it’s a sexual thing (much like Driscoll, Furtick, Mahaney and others use Christianity as a cover to unleash their sadism and (likely) sociopathic tendencies upon followers, while followers use their loyalty to the abusers as a cover for their masochistic tendencies–everyone gets to refer to their codependency as Christian behavior and thus justify it).
What’s really sad are those women who are just flat out being abused and brainwashed into thinking it’s sanctifying.
@ HUG:
Somewhat tasteless, but maybe truer than you might think. They would more than likely “chop up” the poor kid surgically and then raise them as whatever they wanted them to be. Whether or not they identify with that gender later in life is irrelevant because hey, parents have authority over their children, right? Husbands’ authority, parents’ authority, pastors’ authority…
Eagle – see what you started?
@ brad:
Yeah, unfortunately it’s not really “allegedly” anymore with CDD. Just Google it and prepare to wash your eyes out with soap afterwards.
And sadly “Spanktification” sounds just about hokey enough that one of these fundy guys who self-publishes in his basement might actually think it’s a clever name for a book.
@ Virginia Knowles:
And do. Feast your eyes. Isaiah 4:1, man.
http://www.christianpolygamy.com
My concern about the “warlike posture” thing is that it reminds me of the Bayly brothers’ article where they talked about courtship being a war between the suitor and the bride’s family. How he had to sever her bonds with her family and woo her with “velvet-gloved violence.” Combine this with all their talk of “unsheathed swords” and their idea that the penetrating party in sex is always the “dominant” one and things get creepy real fast.
Daisy wrote:
How can you Outbreed the Heathen if your broodmares get uppity?
(Which is why I keep expecting polygamy from these guys; how else can a MAN sow his seed faster than one every nine months? More wombs breeding his seed, more sons.)
Daisy wrote:
“Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend”?
Remember when Romney won the G(od’s) O(nly) P(arty) nomination in 2012? After the God’s Anointed Next POTUS of the Week parade and “NOT THE MORMON! NOT THE MORMON! NOT THE MORMON!” chorus? Suddenly Oceania has always been at peace with Eurasia and Mormons Were NOT a CULT(TM)!
Daisy wrote:
Which is another thing that has added to my deep distrust of women.
I grew up manipulated by one of my immediate family (not my parents) — “DANCE, MONKEY! DANCE!” And over 40 years later, the damage is still there. You think I’d want to go back to that?
Daisy wrote:
Why do I see this cartoon of a Caveman thumping his chest like a Silverback gorilla while dragging his woman off by her hair?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCV6paTXyCU
Mara wrote:
Was it Deb, Dee, Julie Anne, or another blogger who related that after covering “Christian wife spanking” in her blog, she’d get a big upsurge on hits with a “wife spanking” search string every Sunday after the churches let out?
Hester wrote:
The OTHER sad thing is, it probably won’t be irrelevant. The kid will most likely be disowned if he or she turns out gay or cross-dressing or living as the other sex.
“it probably won’t be irrelevant” – It probably will be worse than irrelevant for the parents. They will probably disown and reject the child for turning out gay or living as the other sex.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
That's a topic we haven't really covered here at TWW. Perhaps we should be investigating???
LawProf wrote:
*rolls eyes* It’s on Reddit. It’s not going anywhere. And, to be blunt, this “apology” means next to nothing. Driscoll’s not repented of a d*** thing–oh, except for being caught. He’s only leaving social media and not giving up his pugnacious, pugilistic (particularly towards women and those weaker than him) ways. He’s just pulling up the public appearances and going to concentrate on keeping his cult, erm, CHURCH together.
One of the problems I see with evangelical Protestantism is that there’s a real unwillingness to call out a group that may have the right doctrine (at least according to evangelical Protestantism) but whose behavior is downright abominable. In other words, Mars Hill can’t be a cult if Driscoll is teaching orthodox doctrine. However, by some accounts, Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill is a festering hive of cultic behavior. Yet because he teaches the correct doctrine, people are afraid to tell him that what he’s DOING is wrong and abusive.
Here’s a post SSB had about the practice of Christian wife spanking among Christian Patriarchs.
http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/01/03/the-christian-patriarchy-movements-dark-secret-of-wife-spanking/
OK, so I googled christian domestic discipline. They were for it, and they admit that there is an erotic aspect to it and think that is fine. Clearly BDSM.
mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
I consider myself evangelical writ large, in my opinion Mars Hill is both cultic AND teaching incorrect doctrine. I share your opinion of those evangelical cowards more concerned about protecting a brand or a cash cow than telling the truth. Every publishing house that has published a Driscoll book, every conference that’s featured him as a speaker, every creaky old pomposity such as Piper who’s given him an endorsement of any sort should stand up for the truth, but at the end of the day I have to surmise they don’t care about truth, they care about themselves.
@ Nancy
Time for a little anecdotal tale here. About 25 years ago, and in a town where we used to live, and in a local mainline denomination church, one of the church deacons who happen to be a psychiatrist brought up at committee meeting that he thought the church ought to designate one of the unused rooms in the church basement where BDSM (different name back then) people could do what they do with more safety than if they had to go hide??
He did not get very far with that, but then nobody was very shocked about it either. From what I was able to find at the time this behavior is far more prevalent in our society than most of us learned in sunday school. Silly me. I had thought it was mostly just diagnosable crazies and porn industry stuff, but not so.
Is this what Driscoll meant by "With a Father's Affection?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1fIH6GMIJg
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That was Cindy of Under Much Grace in response to my tweeting/commenting that wife spanking is one of the most common searches I get on my blog.
Be sure to check out Kristen’s new blog article on this topic: http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-logical-fallacy-of-equal-but.html
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
The outbreeding thing may be part of their fixation for sure, but I also think it’s a sheer love of power and control: they are males who enjoy having a person (wife) or entire group (females) under them.
I also think they think if they are super strict about marriage/gender stuff that it acts as some kind of defense against secular feminism and homosexual militancy.
@ Julie Anne:
Oh come on!! 😛 I’m a man just ruling my kingdom all while expanding it and marking my territory! You women need to learn to submit!! 😯 If you’re not popping out 3 kids a year chained to a bed than you will be chained to a stove in the kitchen cooking up a storm. And with polygamy Julie Anne that only increases the opportunity to expand a man’s territory!! 😛
As for your husband and I any disputes will be settled Mark Driscoll style on your front lawn. A MMA cage fight, a 6 pack of Miller, and the both of us quoting “Real Marriage” as we act like “Real Men”. Much like the orangutan’s in the local zoo we will hoot and make strange noises, beat our chests and get into a belching competetion!! 😯
Isn’t Neo-Reformed Theology wonderful. The whole event will be moderated by Bruce Ware by the way!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I have some distrust of men, after years and years of Christian indoctrination that all men REALLY want from me is sex.
That has always made me suspect every dude who has shown interest, and it's not made any easier when most males, first thing out of their face on a dating site, or trying to get my sister to fix me up with them, is to refer to my looks.
No comments or interest in my brain, my hobbies, my career of choice, my sense of humor, my favorite movies, it's always "Hey beautiful, hey pretty thang."
@ Daisy:
mean = MEN, not “mean”
@ Daisy:
I agree with you. I also think that it is in some ways a “defense” (as good a word as any) against normal adult heterosexual interaction. Me Tarzan and you Jane sounds more like Me Daddy and you my Little Girl than it sounds like two grown ups interacting.
@ Val:
Don’t forget Greg Boyd!! Mullah Piper issued an edict I believe calling for Greg Boyd to be burned at the stake. He is to be there new Michael Servetus. It hasn’t been determined if he is going to be executed publically in Minneapolis or Louisville. 😯 His crime….being classified as an “open theist” which is much, much worse than covering up pedophilia, plagiarism, frauding the New York Times, etc… 😛
Hope this video can add something to the conversation. Has it been posted before?
John Piper might have been eloquent back in the day, but this has to be one of the most inarticulate speeches on spousal abuse I have seen in a while.
Is he saying something to the effect of, a wife should take a slap to the face, wait until the morning, and call on her church for help, and the same for verbal abuse? That once a home gets violent, then more drastic measures should be taken?
How odd.
It seems to me he has never had a close female relative who has been through verbal abuse, or just one punch to the face.
I’m not sure what he meant, but if he was trying to give helpful advice to the church, he might want to go back to speech class 101.
http://survivechildhoodsexualabuse.blogspot.com/
Marie2 wrote:
Aigh!!! Wrong link!! I need to go to Internet 101. That other post is a super good one, by the way, but it does not relate to the topic at hand.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/12/what-does-biblical-submission-for-wives-include-john-piper-answers.html
What does biblical submission for wives include? John Piper answers
WARNING! Every female take serious care:
What you are about to see and hear may very well disturb you. Don’t click on this video if you’re already in a bad mood. And for heaven’s sake, if you’ve had a good day and looking forward to a nice weekend with your husband, don’t click on this video.
Finally, if you’ve been a bit suspicious we biblical complementarians are shifting toward becoming more and more theologically doofy than ever, please, please, please don’t watch this video. John Piper draws hermeneutical blood:
Facebook theology.
Just read this on facebook, the deep philosophical place where truthseekers gather (not).
But this was good regardless and appropriate.
Any good apology has three parts.
1. I’m sorry.
2. It’s my fault.
3. What can I do to make it right?
Most people forget the third part.
Driscoll ALWAYS forgets the third part.
He’s not really sorry because he’s not interested in making anything right. He’s just sorry he got caught. It will be business as usual. People will continue to be thrown under the bus. Women will continue to be silenced and abused. Men too.
@ Daisy: Corrected it for you. 🙂
@ Marie2:
Somebody needs to set up a home business for women who like to sell things. This one would be educational by selling flash cards with quotes that girls/women could memorize and have handy for the right occasion.
“The first time you hit me you are out of here.”
“That’s it. You are out of here, and I am keeping the house, the children, half our worldly goods and child support. Have a nice life.”
“I already called your mama/ the pastor/ the police/ your employer and told them why you are currently out on the street.”
“How would I know where you left your weapon? You know I don’t shoot. Why would I have it?”
“The children are at my parent’s house. Here is a copy of the ER medical record where I told them everything. My Daddy and his brothers are coming over to talk to you right now.”
“What other savings account that you thought we had?”
And my favorite quote from my grandmother: “Men are like streetcars, there will be another one along in fifteen minutes.”
Disclaimer: Women also abuse men. Repeat. Repeat. I am opposed to abuse in toto. A good man is a good thing–father, husband, brother, employer, son, friend. I am totally in favor of good men and have been involved with a few to my advantage. A bad man needs to live with the consequences of his own behavior.
Nancy wrote:
As usual Nancy, an interesting comment. I was familiar ( but not too familiar) with a guy who used to host weekly orgies at his home. He was in leadership of a local mainline church. I would suggest he took Scripture lightly. I think the church did too.
@ Eagle:
What! He actually suggested Greg Boyd be martyred? Piper needs to go to an institution for dementia patients, permanently. Driscoll could be his roommate, to keep him company, and evade the IRS investigators.
Greg Boyd runs circles around this lot when it comes to theology.
Daisy wrote:
Though this was not until I was college age (I’m a very late bloomer), I got taught the same thing about women. You got taught men want One Thing and One Thing Only, I was taught women want One Thing and One Thing Only. Plus “If she’s screwing around and gets pregnant, who’s she going to claim is the father? The One With The Most Money.” This does not lead to openness and trust regarding the opposite sex.
Daisy wrote:
In other words, they’re waving the marriage/gender stuff around as a Magic Charm against the femmie and homo spirits. Like waving Veganism and Vitamins around as a Magic Charm against Cancer.
@ Val:
I’m being saracastic…I know John Piper has tried to have Greg Boyd fired from Bethel. And in the Twin Cities area the feud between Piper and Boyd was legandary. I like Boyd for his work on the Problem of Evil. And I like the way he rebuked John Piper after the I-35 bridge collapse. Boyd does a good job…not that I agree with everythung he does. He’s open about being pacifist and I wouldn’t be a pacificst. It doesn’t make me a war monger either…I wonder if that is due to the Mennonite direction Boyd is taking Woodland Hills.
dee wrote:
“Luuuke. I am your father. Give in to de Dark Side of de Force, eh?”
“Like, he’s seen Return of the Jedi nineteen times.”
— Mackenzie Bros, “Strange Brew” (hockey mask scene)
Nancy wrote:
And What Was Seen Cannot Be Unseen…
@ Marie2:
We did a post on this when we first discovered it. That statement by Piper is well known-“Women should endue abuse for only one night.” Despicable. His little giggle at the beginning is weird.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/03/14/john-piper’s-response-to-the-question-“what-should-a-wife’s-submission-to-her-husband-look-like-if-he’s-an-abuser”/
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I love the “Say what?” unexpected and great timing.
@ Deb:
Thank you. 🙂
Daisy wrote:
Hi Daisy I hope you can see this cartoon at this link about the benefits of dating a zombie:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/b/blondies.asp
Or maybe you have seen it before? I hear ya….I love movies like Shallow Hal, and even America’s Sweethearts (John Cusack becomes close to Julia Roberts when she is in a fat suit, and is his sister in law….things change when he realizes that his wife is a selfish you know what….and Julia Roberts loses some poundage….)
I feel very fortunate to be married to a wonderful guy, but I agree about the craziness of not having children making someone LESS THAN in the church.
@ Julie Anne:
I’ve only written about “regular” corporal punishment (i.e., on kids) once or twice. My favorite search string so far? “The exquisite pain of an excellent spanking.” God only knows how they found me.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yeppers. I think that is one of at least three or four of their true, ulterior motives with the gender role stuff.
They may not even be doing it on a conscious level (or maybe they are?, hard to say sometimes), but it’s what drives them, IMO, and not really an altruistic, godly concern to help women be more gospelly, winsomely womanly and to help men be more gospelly, winsomely manly.
Eagle
Piper tried to have Greg Boyd fired but looooooved Driscoll’s theology? Something is so whacked with this group that it drives me nuts!
@ Marie2:
That was cute, the zombies like brains and don’t care about looks cartoon, thank you for sharing. 🙂
I’ve seen “Shallow Hal” and enjoyed that film.
I’m not against people noticing other people are attractive, or approaching them for a date in part on that basis, I just wish men were more even-handed about things (especially on the dating sites) and would attempt to comment on other things except for looks, but many of them really focus on it.
Hester wrote:
Eeewwwww. 😯 I’m going to have to go soak my computer monitor in Lysol now. Eewwwww. *shivers*
I cannot believe the level of crazy that is being preached from pulpits everywhere. Wife spanking, really? WTH! Totally freaked out by that thought. As for Driscoll cannot believe anyone would allow this class A idiot stick to teach any theology classes when he obviously needs to go back to school for it himself. sigh. I am really disapointed in the biblical community as a whole. He will only go away if we make him. I know, I know, we are all trying but there has got to be a way to shut him down for good…..
Found this comment on Dave Kraft’s article. I really liked it and thought it called out those folks unwilling to look at what is going on with an iota of common sense. Tell me what you all think.This theme is repeating with mega-churches far and wide.
You have insisted upon creating for yourselves a spiritual guru and elevated him to idol status. Because you refuse to study the Word for yourselves and instead insist some egotistical dwarf among men digest, twist and spoonfeed it back to you, this false teacher has taken the place of the Holy Spirit as your teacher and guide.
The Bible says call no one Teacher, for He is your Teacher. Call no one Father, for He is your Father. The Holy Spirit within every believer is all we need.
It’s all in the Bible. Put down the Driscoll books and read it for yourselves.
Well, now the little potentate you’ve elevated as king is wreaking havoc, and, with others of his ilk, are irreversibly damaging the testimony of actual Christendom. We’re tired of apologizing for your behavior.
We, each of us, are the Church, and Jesus Christ is our one and only Head.
Get your act together and stop following idols.
@ dee:
Well…maybe if Greg Boyd started throwing people under the bus then John Piper would like him also. He makes calls on his Reknew Blog for the revolution to continue.
@ Daisy:
Shawllow Hal? I could have done without the swimming pool scene. It’s kind of like Dodgeball with Vince Vaughn and Ben Stiller when they are having the High School cheerleading competition with Justin Long. And oh…let’s just say its over the top! Remember that particular scene has Mr. Apple – Junstin Long!!! 😀
Nancy wrote:
Yes, Nancy! That would be soooo perfect!! Hmmmm…Beefing up the business model a bit…Wonder if the flashcards could be combined with another business, like household cleaning tips, cooking tips, or self-defense tips…..Combining different interests somehow with the cards, or maybe the cards could be personalized somehow…Depending on what someone is interested in, whether extreme sports, pictures of uh, maybe interesting celebrities, good recipes, travel guides, and then the quotes would be on these great laminated pictures.
So who is going to start this very important business? I just LOVE those quotes…I bet people could add some more….
dee wrote:
Oh oops. Thank you for your patience with my mistake….I had googled ESS and John Piper and a link to that video came up. Yes your coverage was very creative. I love the follow up questions….And that giggle is rather creepy….
The things you can discuss and learn here!! Female spanking, polygamy, Nixonion Tactics, Shallow Hal, and Dodgeball. 😛
Marie2 wrote:
No need to apologize for this.
I appreciate and even get a little chuckle every time someone new finds it.
It assures me that word is still getting out.
And I like seeing the horror of people who see it for the first time.
It’s disgusting and should make people mad.
The desiring God site took it down. But they have never recanted from such a stand.
@ Eagle:
I don’t think I’ve seen the Dodgeball film. There were a few scenes of jokes in Shallow Hal that, yes, were a little yucky. I’ve never been a big fan of bathroom humor, though I come from a family where some of my family just love it. (Maybe I was adopted?)
If you want to see a really funny film, try Blades of Glory, and Zoolander (though that film also contains a few slightly tawdry type scenes, if you can stomach those, it’s very funny. Most of it is silly-funny, not too smutty or gross).
I’ve read several pages the last couple of days either by egalitarians about gender comps, or a few pages by gender comps themselves about gender roles.
Some of the pages contained quotes by early church fathers about women and Eve, and they were not very flattering. I’ve noticed that all women get blamed for Eve’s actions. Eve gets all the blame for eating the fruit.
I’ve not yet seen any of these guys discuss the fact that the Messiah was born of a woman (ultimately due to the actions of the Holy Spirit), but still, Jesus came from a woman (Mary), not a man.
The Eve-women-blamers sure don’t like to mention that very much. They like to blame Eve (and consequently women down to the present age), but they don’t say a peep about Mary. Mary was a woman.
Isaiah 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
Galatians 4
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Luke 1
Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.
Daisy wrote:
“Christian hateth Mary whom God kissed in Galilee…”
— G.K.Chesterton, “Lepanto”
This dates back to the Reformation Wars.
St Mary is too ROMISH.
Daisy wrote:
Dodgeball is hilarious!! And yes there is an over the top scene with that guy named Justin. But it has a very sweet message about being yourself. And stars a real life couple. Ben Stiller and his wife, Christine, uh….well I will look that up later….And the other two films you mentioned are great, too! Zoolander is fun and silly, and Blades of Glory was surprisingly heartwarming….
LawProf wrote:
It’s all about the Benjamins, ultimately. Mark Driscoll is a brand and hitching yourself to a viable brand is a good strategy, even if the guy is teaching abusive, immoral garbage. There are precious few Nathans out there to call these guys out, because nobody wants to go against the prevailing opinion. I appreciate Dee and Deb for doing this thankless task, particularly since they’re concentrating on *behavior* and not on *belief*.
Julie Anne wrote:
*lip curled* I am no man’s subordinate. I wasn’t raised to be one either (thank you Dad, I’m so glad I got to tell you that before Alzheimer’s stole you away from us). If eternity is all about being wedded to my gender, pffth. I don’t think so.
I do find it absolutely remarkable, however, that these guys are able to get away with their Eternal Subordination of the Son belief without being called out. Seriously, it’s a heresy right up there with Arianism. Am I wrong? Wasn’t that the whole point of the Nicene-Constantinoplan creed, to make sure Jesus wasn’t in a subordinate position to God the Father?
Just to be clear: if it weren’t for the fact that ESS is being used as a way to stomp on women (via the example of subordination), those guys could believe what they want. But like believing in Xenu, when people’s lives start being damaged by these beliefs (and both men and women are damaged by subordination), that’s when I say “this is a problem.” So yeah, as far as I’m concerned, ESS is a problem. But, again, I just don’t understand how these people, with their huge emphasis on being orthodox and absolutely RIGHT on doctrine, could embrace something that comes across as an old, old heresy.
I am so confused over here in the corner…
@ Anon:
And "driscolled" means to be dismissed, lied about, etc., formerly known as a synonym for "thrown under the bus".
LawProf wrote:
And who decides who is a real deal believer? You?
Interesting perspective on the possible ulterior motives for the move towards ESS. Once you wed Complementarianism to ESS, then you have the following: ESS = Correct view of the Trinity. Correct view of the Trinity = Orthodoxy.
Therefore, any view that rejects Complementarianism, rejects the Doctrine of the Trinity. Hmmmmm….
http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2009/02/ess-a-new-doctrine/
@ chris:
And then you are labeled a heretic 🙁 and toasted!
Daisy wrote:
You know, Daisy, some stuff you write make me think I sometimes go on the Internet under the name “Daisy” and then forget about it. Me too – by now I feel highly discouraged when a guy starts with the “hi, beautiful stuff. Guys who start there tend to never get to the heart (the interests, character, etc.) and mind which I have. They cannot see any deeper.
Yikes. ESS? Sounds like good old Arianism to me. Funny how these ancient heresies keep making a comeback.
@ Catholic Homeschooler:
Precisely. If you read enough about some of their stuff (doggedly plow though, that would be) it becomes clear that they have run out of ideas and are going back and digging up old stuff and trying to repackage and re-market under new names.
Now think about this: if and when their ideas are refuted, the church councils will look really good to some protestant theologians and historians who are currently afraid or unable to say anything good about catholicism. This looks to me like an excellent opening for catholic theologians to step into the limelight. For example, Russell Moore wants to reference St. Augustine of Hippo. Russ is asking for it, IMO.
I am not a catholic, but guess whose side I am on in this issue. The side of truth, obviously, and the ball has been lobbed into the catholic court it looks like. Whee! I love it!
@ Retha:
I had a similar experience in a different area. It did not have anything to do with guys or beauty. When I was young I looked a lot younger than I really was and it was a problem to get people to take me seriously. So when I had to go for interviews during the process of applying for medical school (and this was an era when really few females did this) I had a real challenge to look like someone they would take seriously. So I got a pair of those drug store glasses with the black rims and really geeky look. I got the lowest correction (weakest lenses) they had, but it still caused some visual difficulty. The first interview was in an ancient city hospital where I had to go up, and then down, a long marble staircase. But I could not see that well and the steps were kind of blurry. But the office where I was to go had a window looking out over those front steps, so I was afraid to take off the glasses. Shoot, I was afraid to breathe right then. So I prayed my way up and back down and, no surprise under the circumstances, I apparently convinced them that I was seriously geeky. End of story.
In other news, the reason we beat Man Utd 3-0 was that our finishing was poor.
I just realized sitting here, that the sick feeling I get in my gut when I listen to the YRR crowd talk gender roles, is the exact same feeling I get when the men of Stepford are sitting around the Mens Club explaining the town to Matthew Broderick on the remake. Just leeringly creepy.
@ Val:
Most of the Neo-Cals I know are baptist, so they aren’t actually Neo-Reformed. They are Neo-Cal. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I think the whole “Young Restless and Reformed” thing is inaccurate if one is discussing Baptists who believe in Tulip (which also can’t rightly be called Calvinism).
Nancy wrote:
BCDs. (Birth Control Devices.)
The “Letter To Our Sisters” satire is BRILLIANT! 🙂
“As we’ve already said, we can’t answer the question with perfect specificity, but we think it best if you prepare to submit to all males in the New Jerusalem. It seems the most prudent course.”
“We believe God is good, and we offer you this hope: after tens of thousands of years in the heavenly city, we trust that the “call” you have felt will wear off and be forgotten. In the meantime, your painful obedience will rise up before the Lord like a fragrant offering.”
Hilarious! 🙂 Who is the genius behind this???
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Ding dong, the witch (Man U) is dead! Happy happy joy joy.
Dee and Deb, I’ll look forward to your post on Greg Gibson’s “Embracing a War-Like Posture.”
From his CBMW bio:
“Greg serves as the family pastor at Foothills Church in Knoxville, TN. He is the author of Reformational Manhood: Creating a Culture of Gospel-Centered Warriors, and blogs at Veritas. A ThM student at Southern Seminary, he received a MDiv in Biblical and Theological Studies from SBTS and a BA in Biblical Studies from Boyce College.”
He sure seems to embrace being a “warrior” no? And yet his bios offer no indication that he has a bloody clue as to what war is really all about.
A little first hand knowledge about the reality of actual, honest-to-goodness conflicts might be a good perquisite before daring to compare the daily challenges facing an average American married couple (“gee, we have to schedule that date night at Olive Garden!”) to “war.” Sheesh.
@ Rafiki:
As I told Dee…in the spirit of the war like posture I would like to know if her husband dresses up as a Sioux or Camanche warrior before pursuing her!! :-p
@ Eagle:
I do have a concealed carry permit. He’s very, very careful….
Rafiki wrote:
I fear that this sort of theology has sprung from insecure men who were bullied as kids. So now they get the bully others and pretend they are warriors. They remind of the ill-fated Doug Phillips who often dressed in Indiana Jones outfits, pretending that the clothes make the man.
dee wrote:
I have gotten in knock down arguments with people recently about the value of first hand knowledge about helping people. While I believe that professional training counts for a lot, (how else could doctors be so helpful in treating patients for so many issues?) I do find it helpful to get first hand input on occasion. I feel like many young leaders recently have been indoctrinated that very little training or first hand experience is necessary to be helpful to someone in extreme emotional pain.
Not meant to be a suck up here, but I admire Dee and Deb for persevering here to be helpful and understand those in different kinds of pain, from different kinds of loss. I have a feeling that you both have gone through many kinds of loss, but there might be a few people out there that you have helped, more by being a non judgmental listening ear than an over spouting advice giver. lol. Thank you both for this blog.
I recall bringing this article up to one of the men who was then a pastor of the SGM church I attended at the time. He said he did not find it compelling. It has definitely been out there awhile – before their website re-design and since, so it’s very interesting that it was only removed now.
@ EMSoliDeoGloria: I meant to say this interaction occurred in 2008.
I have no idea the difference between Calvinist and Reformed. Calvinist Baptist, Reforned Baptist, neo Cal, Classis Cal, Neo Reformed, Tulip, 4 point Cal……
Aagh! It’s very confusing.
chris wrote:
Yes, great question…when someone answers it, could they please include something about different strains of Presbyterians? I grew up Presby but it was the version that did not emphasize Calvinism at all.
The next Big Box is up.
http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/christian-modesty-tbb/
Hester wrote:
Correct. Which is also why ESS is a heresy.
I have always found this book to be helpful, when it came to gender relations,
Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs Hardcover
by Emerson Eggerichs (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Respect-Desires-Desperately-Needs/dp/1591451876/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395022803&sr=1-1&keywords=love+and+respect
I am sure the book has its flaws, but I thought it had many good insights as to how men and women think differently.
I like the idea that men can learn to love better, and women can learn to respect better, but not in any particular order. I have never liked hearing that the woman has to initiate many actions to make her man love her better.
Makes me wonder if any of these celebrity pastors like Driscoll did not feel loved or respected as children, so they don’t know what it means to truly love someone sacrificially as adults. So sad to see such narcissistic behavior enabled by so many.
And the Faithful cannot continue to live without their Driscoll Facebook/Twitter Fix?
@ Eagle:
Laughable mental image, Eagle: “I am Pastor Dominent Bear, and you are my squaw! I shall make war upon your kinsmen as I drag you off by your hair!”
@ dee:
Another “dress up” warrior!
@ Marie2:
Marie, I do think its possible to help someone even if one has never experienced the exact same situation. It requires a good amount of self-knowledge, excellent listening skills and deep empathy of the sort that only comes from a diverse range of actual life experiences.
dee wrote:
Every time I see a picture of Womb Tomb Swanson, I get the same impression: He looks like a dorky High School kid. The one time I heard his voice (sound bites on radio denouncing Disney/Pixar’s Frozen as “indoctrination in lesbianism and bestiality”), he sounded like a dorky High School kid. Everything I’ve seen and heard about him sounds like an Omega Male who has found as way to become The Alpha Male in a position of POWER (by Divine Right) and is throwing his new-found weight around HARD.
I get the same impression (with a lot more sexual angle) from Driscoll. A little boy from the bottom of the heap who’s now On Top of the Heap (by Divine Right) and throwing his weight around HARD. (“I CAN BEAT YOU UP!!!! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!!!!!”)
Rafiki wrote:
As much clue as a Warhammer 40K fanboy.
“WAAAAAGH!!! DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!!!!!”
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG, I assume that’s an online role playing game? Ugh – the marketing of war as a sanitized video game to make it somehow palatable. Double ugh.
Daisy wrote:
I’ve not yet seen any of these guys discuss the fact that the Messiah was born of a woman (ultimately due to the actions of the Holy Spirit), but still, Jesus came from a woman (Mary), not man.
No. This is a pet peeve of mine. Portraying the role of the woman in pregnancy and childbirth as somehow less actibe when compared to the man who contributed the sperm is not only offensive, but gets it exactly reversed. Pregnancy is not a passive state of being, it is a nine month endeavour that requires the woman to contribute the function of every major organ system, capped by a few hours of a process so arduous that it is literally called labor. The Holy Spirit contributed a miracle to get the ball rolling,but Mary, a mere mortal woman did all the work. And that was before she nursed and raised Jesus.
Rafiki wrote:
No, it’s a tabletop “SF” wargame from England (the Games Workshop/Warhammer monopoly) which went out-of-its-way to be DARRK!!!! and EDDGY!!!!!
“In the GrimDark Future, There Will Always Be WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Muff Potter wrote:
Of course I think I am a real deal believer–not like it’s some badge of honor, simply a statement of fact (i.e., I truly believe that Jesus is God, died for my sins, exists actually, not as some pious metaphor). The guy was asking whether we thought he was a “neocal”–which may or may not be a believer in Jesus, in fact, may simply be a brute who happens to espouse a certain set of doctrines that are arguably orthodox. I gave him my honest opinion based on the information at hand.
I don’t think I or anyone else is the final word on determining who’s faith is real–but neither am I going to apologize for giving an honest opinion.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
P.S. WH40K is NOT “sanitized”. Just the opposite; WH40K GLORIES in Gore and Nihilsm and DARK (no, DARKER). This is the game that coined the term “GRIMDARK” and inspired the term “Crapsack World.”
Rafiki wrote:
Hey you wanna hear something funny? upon reflection I do believe more and more that this is possible. Your flag looked UnAmerican, maybe British? In America, I have been inundated with people who are doing things from an agenda, not from a desire to genuininely help someone. Maybe my issue with this question is whether Americans can be trained to let go of their own theological agenda, and just listen. I need more de programming on this….Sigh…Ty for sharing there, that was encouraging….
Rafiki wrote:
Mathematically, the title remains Man City’s to lose as things stand the noo. That is, if they win all their remaining games they will be champions regardless of anyone else’s results. If we win all our remaining games, we are guaranteed at least second place, but even if we beat Man City at Anfield, if they win the rest of their remaining games they would still be above us. Equally, if Chelsea win all their remaining games (including the one at Anfield) then they are guaranteed at least second place.
In practice, of course, nobody is likely to win all their remaining games. So it will remain interesting, as a league season ideally should. But it’s been a while since we were in the mix!
This stat attack was brought to you by Nick Bulbeck Ltd.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist</b
Yes sir, you got that right. In the original Bambi movie, if I remember correctly, there was this one particular cute woodland creature who liked to start with a well-known poem or song and then change the last line or two. He always said, cutely of course, "I made that last part up myself." The baptist neo-whatevers are making that last part up themselves.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
And – shockingly – West Ham might actually avoid relegation! Live to fight another day, my friends!
I’m forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air,
They fly so high,
Nearly reach the sky,
Then like my dreams,
They fade and die.
Wait…that’s probably not the best place to end the chorus…
burntnorton wrote:
There is always Luke 11: 27-28 to deal with. There is a more protestant way to understand what Jesus said there, and there is a more catholic way to understand it. But either way, Jesus is playing down the blessedness of the physical matters of reproduction and breast feeding in the case of his own birth and infancy.
Marie2 wrote:
I think there are currently subcultures in Christianity where you will find more of this than in other subcultures. Personally, I found lots of Columbia International University students who seem to fairly often have this winsome way about them. I don’t know if it’s from the school or from the people the school draws from. They are known for turning out people who live and play well with others, especially cross-culturally for the long haul.
I’m never in favor of looking to an institution of any kind to produce what I think knowing and following Jesus Christ ought to produce in us, but CIU grads are where I was first exposed to people who listened, cared, were not driven by agenda or protection of an organization. I’m sure that’s not true of all of them, but to find any was amazing to me.
If ESS doctrine means that women are ontologically submissive, then I guess they view the Judge Deborah (in Judges) as a hermaphrodite. Geesh, they are weird.
I’d hate to see what the espousers of ESS doctrine think of the Outstanding Apostle Junia in Roman 16:7 (transexual, hermaphrodite, godless poser…?). Wow they have slipped into a quagmire of Biblical land mines.
ESS = ancient heresy (yep, sure is! Since the 3rd Century):
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/subordination-trinity
dee wrote:
And also cosplayed in front of the camera as a WW2 general and 18th Century country squire.
@ LawProf:
Sorry if I sounded a bit combative, and let me assure you that I can fully respect your belief system even though it may or may not agree with mine. As Mrs. Muff is so fond of saying: “What a boring world if we all believed the same things.”
Muff Potter wrote:
I like combative, Muff, I was just being combative back at you. You should spend a day in the LawProf household: jousting, shouting, jockeying for position, rhetorical swordplay. My wife did her grad work in the hard sciences, a real logician, she’s a formidable foe (though oldest teen daughter is now a freshman at uni and knows absolutely everything there is to know, a fact of which she regularly reminds me).
Frankly, you don’t have to respect my belief system, I sure don’t respect all belief systems (e.g., that particularly virulent strain of Christianity–so-called–as typically represented in the media, in major conferences, in places like Mars Hill). And you’re absolutely correct that I have no corner on the right to determine who’s belief is true and who’s is not. That’s God’s business.
dee wrote:
Ill-fated? Did he get crushed by a giant round boulder or something?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
He was exposed as a long-time adulterer who may (allegedly) at the outset of the adulterous relationship been in a sexual relationship with an underage teen. His ministry Vision Forum has since gone away and he was removed from the pastorship of his church and the parsonage. I can only imagine what his family is going through.
Back to the foundational conviction that God created males to be leaders and females to be followers: this belief is woven into the youth Sunday School curriculum that John Piper’s Desiring God company produces and sells. You can find overviews and samples of curriculum at their website named Children Desiring God.
Several strong personalities in my small non-denom church are heavily pro-Piper. They gained appointment to the committee charged with choosing children’s Sunday School curriculum and tried to sweep the entire K-12 classes with Piper produced programs. The only thing that managed to narrowly pass the committee was the program for grades 7-12 titled “Your Word is Truth”. I combed through the Student Journals that my son and daughter were given to take back and forth to write fill-in-the-blank class lecture notes and do homework requiring short answer paragraphs.
One 11th grade girl summed it up quite tidily: “It’s just a bunch of opinions written by some lady who sounds like she’s a home school mom who claims that the Bible says something but the verses she gives don’t say that at all.” Excellent observation. There was no way that she could have known that it was, in fact, written by a home school mom, and it is indeed just a bunch of opinions with Bible verses plastered onto them that don’t mean what the author claims them to mean.
The lessons that really set my teeth on edge were in weeks 12, 13, and 14. They were on…you guessed it…Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood and Biblical Design for Marriage and Family. The intent is to prove that God’s Truth is that “God has designed each man to be a servant-like leader, provider, and protector.” Likewise, God’s Truth is that “God has designed each woman to be a willingly submissive helper and nurturer.” Further, God’s Truth is that “Marriage is God’s unique design to display the complementary roles of men and women most fully” and also that “Marriage is a picture of Jesus’amazingly loving and faithful relationship with His people, the church,in which His people joyfully submit to and follow Him.” More of God’s Truth: “Submission is complementary to male leadership by God’s design. Godly male leadership is a blessing to women.”
Included was homework about sisters and brothers relating to one another. Girls: “Do you like to be ‘in charge’, rather than allowing your older brother to take the lead when appropriate? Are you growing in how you respond to men when they lead, provide, and protect? Are you encouraging the young men and boys in your life to be godly and servant-like leaders, providers, and protectors?”
For boys: “Do you encourage your sisters as joyful submitters and helpers (e.g., do you demonstrate servant-like manhood to your sister in things such as opening the door for her)?”
An example of how this lesson played out in one family: Younger brother comes in from sports practice, heaves his sweaty self onto the couch and yells for his older sister to bring him a drink. Sister yells back (from another room) that he can get it himself! Brother yells that she should have been paying attention in Sunday School, that she’s supposed to be submitting to him. Sister yells that he wasn’t paying attention because he’s supposed to be serving her, so he can bring her a drink when he gets his own. The parents were not amused. Siblings bossing one another is a common issue, only now they were sanctioning it with misapplied “Bible” teaching.
The outcome of that year of parental complaint and of teenage torture, in which half the class eventually dropped out and most of the others only came because their parents made them, is that there will be no more “Children Desiring God” curriculum taught in our church for the foreseeable future. And there is more curriculum where that came from. Just to make sure kids really, really know for certain sure that God made men to be leaders and women to be joyful, willing submitters and helpers,there is a 28 week course titled “Rejoicing in God’s Good Design”. If you read the scope and sequence from the website, you may need aspirin.
Tree wrote:
Does my heart good to see a teen who can see through the packaging of the indoctrination information.
I was thrilled to hear a 20 year old young man say that he’s sick of pastors (along with others in leadership from churches to Bible college) making stuff up when it comes to what the Scriptures are actually saying. After one teaches all that can be known in the Scriptures, then one can opine. But I suspect that there simply aren’t enough lifetimes to get to the opinions.
@ Tree:
#*%&$*#%*$%&$%*@$%(@$(%(@$%
GIRLS HAVE TO SUBMIT TO THEIR BROTHERS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
*(#$%*&@$%*(&@$*(%&@$(*)%&(*)@$&%
And yes, that is my VERY articulate and composed response to that.
Do you have scans/photographs of this curriculum?
Standard operating procedure in homeschool circles. 8yo boys telling their sisters that “boys rule girls” when they want to end a disagreement and get their way, parents letting their sons get away with things that their daughters could never do. Because I guess that’s how you train up a responsible servant-leader of the home, by teaching him that the rules are only for other people. The penis has its privileges, I suppose.
If I ever had a son and heard him tell a girl that “the Bible says boys rule girls,” I’m not sure how I would calmly handle that situation.
Val wrote:
Evangelicals’ lack of knowledge of Church history – because, as we all know, the Church actually sprang out of the head of Martin Luther in 1517 (sarc off) – makes things like ESS and other neo-Cal nonsense easy to put over on people. ESS is warmed over Arianism.
Athanasian Creed
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
Let them put that in their Piper and smoke it.
I know there’s disagreement over some of his points today, especially over the filioque, but Athanasius left no wiggle room about the equality within the Trinity. The further we stray from historic orthodoxy the easier we’ll fall for false teachers and hucksters.
@Hester
You asked if I have scans or photocopies of the Children Desiring God curriculum. No, but I have something better. I have the spiral bound “Student Journal” that has the quotes in it, along with a whole lot of other interesting material. It includes references to articles by John Piper (of course, because it was published from his company and developed for use at his church), Al Mohler, C. J. Mahaney, Carolyn Mahaney, and many other like minded souls. The articles themselves are not in it, but titles and authors are referenced for students and parents to either find online or read as a teacher provided handout. (They usually weren’t handed out.) The website for Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was referenced a number of times, which must be why this Wartburg article brought the curriculum to memory.
When you look at their 2-color MW logo for a minute, you can see that the W is a mirror image of the M, but the W is an upside-down M!!! Is there some kind of subliminal , subconscious meaning in that. Basically, Women are upside-down and not right-side up—and the W is scarlet red and not black like the M. Thought you’d appreciate that subtle gender comparison even in that symbol.
Hester wrote:
I’m gonna have to agree with Hester. He said it so well!
Tree wrote:
Some time ago I read an example of this idiotic nonsense playing out in the real world. Scene: boys and girls from a church youth group were scheduled to get together to play volleyball. The girls are all there, keen to get started. The boys are there but lounging around the edges of the court goofing off amongst themselves. The net is not yet put up. Someone has to put up the net before they can get the game going, but no girl dares to. They know they can’t do it: that would be taking initiative, and that’s the boy’s job. The minutes tick by. The girls get more and more frustrated but don’t vent it out loud because that would mean they are being like feminists. The boys continue to goof off. Eventually some girls start putting up the net, and immediately some boys start telling them off because it’s the boy’s job to put the net up and get the game going.
Hands up who hasn’t seen this same kind of stupidity play out between adults in churches?
Tree wrote:
I see. So what is adult, lifelong singleness a picture of? Singles just don’t count?
As for the brother-sister stuff, that is a bunch of unbiblical malarky.
The Bible only discusses wives submitting to husbands, it says nada didley about any and all females making themselves submissive to every male.
@ Daisy:
Mmm not quite, the Bible says all of us should submit to one another (Eph. 5:21), so, actually, it does say that, but all those males would also be submitting to you. Of course that verse weakens their whole ‘wives are under husbands’ view, so they generally avoid mentioning it.
From Driscoll’s apology
I’m distressed by Grace’s powerlessness and lack of a voice in their relationship…
Mara, can you put up a post on your blog so we can discuss this?
@ Charis:
And Mark Driscoll presumes to advise everyone else how to have a 'real marriage'?
Tree wrote:
Kudos to that 11th grade girl! I just hope these young people aren’t turned off of Christianity forever by such cultish ideas masquerading as “Biblical.”
Tree wrote:
Having grown up and attended mainline churches for all of my life, I had no clue that appalling beliefs such as what you describe still existed in the world of Christianity – it’s lunacy. It saddens me to no end.
So females must submit to their fathers and their brothers until they are married, then they must submit to their husbands. They are so dim-witted, blind and lacking in Christian love that they cannot see that they want to condemn women to a life of slavery from the day they are born. It is completely deranged.
Val wrote:
Yes, I realize that verse is in there, I have mentioned it before on previous threads. But in context of one gender specifically submitting to another, or in discussing marriage, there is only the verse of “wives submit to your husband.”
There is no verse that says, “single women, submit to other women’s husbands,” or, “single ladies, divorced, never married, widowed ladies, submit to all men.”
Deb wrote:
He also presumes to tell adult singles how to date and mate select, including lecturing them on staying celibate, but he admits in his blog he was not celibate prior to marriage, and, he wrongly believes several things about adult celibacy, such as, God “calls people” to it and that God removes the libido of adult celibates so that adult singles will experience no desire or temptation.
Driscoll knows nothing about marriage, celibacy, or singleness, yet presumes to write books and blogs advising people on those topics.
JeffT wrote:
I think it depends on the strain of gender complementarianism.
When I was growing up – I was raised gender comp in a gender comp family and used to be one – I was taught that married ladies submit to their spouse only.
Some of these newer views we’ve seen lately, which say that a woman has to submit to her father until she marries, or some types of gender comps are teaching that all women must submit to all men, and even after death (in Heaven), were not common views among evangelicals and Southern Baptists in the 1980s and 1990s, not the circles I ran in, anyhow.
I don’t remember seeing any such views in the printed literature of the day, nor hearing sermons that espoused such opinions.
I have the feeling that male gender comps from my circles back in the day would have been appalled by the unbiblical twisting going on with the newer teachings on gender today. I think even they would have been shocked to see men teaching that women must submit to all men or even in Heaven and claiming biblical support for this.
As I said in some post, even rigid gender comp Mark Driscoll has said in a sermon or two that submission is only for a wife to her spouse, and it does not apply to single women to all other men – I give him credit for at least putting limits on that much of it, which is more than some other comps are doing.
Other comps now want to see across- the- board male domination of all females.
Charis wrote:
I agree. I’ve seen this repeatedly. The woman has zero voice, zero decision making power, and is publicly used as a pawn to back up what the husband/pastor wants to say. Oh, and repeatedly, the pastor/husband uses her as a public example (from pulpits and in books,) of how not to do something. She becomes his scapegoat.
I feel for these women. But after awhile, I see them as complicit. At some point they have to wake up and realize they are enabling the man. They KNOW his sins. They have to count the cost and do right, just like we do.
Daisy wrote:
Yet another reason I wish these pastors would stick to strictly teaching the Bible. What it actually says, and drop their boat load of opinions.
Charis wrote:
Done!
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2014/03/mrs-mark-driscoll-voiceless.html
JeffT wrote:
Not if you’re the one with the Y Chromosome who’s Holding the Whip instead of feeling it. Amazing how reasonable it becomes when YOU’re the one who personally benefits from the arrangement, whether male supremacy or slavery.
Daisy wrote:
Just like “Slaves, Obey Your Masters” in what later became the Confederate States.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, it’s always the one who knows nothing about something who’s eager to dispense Words of Wisdom to you. Remember Job’s Counselors?
@ Daisy:
Yes,
But the sillies get around this by insisting that every person needs to be under their pastor (who, of course, has to be male). So, nothing cult-like here, all single women have to now listen to who ever their pastor says is in charge of them (home group leader, single’s minister, etc.). In Driscoll’s church there was a case where a young woman was told she wasn’t ready to date by her small-group leaders (who were only in their 20s themselves) because of issues she had brought up during their confession times. Creepy or what?
Here's the latest regarding the 'driscollized' CBMW post.
UPDATE (3/21/13): On March 20, 2013, TWW sent a Tweet to Owen Strachan stating that the CBMW article that disappeared because of a purported 'glitch' had not yet been restored. We just discovered today at 3:00 p.m. EST that the link to the article now works. We are glad that CBMW has solved its technological issue.
The Associated Baptist Press has published a related article that might be of interest to our readers.
Director of gender-roles council denies scrubbing article
From the ABP article:
It must have been 'divine providence' that the article 'glitched' or got 'driscollized'. There appears to be no other explanation. 😆