Is CBMW the Bellwether for the Complementarian Movement?

Pursuing Your Wife:  Embracing a War-Like Posture

Article on CBMW Website

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=48240&picture=united-we-conquerUnited We Conquer

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) appears to be undergoing a transformation by identifying itself as a "Brave New Movement".  Here is how the organization is marketing itself to those who will be attending the upcoming Together for the Gospel conference in Louisville, Kentucky. 

We find the description "Brave New Movement" confusing because the organization was established way back in 1987 according to the CBMW website.   Here is an excerpt from Our History:

CBMW has been in operation since 1987, when a meeting in Dallas, Texas, brought together a number of evangelical leaders and scholars, including John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, and Ken Sarles. These figures were concerned by the spread of unbiblical teaching. Under Piper’s leadership, the group drafted a statement outlining what would become the definitive theological articulation of “complementarianism,” the biblically derived view that men and women are complementary, possessing equal dignity and worth as the image of God, and called to different roles that each glorify him.

The group next met at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort in Danvers, Massachusetts, on December 2-3, 1987, before the 1987 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The draft was adopted in meeting and called the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The group then voted to incorporate as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

The organization built steam for several years, running an ad in Christianity Today that drew a huge response. It was clear that CBMW represented the concerns of a large, and to that point relatively quiet, constituency…

CBMW has played a formative role in helping numerous denominations and organizations promote gospel-driven gender roles, including the Southern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church of America…

In 2013, many evangelical groups are convictionally complementarian. The contemporary surge of interest in the gospel and the greatness of God has coincided with widespread adoption of complementarianism, with many prominent churches, seminaries, authors, and para-church organizations joyfully celebrating God’s good design for manhood and womanhood, home and church.

CBMW is in its fourth decade of operation, but the organization has a fresh sense of its responsibility in the broader evangelical community and a fresh appreciation for the power of the gospel. God has used a once-fledgling outfit to lead many Christians and many churches to health, and we trust this work will only continue and grow by his grace.

During the same time period that CBMW was being established, another group of Christians was meeting to affirm their beliefs regarding biblical equality.  This organization, which would become known as Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), affirms that:

the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of Scriptures such as Galatians 3:28:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (NIV 2011)

Here is an excerpt from the History of CBE:

Disturbed by the shallow biblical premise used by churches, organizations, and mission groups to exclude the gifts of women, evangelical leaders assembled in 1987 to publish their biblical perspective in a new scholarly journal, Priscilla Papers…  The group determined that a national organization was needed to provide education, support, and leadership about biblical equality.

With the help and vision of these individuals, Christians for Biblical Equality was established on January 2, 1988. Catherine Clark Kroeger served as the first president of the organization, and Alvera Mickelsen served as the first chair of the board of directors. Since 2001, Mimi Haddad has served as CBE’s second president…

CBE has grown to include members from over 100 denominations and 65 countries…

Because we have never focused on Christians for Biblical Equality before, we wanted to share with our readers the following information from the organization's website:

Mission Statement

CBE affirms and promotes the biblical truth that all believers—without regard to gender, ethnicity or class—must exercise their God-given gifts with equal authority and equal responsibility in church, home and world.

Core Values

We believe the Bible teaches…

– Believers are called to mutual submission, love and service.

– God distributes spiritual gifts without regard to gender, ethnicity or class.

– Believers must develop and exercise their God-given gifts in church, home and world.

– Believers have equal authority and equal responsibility to exercise their gifts without regard to gender, ethnicity or class and without the limits of culturally-defined roles.

– Restricting believers from exercising their gifts—on the basis of their gender, ethnicity or class—resists the work of the Spirit of God and is unjust.

– Believers must promote righteousness and oppose injustice in all its forms.

Twenty-seven years have passed since CBMW and CBE were established, and we wondered whether there are any tangible ways to compare them.  Because both non-profits are accredited by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), let's take a look at their financial statements, which they are required to submit and which are readily available on the ECFA website.

Here is a snapshot of the finances of these two organizations.

Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) link

Data for year ended December 31, 2012
Per the organization's financial statements

 

Total Revenue                                    $84,719

Total Expenses                                  $86,674

Excess (or Deficit) for the Year          $-1,955

 

Total Assets                                      $19,342

Total Liabilities                                 $16,740

Net Assets                                        $  2,602

 

Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) link

Data for year ended December 31, 2012
Per the organization's financial statements

 

Total Revenue                                 $697,537

Total Expenses                               $616,753

Excess (or deficit) for the year          $80,784

 

Total Assets                                    $510,609

Total Liabilities                                $ 76,795

Net Assets                                      $433,814

It is interesting that the Council for Biblical Equality is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota while the headquarters for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) is Louisville.  We seem to recall that it was relocated from Chicago a few years ago.  

If you click on the links to the ECFA financial information for these two organizations, you will see some definite trends.  The income for CBE has been steadily increasing while the income for CBMW has been steadily declining.  It will be interesting to take a look at the financial statements for 2013 once they are posted on the ECFA website.

We are left wondering why there is such a disparity in the revenues and assets of these two organizations since they were established around the same time.  Perhaps the blog post title at the top of the post provides a clue – "Pursuing Your Wife: Embracing a War-Like Posture".  What in the world???  While the article may have some good points, the male dominance that is so characteristic of CBMW doesn't appear to be well-received by the Christian community as a whole.  The financial information certainly seems to indicate a rejection of the complementarian view of gender roles because Christians appear to be voting with their wallets (and/or pocketbooks).

It will be interesting to see if CBMW is the bellwether for the entire complementarian movement in the years to come.  Is this crowd gaining momentum or dying a slow death?  Only time will tell…

Lydia's Corner:   Jeremiah 44:24-47:7  2 Timothy 2:22-3:17  Psalm 94:1-23  Proverbs 26:6-8

Comments

Is CBMW the Bellwether for the Complementarian Movement? — 452 Comments

  1. I literally couldn't sleep! I found the comments on Mark Driscoll on the last post to be fascinating and I just kept reading them plus the shared links. I never heard of him before reading your blog and now all I can do is shake my head. It is astonishing that he says and does the things he says and does. I feel so bad for his wife.

  2. @ Marsha:

    I didn't know much at all about Mark Driscoll until he came to my daughter's college five years ago and delivered a talk to a Christian group on campus called "Naked and Unashamed".

    Suddenly, he came onto my radar screen…

    About 6 weeks after Driscoll's visit to our area, we launched The Wartburg Watch. We had no idea what the future would hold, and we are grateful to have a voice in the blogosphere.

  3. Marsha wrote:

    First?

    5th???

    Dorothy Patterson, Susan Foh??? Are they still around or were they thrown under the bus??

    Complementarianism Was officially defined in 1987??? I’ve heard people speak as if the idea has been around for thousands of years.

    Ty 4 this extremely interesting comparison.

    If only they would put more interest in the Eucharist instead of their silly inarticulated thinly veiled excuses for men to dominate women.

    So frustrating to hear about the notoriety that Piper gets. He has very vague theological ideas. We just need a little child to show that the emperor has no clothes

  4. If I were to wager an admittedly mostly uneducated guess, I would say that while the complementarian sector is kinda loud and gets some attention, they have no real clout beyond their own circles because their ideas have been discarded by mainstream culture as time has gone on. Thus, the younger folks alive today have no exposure to complementarian ideas and have grown up in a society that stresses the opposite of what the complementarians teach. So complementarians, who are already a relatively small group, can only really propagate their ideas through their own children and there is no guarantee that their children will buy in. At best, all they can hope to achieve is stagnancy, but their numbers will gradually get smaller and smaller over time and their voices will get less and less powerful.

  5. Thank you Deb for posting these financial statements. I would have guessed the figures to be the other way around. This excitedly gives me a lot of hope. I am a financial supporter of CBE and I have also been looking for more ministries to support that are decidedly CBE type oriented and I have been pulling out of supporting charities and ministries that teach complimentarity. I attended a CBE international conference a few years ago and I will never forget one Indian speaker who spoke about how one denomination in his country is egalitarian regarding women in ministry but still believe that husbands are rulers of wives. He had gone to the home of the pastor after church for lunch or tea or something like that. Through tears he told of how this woman who had just finished preaching boldly to her congregation still had to serve her husband, himself and the other male guests on her knees carrying the tray because the custom is to keep female head lower than male heads who happened to be seated. I have been trying to ask ministries that I have supported for years about their stance on equality and only one has bothered to give me any kind of answer. So, if anyone knows of trustworthy missionary type ministries that just also happen to be egalitarian even for marriage I’m asking.

  6. The “Hill to die on” isn’t complementarianism per se. The “hill to die on” is the unchanging, inerrant Word of God which is quite straight forward when it speaks to male and female roles within the home and within the church.
    *
    As feminism continues to rise, so does the hatred of complementarianism. They hate both the Apostle Paul and Peter.
    *
    TWW has just spent the past few months raging about the material excesses of evangelicalism, but this posts suggest that CBMW’s lack of finances points towards the organization’s failure? Such is TWW.
    *
    The “hill worth dying on” – it’s always the truth and inerrancy of Scripture. It’s always been a pretty tiny group of believers who have held that view. The “old paths” are still fine, fewer and fewer people wish to take them however. The broad and wide roads are very attractive. That’s always been so.

  7. This Comp mess IMO has hastened the decline of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is pure nonsense. But all the shakers and movers of the Southern Baptist Convention buy into this mess and women have been basically removed from any and all major participation–IMO according to the SBC the women have just one job-SUBMIT.

  8. Thank you for this post. A trend analysis of financials over several years might be helpful.

  9. Part 1 of 3

    In other news, I notice that the fotie at the top of the article is of the Commando Memorial in Glen Spean in the western Highlands, which I have driven past en route to many Scottish mountains.

    Readers may or may not be interested to know that, were the camera to pan 90° to the left, it would reveal a magnificent view of the Ben Nevis range. A missed opportunity, IMHO (unless the sky in the fotie was the only clear patch in sight that day!).

  10. Part 2 of 3

    I have to confess to a slight disappointment that the Christians for Biblical Equality has more money than the Cooncil for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Deceitfulness of riches an’ a’ tha’.

  11. Part 3 of 3

    In 2013, many evangelical groups are convictionally complementarian. The contemporary surge of interest in the gospel and the greatness of God has coincided with widespread adoption of complementarianism…

    Apart from the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc *, the “contemporary surge of interest” to which the writer refers is not necessarily in the gospel or the greatness of God. Much of the interest is actually in legalism and textual biblianism (that’s not a real word but I hope you know what I mean). In other words, many people just love being told what to do, and the more detailed rules you can give them, the more secure they feel.

    * it’s also coincided with the widespread adoption of mobile phones, for instance

  12. @ raswhiting:

    The links in the post take you to the financials on the ECFA website for each of these organizations. Here’s the three year revenue trend I alluded to in the post. (It’s a bar graph, and I have done my best to determine the correct amount from that graph.)

    CBMW:

    2010    $125,000
    2011    $120,000
    2012     $ 85,000

    CBE:

    2010    $605,000
    2011    $590,000
    2012    $700,000

    So the trend from 2011 to 2012 appears to be the following: 

    CBMW’s revenue dropped $35,000 from 2011 to 2012, and CBE’s revenue increased by $110,000 during the same period.

    Last year CBMW announced it was doubling down. It posted information on the website about a giving campaign where contributions would be matched. 

    Looking forward to reviewing the 2013 financials whenever they get posted to the ECFA website.

  13. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    TWW has just spent the past few months raging about the material excesses of evangelicalism, but this posts suggest that CBMW’s lack of finances points towards the organization’s failure? Such is TWW.
    *
    The “hill worth dying on” – it’s always the truth and inerrancy of Scripture.

    On your first quoted point, SJG, TWW has raged about the excesses of celebrity pastors, not evangelicalism itself.

    On the second point, I believe this was at least part of the Pharisees’ problem with Jesus : “You have heard it said …, but I say….” It was Jesus who died on a hill, not the legalists who tried to control everyone with their nitpicking.

  14. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Part 5 of 3 Nick Bulbeck wrote: Cooncil for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood The mis-spelling was deliberate, btw. “Cooncil” is how it’s pronounced in Glasgow.

    I figured as much. 🙂

  15. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    The “hill worth dying on” – it’s always the truth and inerrancy of Scripture. It’s always been a pretty tiny group of believers who have held that view. The “old paths” are still fine, fewer and fewer people wish to take them however. The broad and wide roads are very attractive. That’s always been so.

    Peeps: I am using the comment by Seneca to say this. Yes, it is addressed to him, but I do not resent him as much as some seem to do, so do not think this is a rant against him. It is not.

    Well, so far so good in your thinking about scripture. But the application of this idea has been a bit more complicated, the way I see it. Groups of people, and notable (notorious sometimes) institutions have looked at scripture and seen as part of the “straight and narrow” lots of things. Think Bob Jones U and the IFB movement of recent discussion. Think the holiness movement. Think the pentecostal movement. Think pre-vatican two catholicism, in various manifestations over lots of centuries. Think Salem, Mass as the worst example of what purported to be a scriptural movement. Think dominionism. Think supersessionism and resultant anti-semitism. And of recent discussion on TWW think white supremacy preached as straight out of the biblical Noah story. OK, here is a biggie–think Arianism which was and is again. Every one of these ideas and practices can be backed up by either scripture or some logical progression of an idea which originated in scripture.

    So now there is a group that emphasizes sex and gender issues–all day and very day. And within the “groups” that most latch on to complementarianism as they understand it there are also the “issues” which result in financial and job results. Who gets into school and who gets the job promotion and who sits in the cubbie next to me, and did you see that mess on TV and now there is a woman boss on the job and it was bad enough when somebody had to pay ethnic minorities the same wages as “us” but now it is the women too and who can run a business like this? and on and on. You are an intelligent person, I don’t have to spell it out. So, how much of “complementarianism” is derived from enthusiasm for biblical truth and how much is financial and political with perhaps a taint by the basic evil in the hearts of humans, as in the way child and spouse abuse is treated? And could not the same thing be asked about everything in paragraph one above?

    Scripture is grand and glorious and inspired, but people have always been able to formulate heresies and practice abuses while quoting scripture to do so. Complementarianism as preached by the current proponents has plowed the soil in which excesses and abuses have grown.

  16. @ mot:

    The SBC has had a “functional belief” (I made that term up) that the Holy Trinity consists of the Father, the Son and the Bible. It was so in my childhood and youth and young adulthood and is still true to a large extent event though some of the terminology has minimally changed. This creates an environment of poor discernment abilities, mob thinking (what does the preacher say that I should believe about what the bible says about this or that) and in which people turn to the bible for detailed instructions about areas of life in which the bible is not designed to do that. In doing this they have betrayed God and betrayed the bible, IMO. So now they have problems? Cause and effect? You reap what you sow?

  17. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    TWW has just spent the past few months raging about the material excesses of evangelicalism, but this posts suggest that CBMW’s lack of finances points towards the organization’s failure

    Nice try, but you missed the point entirely. TWW’s criticism has nothing whatever to do with the amount of money raised by Christian churches/organisations, it’s what is DONE with the money – glorifying and making particular individuals rich – that is critiqued.

  18. Can anyone explain to me why women are allowed to draft documents outlining complementarianism? Wouldn’t that be women unacceptably teaching men if men were to read the document? Shouldn’t the document at least be restricted to female readers?

  19. mot wrote:

    This Comp mess IMO has hastened the decline of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is pure nonsense. But all the shakers and movers of the Southern Baptist Convention buy into this mess and women have been basically removed from any and all major participation–IMO according to the SBC the women have just one job-SUBMIT.

    And therein lies the problem. The male supremacists (I refuse to use the C word because it’s a lie, there’s nothing complementary about it, it’s male domination pure and simple) have managed to insert this poisonous doctrine into the largest Protestant domination in the U.S. Add to this the male supremacist leanings of the Catholic church that while not as oppressive as the CBMW’s version, creates a situation where the two largest Christian denominations in the country view women as second-class human beings to one degree or another. This advocacy of oppression is just one of a number of reasons that so many people are coming to believe that Christianity is not a place to look for moral authority in life.

  20. Jane Elliott’s “Blue eyes/Brown eyes” experiment in 1970 and the “Prison Experiment” at Stanford University come to mind when I read the “assigned roles” Comps have created for women and men. When you label individuals with assigned strengths and weaknesses, unless you exercise careful critical thinking, they will assume the characteristics assigned to them.

    I am so encouraged that women and men are pushing back against the assigned “roles” the Comps have created and the result are motivating all to live to their full potential and exercising their gifts and talents!

  21. Nancy wrote:

    The SBC has had a “functional belief” (I made that term up) that the Holy Trinity consists of the Father, the Son and the Bible.

    I can’t speak for the SBC, about which I know little, but the old “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Scriptures” is widespread. But the problem goes even deeper than the Bible being made into the third Person of the Trinity. Some people (what proportion of evangelicals, I don’t know, but some) actually believe the Bible to be God’s final revelation of himself to humanity, and have doctrinal statements saying as much. In other words, the Bible is the second person of the Trinity.

    Just it was in the time of Hezekiah, when people were burning incense to the bronze snake Moses had made (story in 2 Kings 18), so it is today: some people will only worship something they can physically see. That is the wide gate and the easy road.

    These days, I’m always a little wary of someone who says they have a “high view of scripture”. Not always, but sometimes, it means that they have a low view of anyone whose reading of scripture differs from theirs; sometimes it means they have a low view of the living God; sometimes it means both. But a lot of groups and denominations that explicitly espouse a high view of scripture also demonstrate a low view of the Holy Spirit.

  22. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    The “Hill to die on” isn’t complementarianism per se. The “hill to die on” is the unchanging, inerrant Word of God which is quite straight forward when it speaks to male and female roles within the home and within the church.
    *
    As feminism continues to rise, so does the hatred of complementarianism. They hate both the Apostle Paul and Peter.
    *
    TWW has just spent the past few months raging about the material excesses of evangelicalism, but this posts suggest that CBMW’s lack of finances points towards the organization’s failure? Such is TWW.
    *
    The “hill worth dying on” – it’s always the truth and inerrancy of Scripture. It’s always been a pretty tiny group of believers who have held that view. The “old paths” are still fine, fewer and fewer people wish to take them however. The broad and wide roads are very attractive. That’s always been so.

    Aaah, 2D thinking at it’s finest. You have entirely missed the nuance that they have added the doctrine of ESS to their bag of what the inerrant Bible says – hence complementarianism is a mirror of the heart of the Trinity so to deny it is to deny God himself. And, voila, a hill to die on. If you deny this aspect, you deny it all, in their eyes.

    You do also realise that most of what you call ‘feminism’ Jimmy, is just a call for women to be treated as equal to men. Not identical, necessarily, please let me head off that inference. Just as though they were of equal value. Which they are, hilariously enough. I think if some of these ‘christian’ men had to walk a few days in their wives shoes (erm, not literally, plus mixed metaphor alert)they’d discover just how unequal things really are. Just a role, my ****. Master & Servant, instead of servant & servant.

    Back to 3D reality.

  23. The folks in this movement have no clue what God really wants. They don’t. Look, I’ve tried for the last 60 years attempted to know what God wants in my life and many times, I do not have a clue….how should they know what God wants from other people?
    They don’t…

  24. The Southern Baptist Convention is dying and IMO one of the major reasons is its treatment of women. But don’t tell the leaders of the SBC because they can not deal with this truth.

  25. @ Marie2:
    Bill Witt (of Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge, PA) has written a wonderful series on just these concerns. In particular he critiques the notion that the complementarian view is ancient and venerable. It actually began in…about 1987. (i.e, the genuine “old” reason women couldn’t be priests and pastors was that they were inferior). I’ll find the exact link and post.

  26. So after reading CBMW’s history, I have a question. Did CBMW single-handedly breathe life back into compelementarianism as it was fading from the church and needing revitalized, OR, did complementarianism give voice to a majority group in the church that already existed (thus validating their mission) and just needed leadership?

    One or the other, Mr. History Writer. One or the other. You can’t have it both ways.

  27. Bill Witt of Trinity School for Ministry: (this is from his personal website) http://willgwitt.org/theology/concerning-womens-ordination-the-argument-from-tradition-is-not-the-traditional-argument/

    “In current rhetoric, there is a tendency to speak of those in favor of ordaining women as representing a new position, a shift against the church’s historic position. However, it is important to recognize that both the decision to ordain women and the two positions that refuse to ordain women are new theological positions.”

    “In the last few decades, a position entitled “complementarism” has been advocated by some Evangelicals. The influence of this perspective can largely be traced to a collction of essays edited by John Piper and Wayne Gruden that appeared in 1991, entitled Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism.23 As with the new Catholic approach, complementarism departs from the earlier tradition in recognizing the ontological equality of men and women. What makes the position distinctive is that it argues that, while men and women are equal in being, they nonetheless have distinct roles to play. It is the role of men to lead and to direct; it is the role of women to submit to the leadership of men. While using the language of equality and complementarity, the position is essentially hierarchical. In contrast to the new Catholic position, it embraces a hierarchical understanding of the relationship between men and women, prohibiting not only the ordination of women, but any situation in which women might have authority over or exercise leadership over men.”

    Long, but well worth the read if we’re ever going to counter the sloppy thinking of the complementarians.

  28. @ sad observer:

    Check out the work of Richard Saller, Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford. He is a historian of ancient Roman culture and has written about the relationship of ideas of family values and the relationship to ancient pre-christian Rome. May I say, it is verrrrrrrrry interesting. He believes that our “christian” ideas of family values pre-date christianity as far back, he says, as Roman literature goes.

    But in the US, to my personal knowledge and memory, the idea of Father Knows Best was way before the church started this current push for patriarchy.

  29. mot wrote:

    The Southern Baptist Convention is dying and IMO one of the major reasons is its treatment of women. But don’t tell the leaders of the SBC because they can not deal with this truth.

    If the SBC is dying because of their treatment of women, how do you explain the death of the Episcopal Church?

  30. Still waiting for CBMW to give a status report on their driscollized article on heavenly gender roles…need to know whether I should look for husband now or wait for God to assign me one (or several) in the next life…

    How come an article critiquing the behavior of Driscoll and co. always gets some pushback from their fan bases, and yet when questions regarding issues like “eternal subordination” are raised…nothing but crickets…?

    Are there some debates that even the bravest of the “Brave New Movement” are too embarrassed to engage with?

  31. Nancy wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    The “hill worth dying on” – it’s always the truth and inerrancy of Scripture. It’s always been a pretty tiny group of believers who have held that view. The “old paths” are still fine, fewer and fewer people wish to take them however. The broad and wide roads are very attractive. That’s always been so.

    Peeps: I am using the comment by Seneca to say this. Yes, it is addressed to him, but I do not resent him as much as some seem to do, so do not think this is a rant against him. It is not.

    Well, so far so good in your thinking about scripture. But the application of this idea has been a bit more complicated, the way I see it. Groups of people, and notable (notorious sometimes) institutions have looked at scripture and seen as part of the “straight and narrow” lots of things. Think Bob Jones U and the IFB movement of recent discussion. Think the holiness movement. Think the pentecostal movement. Think pre-vatican two catholicism, in various manifestations over lots of centuries. Think Salem, Mass as the worst example of what purported to be a scriptural movement. Think dominionism. Think supersessionism and resultant anti-semitism. And of recent discussion on TWW think white supremacy preached as straight out of the biblical Noah story. OK, here is a biggie–think Arianism which was and is again. Every one of these ideas and practices can be backed up by either scripture or some logical progression of an idea which originated in scripture.

    So now there is a group that emphasizes sex and gender issues–all day and very day. And within the “groups” that most latch on to complementarianism as they understand it there are also the “issues” which result in financial and job results. Who gets into school and who gets the job promotion and who sits in the cubbie next to me, and did you see that mess on TV and now there is a woman boss on the job and it was bad enough when somebody had to pay ethnic minorities the same wages as “us” but now it is the women too and who can run a business like this? and on and on. You are an intelligent person, I don’t have to spell it out. So, how much of “complementarianism” is derived from enthusiasm for biblical truth and how much is financial and political with perhaps a taint by the basic evil in the hearts of humans, as in the way child and spouse abuse is treated? And could not the same thing be asked about everything in paragraph one above?

    Scripture is grand and glorious and inspired, but people have always been able to formulate heresies and practice abuses while quoting scripture to do so. Complementarianism as preached by the current proponents has plowed the soil in which excesses and abuses have grown.

    Nancy, I appreciate your post but I think complementarinism is basically calling people back to the fullness of Scripture. Male leadership in the church and home is NOT a new idea. It is fully of Scripture. Complementarians have actually tried to narrow the areas in which Scripture speaks to male leadership; the home and the church.
    Remember, Al Mohler asked about Sarah Palin as president made it clear there was nothing in Scripture that would speak against her holding that position.
    *
    Finally, most of the complementarians I know had great and Godly mothers. I certainly did. Finest lady I ever knew; a spiritual giant though she never wrote a book, pastored a church or even taught a Sunday School class. But she knew Scriptures and spent most of her adult years trying to raise Godly children in a Godly manner. She thought Scripture clearly said what it said and that’s how she lived her life.
    *
    In the last morning of her life, she ended up in an emergency room because she wasn’t breathing well. She asked my older sister, who had taken her to the emergency room, if she would pray that God would take her “home” that morning. My sister said, “I can’t do that Mom.” So my Mom spent the last hour of her life asking her heavenly Father if he would take her home. About the time the doctor walked in an hour later, my Mom peacefully passed from “life-to-life.” God answered her final prayer.
    *
    Nancy, I think you have used your God given talent to be an excellent physician. If so, you did well and to God be the glory. ( More to say but I’ve got to run.)

  32. Deb wrote:

    Marie2 wrote:
    Dorothy Patterson, Susan Foh??? Are they still around or were they thrown under the bus??
    Dorothy Patterson is still exerting her influence where she can.
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/dorothy-patterson-to-mothers-and-daughters-be-women-of-vision-creativity-and-courage-95599/
    I haven’t looked into Susan Foh, but I will.

    Thank you for doing that research! I always wonder, when someone starts a “movement” with a pair of women, what happens to the women later, whether they are still there, or have been complement-ized off the dance floor, so to speak.

  33. Marsha wrote:

    It is astonishing that he says and does the things he says and does. I feel so bad for his wife.

    What astonishes me is the number of fanboys he has in the seminaries who believe he can do no wrong. You should hear the pretzel theology they apply to his antics in order to proclaim him “a leader.”

    As for his wife-I, too believe he has exhibited total boorishness-blaming her for his marital problems. He almost always blames everyone else for his problems.

  34. Nancy wrote:

    Check out the work of Richard Saller, Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford. He is a historian of ancient Roman culture and has written about the relationship of ideas of family values and the relationship to ancient pre-christian Rome. May I say, it is verrrrrrrrry interesting. He believes that our “christian” ideas of family values pre-date christianity as far back, he says, as Roman literature goes.

    Thank you for sharing this. There is something about this push for comp/patriarchy as “Biblical” that has never sat well with me. I’ve lived in the middle east among Muslims and Indian Hindus, and I’ve seen this ideology expressed to the extreme. It does not represent the Jesus that Christians claim to follow. I believe this is where a historical understanding of the family is crucial.

    A quick google search brought up this article: http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777121908/

  35. Vega Magnus wrote:

    So complementarians, who are already a relatively small group, can only really propagate their ideas through their own children and there is no guarantee that their children will buy in. At best, all they can hope to achieve is stagnancy,

    Welcome to TWW. Great comment. Perhaps that is why they are now advocating that Christians have as many babies as possible?

  36. Patti wrote:

    I will never forget one Indian speaker who spoke about how one denomination in his country is egalitarian regarding women in ministry but still believe that husbands are rulers of wives. He had gone to the home of the pastor after church for lunch or tea or something like that. Through tears he told of how this woman who had just finished preaching boldly to her congregation still had to serve her husband, himself and the other male guests on her knees carrying the tray because the custom is to keep female head lower than male heads who happened to be seated

    Good night! I wonder if CBMW will do a post on how to walk shorter than your husband.

  37. Senneca:

    You said to Nancy–:”Nancy, I appreciate your post but I think complementarinism is basically calling people back to the fullness of Scripture.”

    IMO Comp is not biblical and has destroyed the Southern Baptist Convention and is destroying other denominations.

    In others words COMP is full blown CRAP!!

  38. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    TWW has just spent the past few months raging about the material excesses of evangelicalism, but this posts suggest that CBMW’s lack of finances points towards the organization’s failure? Such is TWW.

    Or perhaps you need a course on when to apply certain methods of analysis. Since you do not seem to be able to tell the difference, here it is. If churches make lots of money, they should use the money to help the poor and provide missionaries instead of buying spots on the NY Times bestseller lists.

  39. @ raswhiting:

    This has 3 years. Over the last three years, the push of the patriarchs has reached a fevered pitch. They advertised for donations to CMMW and even had matching gifts. Three years is long enough to know that things are not going well.

  40. Deb
    I cannot wait for the “we will pretend that we didn’t see this post but will do a spontaneous post on why we truly are having an impact.”

  41. @ Seneca “j” Griggs:
    Blergh. The hill worth dying on for Christianity is NOT the inerrancy of scripture. The hill worth dying on for Christians should be, as Paul said, “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2b but read the entire verse please.)

    Seneca, you should be mortified that an agnostic former churchgoer is pointing out this very obvious thing to you.

    Jesus didn’t die for nonexistent (as in we DO NOT have original manuscripts) inerrant scriptures. We can argue until the cows come home why he did die. But I’m pretty darn certain it was not for that leather – bound book you like to wave at those you perceive to be your enemies.

    *shakes head, rolls eyes*

  42. Nancy wrote:

    Scripture is grand and glorious and inspired, but people have always been able to formulate heresies and practice abuses while quoting scripture to do so. Complementarianism as preached by the current proponents has plowed the soil in which excesses and abuses have grown.

    Good comment.

  43. JeffT wrote:

    it’s what is DONE with the money – glorifying and making particular individuals rich – that is critiqued.

    Yep.

  44. Wesley wrote:

    Can anyone explain to me why women are allowed to draft documents outlining complementarianism? Wouldn’t that be women unacceptably teaching men if men were to read the document? Shouldn’t the document at least be restricted to female readers?

    Women are allowed to do these things to show that women support these measures. They override objections to “prove” that women are on board. Plus, as John Piper alludes, you can’t see their bodies when they write so they are not pressing their femininity on a man.

    You cannot make this stuff up!

  45. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    These days, I’m always a little wary of someone who says they have a “high view of scripture”

    Perhaps the view was concocted while on drugs? That would explain everything.

  46. K.D. wrote:

    I’ve tried for the last 60 years attempted to know what God wants in my life and many times, I do not have a clue….how should they know what God wants from other people?

    Another good laugh. Well said.

  47. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    Complementarians have actually tried to narrow the areas in which Scripture speaks to male leadership

    Aha…so how do Christian women who don’t have husbands (and don’t desire husbands) fit into this system?

  48. I’ve no clue re the finances of either group, and really don’t care.

    Nor do I care if folks are rejecting complementarianism or accepting it.

    For me, the simple issue is obedience to God and His Word. To take a stand one way or the other based on what is popular, or gaining or losing ground, or what others think and teach is folly at best.

    Since I believe in the priesthood of THE believer, I would urge each individual to study the issue from the scripture for his or her self. And obey what you find.

    But in obeying, do not ask others to disobey their own conscience. If you stand with CBE, find a denomination that teaches accordingly and work there. Do not try to change those that disagree. And if you stand with CBMW, do the same.

    Equalitarians: there are plenty of denoms where you can serve. Why constantly challenge the SBC, LCMS, or RCC?

    Complementarians: go home. Go back to the churches that agree with you. Leave the CotN, the AoG, the ELCA, the UMC, etc alone.

    This isn’t an issue to focus on when there is a world of lost people needing to hear the gospel. Follow your conscience and let others do the same in peace.

    Much more serious matter: anyone else here praying for the families and folks from the Malaysian missing plane? The agony on the faces of the families reminds me we need to share the gospel as fully and freely as possible. My heart aches knowing the likelihood some of those grieving families honestly have no hope of seeing their loved ones again in the resurrection.

    What can we who frequent blogland do to help change that?

  49. @ Sensible:

    For that matter, the very label “complementarian” implies a universality, not a “narrowing,” of gender roles. All men were created to lead…and all women to “complement” this leadership and participate in the gospel of fertility. Logically, a celibate individual in this system is only half-human.

  50. linda wrote:

    This isn’t an issue to focus on when there is a world of lost people needing to hear the gospel.

    Easier said than done when one side makes it a salvation issue and try to force their view as the “right” one if you honor the Bible.

  51. Mara wrote:

    linda wrote:
    This isn’t an issue to focus on when there is a world of lost people needing to hear the gospel.
    Easier said than done when one side makes it a salvation issue and try to force their view as the “right” one if you honor the Bible.

    NO complementarians I know think this is a salvation issue.

  52. mot wrote:

    The Southern Baptist Convention is dying and IMO one of the major reasons is its treatment of women

    It is. While media still reports numbers at 16 million, the real numbers, even acknowledged by the leaders, is somewhere between 7-8 million and continuing on a downhill slope. It is so bad that the hipster Baptists won’t even mention Baptist in their name, membership classes, etc.

    One of the funnier things that ever happened to the two of us is when we got critiqued from a pulpit in which a pastor, quite upset, said that the two of us are “against male leadership.” How awful! Send in the troops! Good night! No nuance whatsoever.

  53. Patricia Hanlon wrote:

    It is the role of men to lead and to direct; it is the role of women to submit to the leadership of men. While using the language of equality and complementarity, the position is essentially hierarchical.

    Good comment.

  54. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    If the SBC is dying because of their treatment of women, how do you explain the death of the Episcopal Church?

    Seneca-once again I need to tell you that your arguments make little sense. I know a patient who dies of cancer. I also know a patient who dies of heart disease. How can this be? Two different causes of death..
    Surely you are smarter than this last comment.

  55. Sensible wrote:

    when questions regarding issues like “eternal subordination” are raised…nothing but crickets…?

    Perhaps people are voting wtht their wallets in this one.

  56. linda wrote:

    But in obeying, do not ask others to disobey their own conscience. If you stand with CBE, find a denomination that teaches accordingly and work there. Do not try to change those that disagree. And if you stand with CBMW, do the same.

    I agree with you to a certain point. Wives and children in the extreme manifestations of these beliefs are sometimes trapped in abusive environments. Even the softer “comp” side can hide abuse. Paige Patterson has told wives to submit to abusive husbands. The women and children should also be free to follow their own conscience.

  57. mirele wrote:

    The hill worth dying on for Christianity is NOT the inerrancy of scripture. The hill worth dying on for Christians should be, as Paul said, “Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

    Amen.

  58. Mara wrote:

    Easier said than done when one side makes it a salvation issue and try to force their view as the “right” one if you honor the Bible.

    They have raised this to a primary doctrine.

  59. dee wrote:

    One of the funnier things that ever happened to the two of us is when we got critiqued from a pulpit in which a pastor, quite upset, said that the two of us are “against male leadership.” How awful! Send in the troops!

    The thing is, I’m not opposed to men being in leadership positions. Therefore I cannot be against “Male Leadership”. Not really.

    They, however, are against any form of “female leadership” along side “male leadership”

    I understand this is a word game. But a lot of these guys have what is called “black or white” thinking. There are no grays. EITHER men are the leaders or WOMEN are the leaders. Leadership can’t be viewed as any sort of partnership or even men being the leaders 60 or 80% of the time while women are leaders 40 or even 20% of the time.

    They say men must be leaders 100% of the time. If you disagree, then you are against “male leadership”.

    I realize I’m being nitpicky in this. But I get tired of them thinking they get to define the terms of the argument.

  60. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    Mara wrote:
    linda wrote:
    This isn’t an issue to focus on when there is a world of lost people needing to hear the gospel.
    Easier said than done when one side makes it a salvation issue and try to force their view as the “right” one if you honor the Bible.
    NO complementarians I know think this is a salvation issue.

    Then why do they push it like they do and attempt to connect it to the Trinity and ESS?

  61. Mara wrote:

    I understand this is a word game. But a lot of these guys have what is called “black or white” thinking. There are no grays. EITHER men are the leaders or WOMEN are the leaders.

    You Hold the Whip or you Feel the Whip, nothing in between.

  62. @ Nancy:
    My working theory is that American culture inadvertently imported Greco-Roman concepts of patriarchy via the Englightment. The US was founded on Enlightenment Principles which was basically a rediscovery of ancient Greek philosophy, including the concepts of father rule over land, property, slaves, wife and children. This set us up to have no issue with slavery or the sexual oppression of slave women. Civil War diarist Mary Chestnut has an interesting entry that refers to this practice where southern men acted as “patriarchs of old living in the same house as with their wives and concubines.”

  63. dee wrote:

    What astonishes me is the number of fanboys he has in the seminaries who believe he can do no wrong. You should hear the pretzel theology they apply to his antics in order to proclaim him “a leader.”

    With his face twenty feet tall on all the “franchise campus” Telescreens.

    The word is “Fuehrerprinzip”.

  64. dee wrote:

    Tell us about your wife, Seneca. Is she submissive? Does she share your views?

    Assuming she’s not an inflatable sex doll….

  65. dee wrote:

    This has 3 years. Over the last three years, the push of the patriarchs has reached a fevered pitch. They advertised for donor to CMMW and even had matching gifts. 3 years is enough to know that things are not going well.

    “The wildest fantasy fiction ever written appears in a wartime country’s news media the day before that country loses the war.” — James Dunnigan

  66. @ Charis:

    Thank you for posting today. I clicked on your name and read your letter to Grace Driscoll. It's excellent. I also clicked on the cometary about Esther. By Katherine C. Bushnell. Reading that was unbelievable. And Mark Driscoll's take on Esther doesn't even come close to hers. Maybe God really does love and approve of women after all.

  67. The SBC is dying. The sad thing is, I think there are some who don’t care. The mega-churches, the leadership…it’s like ” I’ve got mine, I could care less about anyone else.”

    Concerning SWBTS, at one time I was proud to tell folks I was an alumni….now, I just tell folks I have a B.A., no grad degree. I’m ashamed.

  68. Nancy wrote:

    Scripture is grand and glorious and inspired, but people have always been able to formulate heresies and practice abuses while quoting scripture to do so. Complementarianism as preached by the current proponents has plowed the soil in which excesses and abuses have grown.

    yes yes yes! to all you wrote, and I like you final paragraph summation! Not the same religion, but I was thinking about Malala yesterday, how her father put her name on their family tree some 300yrs old (well, we all know it goes further back, but I digress) to show that although she was not a he, she is someone! She was the first female written on that chart for his family and needed to be celebrated.

    I tend to think of “complementarianism” as “lite” in regards to other cultures portrayals of women’s roles, and in the end I fully believe it is all about power. I tend to fall into a traditional role as a wife and mom, but I also take care of the finances and for the hard, steadfast males using the bible as a weapon, that is a huge no-no. When we met my husband’s birth father for the first time (southern Baptist preacher….) we butted heads pretty badly. Time and distance has healed that, but I have no room in my life for people who simply expect me to be submissive because I am a female. In us we all have inherent drives, regardless if I still have a somewhat traditional mindset, I still will speak out in ways that will push forward the notion that I am more than simply someone who kowtows to anyone because a line of scripture tells me so. Just look at how some pastors (cough cough) discuss Esther.

    I think the workshop outlined in the video above will attract those already deeply traditional anyway, but I am wondering if bringing in hipsters is the way they are now marketing the complementarian drive. Maybe it will help their books 🙂

  69. @ linda:
    But in obeying, do not ask others to disobey their own conscience. If you stand with CBE, find a denomination that teaches accordingly and work there. Do not try to change those that disagree. And if you stand with CBMW, do the same.
    Equalitarians: there are plenty of denoms where you can serve. Why constantly challenge the SBC, LCMS, or RCC?

    Answer: My answer? I consider that being trained in comp doctrine growing up was in and of itself abuse against humanity. So, speaking up about it and educating people IS following my conscience as I follow Jesus Christ.

  70. Sensible wrote:

    Still waiting for CBMW to give a status report on their driscollized article on heavenly gender roles…need to know whether I should look for husband now or wait for God to assign me one (or several) in the next life…
    How come an article critiquing the behavior of Driscoll and co. always gets some pushback from their fan bases, and yet when questions regarding issues like “eternal subordination” are raised…nothing but crickets…?
    Are there some debates that even the bravest of the “Brave New Movement” are too embarrassed to engage with?

    LOL great comment. It is interesting how a woman with full accountability teaching the Bible is some terrible sin, but a self-appointed, unaccountable man teaching questionable doctrine is…meh.

  71. And for another point, remember that Saul of Tarsus was following his conscience. Your reminder, linda, for us to pray for the families of the missing plane passengers helps me also to remember to pray about these gender doctrines. Obviously because of my conscience I pray for more Damascas road experiences to change the hearts of the conscientious persecutors of the female gender.

  72. linda wrote:

    This isn’t an issue to focus on when there is a world of lost people needing to hear the gospel.

    Why can’t we do both? This is not an either/or proposition. Also,I have prayed for those families.

  73. Hannah wrote:

    My working theory is that American culture inadvertently imported Greco-Roman concepts of patriarchy via the Englightment.

    you comment is excellent.

  74. @ JeffT:
    I am writing a paper about the continuing gender inequity in compensation. You’ve made me curious to see if there is a link between the dominant religion of a region and the pay gap. Could this be the missing link explaining the inequity across the US?

  75. dee wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    You are incorrigible.

    I don’t think HUG should be corriged at all, but – if you’ll forgive my frankness – I don’t think the joke was funny. There are standards.

  76. Hannah wrote:

    My working theory is that American culture inadvertently imported Greco-Roman concepts of patriarchy via the Englightment. The US was founded on Enlightenment Principles which was basically a rediscovery of ancient Greek philosophy, including the concepts of father rule over land, property, slaves, wife and children.

    A friend of mine mentioned something similar a couple years ago. How the Renaissance rediscovery of Greco-Roman civilization ended up in a sort of “Greco-Roman fanboy imitation”, where “Just like the Romans” concepts of universal judicial torture, widespread slavery, and absolute monarchy (“AVE, CAESAR!”) became the fashion for Progressive European nations climbing out of those Medieval Dark Ages. I’ll be talking to him tonight; I’ll see if he remembers the history book he referenced. Like their “Greco-Roman Revival” included imitating all the Dark Sides of Greco-Roman civilization as well. (Since ancient Greece was notorious for male homosexuality, I wonder if there was any change in Fashionable Sexual Morality along those lines as well.)

  77. So linda, maybe I missed it but what is your stake in caring about these gender issues. Are you comp or egal? How were you raised?

  78. Rambling thoughts…

    Patriarchy is so entrenched in our culture that I don’t think any of us will live to see it truly end. Here are two things that I think reflect patriarchal values that many accept and don’t question:

    –Idea that women must date/marry men who are taller than them. What is that other than a physical symbol of hierarchy? And think about how accepted it is in our culture. I remember people feeling bad for the really tall girls in the schools I taught at because “how would they find a tall enough man?”. No one was concerned for very tall boys. They can be with anyone they want.
    –Notion that in a relationship the man must be older. I am older than my husband by six years. When we were dating and friends found this out (and we were independent adults, not 20 and 14 or some such inappropriate difference), they would get visibly uncomfortable and question my entire relationship. My standard answer became this: “would we be having this conversation if he were six years older?” Inevitably the answer was that of course, we wouldn’t. When a few co-workers figured out the age difference, I was called a “cougar”. Why is there a derogatory term for women who are with men younger then them and no corresponding term for men with younger women? Simple reason, really: the man being older is part of patriarchy as it implies his higher place in the hierarchy of the relationship.

    These ideals are alive and well outside of the SBC or CBMW. Patriarchy is just an accepted part of our culture in so many big and small ways.

  79. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    If the SBC is dying because of their treatment of women, how do you explain the death of the Episcopal Church?

    1) The two churches are declining for different reasons?
    2) The EC is just as out-of-balance as the SBC about women, just in the opposite direction?

  80. ar wrote:

    –Idea that women must date/marry men who are taller than them. What is that other than a physical symbol of hierarchy? And think about how accepted it is in our culture. I remember people feeling bad for the really tall girls in the schools I taught at because “how would they find a tall enough man?”.

    That’s one of the things I remember from Dating Service disaster days. The only time I had a girlfriend, she was noticeably taller than me (and I’m average male height) and that wasn’t a problem. Yet later when I was flushing money down the toiled on dating services, I noticed no matter how tall the woman, her non-negotiable demands for a date included a minimum height taller than her own.

  81. @ Sensible:

    I do think that is what some of them believe. And that is contrary to what Paul said. So here is an obvious problem; why don’t they see the inconsistency of what they are saying? Why latch on to Paul talking about marriage, carry it to ridiculous extremes and then remain silent about refraining from marriage and practicing celibacy, also something Paul talked about? Except that in our sex saturated culture the one idea would sell better than the other.

    Unless. Perhaps Paul, in evangelizing gentiles in the Rome dominated world and dealing with the ideas they already had from the culture around them, noted the pater familias concept and modified it to something much less stringent. And at the same time saw the culture of pagan temple virgins and temple prostitutes and, while ruling out prostitution in toto modified the idea of consecrated celibacy to something compatible with what Jesus said on the subject. And then, in giving them the concept of Christ and the church symbolism he would have been, if effect, “baptizing the idols.” That is to say, modifying and re-defining cultural ideas to fit within the limits of christian thought and practice, which was at the time just developing as separate from Judaism.

    I don’t know that is what he was doing. But that is the sort of thing that the church (broadest definition of church, here) has done for a couple of millennia now in evangelizing within pagan cultures. The idea of providing a cultural link to christian ideas and values is certainly solid. And the idea of re-defining something non-christian and “making it christian” once the modifications are done, whether right or wrong, has been pretty standard practice since the get go. I think they say St. Patrick was good at that, for example. Sacred fires, sacred wells, ancient goddess turned into christian saint story, that sort of thing. I don’t know, but this looks like a possible explanation.

  82. ar wrote:

    –Notion that in a relationship the man must be older. I am older than my husband by six years. When we were dating and friends found this out (and we were independent adults, not 20 and 14 or some such inappropriate difference), they would get visibly uncomfortable and question my entire relationship. My standard answer became this: “would we be having this conversation if he were six years older?”

    Before the 20th Century, it was common for the husband to be noticeably older than the wife. Some of this was due to childbirth mortality, where a man could be widowed more than once in his life; some was due to the fact that a woman’s status was determined by that of her husband’s, and older men were “more established” and had higher status.

    Yet when I was going to school in the First 1960s (the actual tail end of The Fifties), the age difference equation was VERY rigid, and went as follows:

    The girl could NOT be older than the guy, and the guy could be no more than three years older than the girl. No Exceptions. (A common pattern was high school senior boys pairing up with freshman girls, going steady through her high school career, and marrying upon her graduation.)

  83. @ Sensible:

    You wrote: “a celibate individual on this system is only half-human.” I’d modify that to be “a non-married person”. And then I might add that the female half of the marriage isn’t fully human under this view either.

    Only married males are permitted to be fully human under this belief system. Women, children and those men who do not fit in this schema are all too often seen as not quite human, and in some ways closer to objects which can be manipulated for the benefit of the fully-human married man.

  84. I’d also like to make the point that “complementarianism” =/= conservatism. Complementarianism as a sociological movement is distinct to middle-class white American evangelicalism. (As is egalitarianism to a degree.) There are a LOT of conservatives (who would hold to gender complementarity and even specific roles in marriage and male-exclusive priesthood) who would not hold to some of the problematic assumptions of CBMW. I’m thinking here of Catholic and Orthodox traditions and even more classically reformed Protestants. The difficulty is discerning which tenets are based in US traditionalist culture and which are based in hermeneutical conservatism.

    This from a self-described conservative woman.

  85. @ Sensible:

    Oh, Sensible…

    I am surprised you don’t get this. An unmarried woman must in her personal life submit to the leadership of her father, or her brother, or if she has a son over the age of about 12 – you know, when Biblically they were treated as men – then he will do too. As far as the church goes, these would still apply, plus the pastor and elders must exercise authority over her too.

    She may, depending on the circumstances, be able to choose what toilet paper to buy for her home.

  86. ar wrote:

    –Notion that in a relationship the man must be older. I am older than my husband by six years. When we were dating and friends found this out (and we were independent adults, not 20 and 14 or some such inappropriate difference), they would get visibly uncomfortable and question my entire relationship. My standard answer became this: “would we be having this conversation if he were six years older?” Inevitably the answer was that of course, we wouldn’t. When a few co-workers figured out the age difference, I was called a “cougar”. Why is there a derogatory term for women who are with men younger then them and no corresponding term for men with younger women? Simple reason, really: the man being older is part of patriarchy as it implies his higher place in the hierarchy of the relationship.

    I am also six years older than my husband. 🙂 I don’t remember too many disparaging comments (to my face anyway). After reading your comment, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that he’s nearly a foot taller than I am. But, growing up it was an unspoken assumption that the man should be older than the woman. I’m glad I broke that social code, because I would have missed a good man.

  87. @ Seneca “j” Griggs:

    Baloney. Complementarianism is part and parcel of the craziness which is the semi-Arian* belief in the eternal subordination of the Son. Since ESS believers are generally very big on believing the absolute correct and true doctrines, I have no doubt it IS a salvation issue for them. For me, it’s just an intellectual exercise in seeing how much people can twist themselves into knots to promote a pet doctrine. Comps (not going to spell out because my phone throws a fit) are up there in the Twister sweepstakes.

    * Not my assessment. I stole that from a 2008 blog post by TWW friend Wade Burleson.

  88. Beakerj wrote:

    I think if some of these ‘christian’ men had to walk a few days in their wives shoes (erm, not literally, plus mixed metaphor alert)they’d discover just how unequal things really are.

    Aw, come on… Why not literally? That’d be tons of fun! 😀

  89. @ mirele:

    Too true…because complementarianism is not founded upon universal truths, it cannot account for full range of human particulars (an ever growing list, as you have pointed out) we find in the church.

  90. These ideals are alive and well outside of the SBC or CBMW. Patriarchy is just an accepted part of our culture in so many big and small ways.@ ar:

    EXACTLY ! And Romans 12 says to not be conformed to this world! This kind of inequality and looking on the outside has no business in the church.

  91. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    I’m glad I broke that social code, because I would have missed a good man.

    You and me both. 🙂

    Seems to be a trend in my family. My great-grandmother was seven years older than my great-grandfather. And of the four grandkids who are married on my mom’s side of the family, the wife is older in three of the couples.

  92. Points to keep in mind: There are some (a minority, but some) who claim that complementarianism is “biblical” and therefore has an ethical demand upon Christians. This is faulty logic for two reasons. First, many bad ideas have been presented as biblical, and can honestly said to be such. Slavery is a classic example. I have read some very sound and biblical arguments from Broadus et al regarding the fact that American Slavery was biblical. So the premise that an idea can be proven by appeal to scripture should not be accepted lightly. Second, there are hundreds of biblical scholars who do accept the former premise, and yet come to an egalitarian conclusion in their reading of scripture. So pretending that this is an issue of accepting inerrancy or scriptural authority is just false, and really doesn’t reflect well on anyone making the claim. It just sounds desperate, especially to anyone with a college education in rhetoric. Finally, for those who claim to hold to complementarianism, there is one area that demands burden of proof on complementarianism and not so on other positions. That area is the issue of single women. I personally believe the major problem area that complementarians have to deal with is how their view accepts the current cultural rhetoric that defines people by their sexuality and sexual relationships. It seems to me that a major portion of Paul’s writings intends to disabuse Christians of this notion that our roles in Christ are bound by gender, race, or other “elements of the world.” I find it surprising that a self-claimed biblical movement is blind to the common ground they share with the LGBTQ movement.

  93. Hannah wrote:

    There are a LOT of conservatives (who would hold to gender complementarity and even specific roles in marriage and male-exclusive priesthood) who would not hold to some of the problematic assumptions of CBMW. I’m thinking here of Catholic and Orthodox traditions and even more classically reformed Protestants.

    In our Catholic premarital workshop not only endorsed by the Church but led by couples trained by our Archdiocese, marriage was presented as being most successful when most egalitarian. The word was not used, but neither was there any talk of wifely submission or patriarchy of any sort. While the church retains a male priesthood (and I don’t see that changing), American Catholics do not teach complementarianism or submission as an ideal for marriage. Some very conservative lay people may advocate it, but it is not the position of the church itself.

    As for the rest of Catholicism’s problems with women, I think change is coming. At the normal glacial speed that the church changes with undoubtably. I don’t see an end to the all male priesthood, but I do see more women being part of leadership in new ways. And what most people do not know is that in the U.S, at least, many parishes have many women in leadership positions. My parish has more women than men on its council and women serving as financial manager, education director, youth director, music/liturgical director and office manager. There are, actually, only two men employed by the parish: the pastor and a part time maintenance person.

    It is also important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church encompasses a billion people living in every corner of the world in very different cultural contexts. That is one reason that change comes so slowly. What is seems obvious and necessary to us may shake the foundations somewhere else.

  94. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
    If the SBC is dying because of their treatment of women, how do you explain the death of the Episcopal Church?
    1) The two churches are declining for different reasons?
    2) The EC is just as out-of-balance as the SBC about women, just in the opposite direction?

    I have eyewitness to two possible reasons.
    1.One, many years ago my daughter was a junior counselor for a week long kids Episcapol camp. Even though they did eucharist every day she said that the gospel was never proclaimed at all during the entire week.
    2.I have an uncle who reads the scripture out loud every week for his Episcopol church. He does not even believe in God. I asked him why he does it then, why is he so devoted to his church? He says it’s a nice community thing to be involved in. huh?

  95. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    You Hold the Whip or you Feel the Whip, nothing in between.

    Egalitarians want to get rid of the whip entirely. No gender based dominance. Their measure would be call and competence!

  96. Not to distract from this post, but I would like to ask those that are somewhat familiar with my story to take a moment and life me up in prayer. I still get waves of pain and grief from the abuse I experienced at church, that resulted in losing my precious wife. And I wish to express my great appreciation to Dee and Deb for this site and say that only God knows how it has helped me during this troubled time. Again Thanks and thanks to those that take the time to lift me up in prayer, please allow me to return the favor.

  97. So this tweet by Mohler is…something: “We flee sexual immorality and defend sexual complementarianism in order to display the glory of God in creation”

    I can think of several questions I want to ask, but I will start with these three: Where do asexual individuals fit in this “sexual complementarianism”? Does Mohler regard people who have no desire to sexually “complement” any union at all as “immoral”? Or is asexuality simply another form of “brokenness” in his book?

  98. Mara wrote:

    dee wrote:
    One of the funnier things that ever happened to the two of us is when we got critiqued from a pulpit in which a pastor, quite upset, said that the two of us are “against male leadership.” How awful! Send in the troops!
    The thing is, I’m not opposed to men being in leadership positions. Therefore I cannot be against “Male Leadership”. Not really.
    They, however, are against any form of “female leadership” along side “male leadership”
    I understand this is a word game. But a lot of these guys have what is called “black or white” thinking. There are no grays. EITHER men are the leaders or WOMEN are the leaders. Leadership can’t be viewed as any sort of partnership or even men being the leaders 60 or 80% of the time while women are leaders 40 or even 20% of the time.
    They say men must be leaders 100% of the time. If you disagree, then you are against “male leadership”.
    I realize I’m being nitpicky in this. But I get tired of them thinking they get to define the terms of the argument.

    These are the same guys that proclaim egalitarianism is the opposite of patriarchy. But it’s not. Matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy.

  99. Sensible wrote:

    So this tweet by Mohler is…something: “We flee sexual immorality and defend sexual complementarianism in order to display the glory of God in creation”
    I can think of several questions I want to ask

    And I have my own questions. If defending Complism is a partner with fleeing sexual immorality, how do you explain Mahaney’s cover up of pedophiles, Doug Philips/VF Debacle, Gothard’s girls coming forward, and Driscoll’s Pornovision and Song of Solomon teachings? (am I missing anything?)

    I’m not thinking Compism has much to do with fleeing sexual immorality.

  100. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    mot wrote:

    The Southern Baptist Convention is dying and IMO one of the major reasons is its treatment of women. But don’t tell the leaders of the SBC because they can not deal with this truth.

    If the SBC is dying because of their treatment of women, how do you explain the death of the Episcopal Church?

    Death of the Episcopal Church? Do you refer to the Anglican Communion? Isn’t that the church that Nicky Gumbel and the Alpha program are associated with? In my neck of the woods, I see many thriving Episcopal Churches in America associated with the Anglican Communion. The Eucharist might just have some merit, after all.

  101. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I did a quick check on my family genealogy charts. The vast majority of early 20th to mid 19th century marraiges the couple was close in age but the man was older. One the couple did not officially get married til after all the children were born. I found two where the man was a lot older and at least one of those was a widower marrying a younger woman with energy to raise his kids. One in the 19th century where they were the same age. And finally, two where the wife was older than the husband in the mid 19 century. One of these was my Great Grandparents and both were in their 30s. He had been married at least once before and there is an indication of a relationship where he might not have married her but had two children. Since ggrandma was in her 30s she might have had a previous marriage but I couldn’t find anything in the records. I know that my personal history may be a statistical anonmally but I think the facts are a whole lot more complex than men being a lot older during that time.

  102. Sensible wrote:

    I can think of several questions I want to ask, but I will start with these three: Where do asexual individuals fit in this “sexual complementarianism”? Does Mohler regard people who have no desire to sexually “complement” any union at all as “immoral”? Or is asexuality simply another form of “brokenness” in his book?

    It’s an assumption, but to your last two questions: yes, and yes. If I remember correctly, Mohler has more or less stated that singles who delay marriage sin by doing so.

    My take on that is that it doesn’t matter whether you want to marry someone of the same sex – or maybe you don’t want to marry anyone at all – your job is to get over it, get Gospel™ married, and get started on some Gospel™ procreation to have a full Gospel™ quiver (wait a minute, that sounds accidentally Charismatic…).

  103. @ Sensible:

    @ Mara:

    I do not think that today’s compism has anything to do with fleeing sexual immorality either, but he is using that term, of course, because of what Paul said about marriage. That said, I think that Mohler (and I assume others) think that people ought (moral imperative) marry at a fairly young age, ought to have children (he has written about this) and ought to practice compism. This would make those who do not follow this protocol perhaps immoral but if not at least irresponsible unless they were in fact the victim of some physical or mental condition which prevented marriage and reproduction. He also writes repeatedly about all the social and political ramifications of alternative sexualities, which seems to be his trademark thing to talk about. And now he has more than once gone to Brigham Young to address some of these issues. IMO his streetcar has jumped the tracks.

  104. @ Sensible:

    Where do asexual individuals fit in this “sexual complementarianism”?

    They don’t exist, of course, so they don’t have to fit.

    Per what he actually meant by “sexual complementarianism,” he probably didn’t mean gender roles per se but heterosexual marriage – i.e., male and female complement each other, while male and male and female and female do not. But if this is what he meant, then he pretty much just gave away the store to egalitarians, because he unwittingly admitted that men and women complement each other whether they’re in a complementarian marriage or not.

  105. @ Mara:

    They would probably say that these people “misunderstood” the tenets of comp theology. They found their theology upon the fiction of the “benevolent” 21st century patriarch…when in reality it is more akin to the shenanigans we find in “The Clouds” by Aristophanes: fathers and sons quibbling over who has the right to beat who…

  106. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    As feminism continues to rise, so does the hatred of complementarianism. They hate both the Apostle Paul and Peter.

    Paul and Peter were not gender complementarians.

    How does gender complementarianism apply to me, other than the “no women preachers” view point? I am never married, past 40, no children. Gender comp rarely addresses never married, childless, divorced, or widowed females (or males for that matter).

    Also, as I said on previous threads, I was raised in a very traditional Christian family. My mother brought me up to be a gender comp (though it was not known as that label), and I was one up until my mid or late 30s.

    I remain a social conservative and a right winger, I disagree with much of secular feminism. Having said that, as I also said on previous threads, I understand how the gender comp mind works on many an issue.

    Gender comp concern is not defending, or advocating in favor of, women or “biblical womanliness” but to rant against social issues they hate, fear, or distrust, such as secular feminism and homosexuality.

    The don’t make a positive case for womanhood but rather they expend much effort making a negative case against feminism. Feminism has become the catch-all boogeyman they blame for just about everything (when not blaming homosexuals or liberals).

  107. @ Patti:
    Patti, I’m sure there are atheistarts and agnostics in Baptist pews as well. Many years ago a relative of mine mentioned she was a member of the Methodist Church in her small Texas town. It wasn’t for the spirituality; it was because she had a business in town. One wouldn’t be thought of in quite the right way if one didn’t show up at the Baptist, Methodist or Church of Christ on a Sunday.

  108. @ Wesley:

    It’s hard to say. Gender comps cannot agree with each other on when, how and if women may speak, lead, teach or quote the Bible at males or if males are simply present.

    I think John Piper said reading a book by a woman author about the Bible is acceptable for a man, but a man cannot sit in the same room as said woman as she reads aloud from her book, because something about her ‘female body’ or ‘femaleness’ (or however he put it) would be distracting to him.

    One male street preacher Julie Anne discusses at her blog (Spiritual Sounding Board) has a slew of rules on these things… His name is Miano I believe. You can read one of those posts here (Can a woman read the Bible aloud to a man?).

    Miano views a woman reading aloud from the Bible as being authoritative and therefore inappropriate and unbiblical. Miano believes a woman standing on a soap box to speak to a group of mixed gender people in public is un-feminine and authoritative (and hence unacceptable).

    Miano feels female preacher Joyce Meyer’s body language, voice, mannerisms are not feminine enough. He does, however, condescend to suppose ‘a woman speaking to a man is not sin per se,’ if I remember the quote correctly.

    Oh, he was fine, though, with female Christian speaker Joni Erickson Tada quoting from a Bible at a church service at which he was present.

    I also find it interesting that a male feels he and he alone (or other men) get to define what is considered feminine or un-feminine, and apparently in his world, women get no say-so in these definitions and delineations.

    Anyway, gender complementarians are not consistent on any of these things.

  109. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    If the SBC is dying because of their treatment of women, how do you explain the death of the Episcopal Church?

    I’ve read that even among denominations that allow women to be preachers that the input of women are still ignored. Men still really make all the big decisions, women are not given full equality. That could be why. The female pastors are just sort of symbolic but have no real pull or power.

  110. Daisy wrote:

    Feminism has become the catch-all boogeyman they blame for just about everything (when not blaming homosexuals or liberals).

    A boogeyman for sure! By equating egalitarianism with feminists, they have rubber stamped the term.

  111. Raymond wrote:

    Not to distract from this post, but I would like to ask those that are somewhat familiar with my story to take a moment and life me up in prayer. I still get waves of pain and grief from the abuse I experienced at church, that resulted in losing my precious wife. And I wish to express my great appreciation to Dee and Deb for this site and say that only God knows how it has helped me during this troubled time. Again Thanks and thanks to those that take the time to lift me up in prayer, please allow me to return the favor.

    Praying for you Raymond.

  112. @ mirele:

    Well, to be fair, they don’t have to have the autographs.

    The original biblical readings can be reconstructed using lower textual criticism, via the many manuscript copies, of which there are thousands (for the New Testament), some dating within about 90 years or so (such as a fragment of Gospel of John).

  113. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    the unchanging, inerrant Word of God which is quite straight forward when it speaks to male and female roles within the home and within the church.

    Okay. I am a single female. According to you, the Bible calls certain things my role in my home (where I live alone): What things are those? And give me the Bible verse which tell those are my role. (It would also be interesting if you tell me who should do those alleged female role things in a home where a man live alone.)
    And what things are my role in the church? Give me the Bible texts that call those my role. (Remember that keeping quiet in church isn’t a role – it would only denote what is not my role.)

    Until you can answer with actual gender roles and their Bible verses for women (not wives or mothers of underage children – if they are for wives and mothers it is a family role, not a gender role) in the church and home, stop talking about these hypothetical “Biblical” roles.

    You know what? Scripture inerrancy is not on the side of the gender role defenders – because there are no roles in the church or home for each whole gender, both single and marries, which can be defended from the Bible.

    If you don’t want to answer here,

  114. @ dee:

    One of my favorite examples of this absurdity of gender complementarian exceptions was by a young blogger lady who said she used to be a gender comp and attended a gender comp church (or Christian university), until the day a famous female Christian speaker stopped by.

    This famous female Christian speaker or author was allowed to speak during the church service, to males and females, but the only thing that differed is that the heavy, wooden pulpit normally used by the male preacher, was shoved off to the side.
    I think they gave the speaker lady a TV tray or what not.

    So, it looks like the authority really resides in the furniture of the church, not the speaker (in the end scheme of things, God is the one who is the final authority, of course). 😆

  115. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Part 3 of 3
    In 2013, many evangelical groups are convictionally complementarian. The contemporary surge of interest in the gospel and the greatness of God has coincided with widespread adoption of complementarianism…
    Apart from the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc *, the “contemporary surge of interest” to which the writer refers is not necessarily in the gospel or the greatness of God. Much of the interest is actually in legalism and textual biblianism (that’s not a real word but I hope you know what I mean). In other words, many people just love being told what to do, and the more detailed rules you can give them, the more secure they feel.
    * it’s also coincided with the widespread adoption of mobile phones, for instance

    Nick, btw, I think you’d make a super deadly lawyer (no jest, said in all seriousness).
    Have just discovered the Chinese dating show, “If you are the one”, it is fascinating and addictive watching (it plays for an hour each night in the evening here). Basically a guy walks before a panel of women, and somehow there is an attempt to make a good dating match with one of them. The three hosts are often what makes the show (btw, many men walk out with a “failed to get a date” though they do get to keep their dignity, and their email addresses get flashed up on the screen at the end of the show). Last night, the guy who came on said he was a control freak. One of the women who was keen was asked what she thought about it. She didn’t bat an eyelid, “oh, I like it, I like being controlled”.
    As a social experiment I’d love to see Seneca walk before the panel of women. I just wouldn’t be able to predict the outcome…

  116. @ linda:

    My mind was changed on this subject. I was SBC, used to be a gender comp, but my own reading and re-reading of the Bible caused me to change my mind, and later, reading books about the issue by people such as Rebecca Merrill Groothuis cemented it for me.

    I’m not sure I get your argument, why should folks fight SBC etc, and other pro-gender comp groups, why not just walk off and leave them be.

    The older I get I tend to be “live and let live,” so I appreciate the sentiment, but something like this, it’s been damaging to a lot of people (including me), and given some the wrong idea of the God of the Bible.

    Sometime in the late 1990s or so, the SBC formally apologized for its racist views and support of slavery in years gone by.

    If SBC was still defending or promoting slavery of black Americans to this day, would you still advocate that people just say “Meh, let them do whatever, and we will just go to a different church.”

  117. Daisy wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
    If the SBC is dying because of their treatment of women, how do you explain the death of the Episcopal Church?
    I’ve read that even among denominations that allow women to be preachers that the input of women are still ignored. Men still really make all the big decisions, women are not given full equality. That could be why. The female pastors are just sort of symbolic but have no real pull or power.

    Yes, that is very true in my denomination, Assemblies of God. I believe one reason that there are still way too few female preachers in the AG is because they still believe in hierarchy in the church and home, meaning that pastors have authority over the church and husbands have authority in the home. So, you stil have way too many unsupportive husbands. The conservative church has forced women who are called to be pastors to cultivate their gifts in the liberal churches. The comps think that this is one cause of the liberalization of churches but it is more that the liberal churches have accepted these women into their denominations. I define a liberal church as one that is extremely soft on sin and even makes people believe that all roads lead to heaven.

  118. @ ar:
    Appreciate your adding these points.

    Another angle is that Catholic theology intrinsically elevates the status of women in ways Protestantism cannot. The role Mary plays in Catholic redemptive history has no similar female counterpart in a Protestant understanding of redemption. So the question is not simply one of roles but of value, perhaps?

    My point is simply that conservatism does not demand complementarianism as it has been embodied in evangelicalism. (I would still consider Catholicism to have a socially conservative reading of gender.) But I’d also suggest that egalitarianism as a system is distinct to evangelicalism as well. Neither of these transfer out to other traditions because they are rooted in theological assumptions specific to evangelicalism. For example, Protestant egalitarians would celebrate Catholic marriage based on mutual submission but they would have no way of parsing a male-only priesthood that is an equally vital part of Catholic practice.

  119. Sensible wrote:

    Logically, a celibate individual in this system is only half-human.

    Some Christian groups (the patriarchy guys) do actually teach this, and some of the more well known guys (eg, TV evangelists) tend to think this way.

    They slip in their sermons I’ve seen when they say things like, “it takes one man married to one woman to reveal the image of God.”

    They have no concept that a large chunk of adult America today is single, nor do they seem to fathom that an unmarried adult (male or female) are totally in God’s image. They have marriage- on- the- brain.

    [Preacher Mark] Driscoll: Single men “cannot fully reflect God”

  120. @ Daisy:

    They used to do that in church when I was a kid. Only the preacher could stand behind the pulpit, not singers or people making announcements and certainly not a woman speaker.

  121. Patti wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
    If the SBC is dying because of their treatment of women, how do you explain the death of the Episcopal Church?
    I’ve read that even among denominations that allow women to be preachers that the input of women are still ignored. Men still really make all the big decisions, women are not given full equality. That could be why. The female pastors are just sort of symbolic but have no real pull or power.
    Yes, that is very true in my denomination, Assemblies of God. I believe one reason that there are still way too few female preachers in the AG is because they still believe in hierarchy in the church and home, meaning that pastors have authority over the church and husbands have authority in the home. So, you stil have way too many unsupportive husbands. The conservative church has forced women who are called to be pastors to cultivate their gifts in the liberal churches. The comps think that this is one cause of the liberalization of churches but it is more that the liberal churches have accepted these women into their denominations. I define a liberal church as one that is extremely soft on sin and even makes people believe that all roads lead to heaven.

    I think you’ve made an insightful observation Patti. I actually think a lot of Christian men now give lip-service to egalitarian theory but in their heart-of-hearts are firmly complementation. I could be wrong.

  122. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    As feminism continues to rise, so does the hatred of complementarianism. They hate both the Apostle Paul and Peter.

    Noticed this kind of late.

    Not much to say except that you make some pretty outlandish assumptions displaying how little you truly know concerning the topic.

    It also shows that you have being drinking the Kool-Aid.
    You ought to spit some of it out from time to time and actually use your own brain to deduce what it really going on rather than subjecting yourself all the propaganda and spin-doctoring that is going on by desperate men who feel they are losing their place of privilege.

  123. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    NO complementarians I know think this is a salvation issue.

    Some may – but I find it about as repulsive that comps make several assumptions about people who don’t share their views, such as: if you are not a comp, you must be a liberal, a secular feminist, and/or, you must have a low view of the Bible. None of that is true of me.

    A lot of comps hold complementarianism as a test of who is a real Christian.

  124. Retha wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
    the unchanging, inerrant Word of God which is quite straight forward when it speaks to male and female roles within the home and within the church.
    Okay. I am a single female. According to you, the Bible calls certain things my role in my home (where I live alone): What things are those? And give me the Bible verse which tell those are my role. (It would also be interesting if you tell me who should do those alleged female role things in a home where a man live alone.)
    And what things are my role in the church? Give me the Bible texts that call those my role. (Remember that keeping quiet in church isn’t a role – it would only denote what is not my role.)
    Until you can answer with actual gender roles and their Bible verses for women (not wives or mothers of underage children – if they are for wives and mothers it is a family role, not a gender role) in the church and home, stop talking about these hypothetical “Biblical” roles.
    You know what? Scripture inerrancy is not on the side of the gender role defenders – because there are no roles in the church or home for each whole gender, both single and marries, which can be defended from the Bible.
    If you don’t want to answer here,

    Retha, I’d be glad to tell you face-to-face but that won’t happen. All you can really do in comments is make “bullet points.” And that’s not anywhere sufficient.

  125. dee wrote:

    Is she submissive? Does she share your views?

    She does if he says she does. 🙂

    (Unless it’s a marriage where he’s all, ‘Yes dear, whatever you say dear’ in private.)

  126. An Attorney wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    You Hold the Whip or you Feel the Whip, nothing in between.
    Egalitarians want to get rid of the whip entirely. No gender based dominance. Their measure would be call and competence!

    Yeah, but in the real world will that ever happen? Satan is alive and well and as far as I know, 100 percent of us are born under the Adamic curse.

  127. Daisy wrote:

    They have no concept that a large chunk of adult America today is single, nor do they seem to fathom that an unmarried adult (male or female) are totally in God’s image. They have marriage- on- the- brain.

    Salvation by Marriage Alone.

  128. Daisy wrote:

    This famous female Christian speaker or author was allowed to speak during the church service, to males and females, but the only thing that differed is that the heavy, wooden pulpit normally used by the male preacher, was shoved off to the side.
    I think they gave the speaker lady a TV tray or what not.

    “Separate but Equal.”
    http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/owZmVUeF6Uq3MeC5rNQi2g

  129. Retha wrote:

    And what things are my role in the church? Give me the Bible texts that call those my role. (Remember that keeping quiet in church isn’t a role – it would only denote what is not my role.)

    Warning: take this with a grain of salt. I am not making fun of scripture–just some stuff people believe as their understanding of scripture. Check out, of course, 1 Corinthians.

    I don’t know about all that, but when you pray or prophesy in church you should have your head covered (as in don’t shave your head.) If your hair fell out due to chemo or whatever, you could wear a veil, and maybe you just ought to do that anyhow. You might give a message in tongues or an interpretation of tongues all the while remaining silent of course, but Paul does use the word “all” in 14:23 so you might want to go for it. But you ought not be causing distractions. And since people in the early church often met around meals I suppose you could bake brownies or bring lamb kebobs. Some of this is as close as I can get to some stuff in scripture, but some of it is about as inexact as the current Noah movie, albeit still within the bounds of creative narrative or something.

    Of course, if you told any of this to the neo-cal comps they would pray for your benighted condition. Or else run you off the property.

  130. Nancy wrote:

    They used to do that in church when I was a kid. Only the preacher could stand behind the pulpit, not singers or people making announcements and certainly not a woman speaker.

    For any but the King to sit on the Throne is High Treason.

  131. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    I find it surprising that a self-claimed biblical movement is blind to the common ground they share with the LGBTQ movement.

    yes !!!
    And what Retha said, etc. So many good critiques here. Hannah’s comment about what was adopted by the Englightenment crew was most fascinating, and it reinforces my understanding that “comps” are clinging to their viewpoints which are CULTURALLY determined – their views are determined by the cultural lenses they are looking through. Biblical inerrancy? Pull the other foot.

  132. Off topic. Tomorrow at approximately high noon, God willing, my daughter-in-law will give birth by way of elective C-section of one wee miss Julia Grace. All the while my son, who is basically a genuine tough guy, will probably have passed out on the floor of the OR since he is being required to watch all this. Some of us preferred the old way where everybody waited in the waiting room, but we got brave new world here. No problems are anticipated but there is alway some risk to everything. Think about this–serious problems are usually not anticipated or else they would be avoided. Just saying so next time they wheel you into the OR and assure you that they do not anticipate any problems–you know.

  133. Retha wrote:

    Until you can answer with actual gender roles and their Bible verses for women (not wives or mothers of underage children – if they are for wives and mothers it is a family role, not a gender role) in the church and home, stop talking about these hypothetical “Biblical” roles.

    Well said!

  134. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    That area is the issue of single women. I personally believe the major problem area that complementarians have to deal with is how their view accepts the current cultural rhetoric that defines people by their sexuality and sexual relationships. It seems to me that a major portion of Paul’s writings intends to disabuse Christians of this notion that our roles in Christ are bound by gender, race, or other “elements of the world.”

    Yep, I’ve been saying that a long time now.

    I’ve run into Christian males who are in the same spot as I am (they are over 40 years old or older, have never married and never had any children), and they do not appreciate being told or made to feel by churches or Christian organizations that they only count if they are married and are fathers.

    Then you have widows, widowers, divorced, infertile married couples, and marriages where the male develops early onset dementia or becomes brain damaged, basically leaving the wife to take lead in the marriage because she has no choice.

  135. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In other words, many people just love being told what to do, and the more detailed rules you can give them, the more secure they feel.
    * it’s also coincided with the widespread adoption of mobile phones, for instance

    (LOL!) I think it’s coincided with the dumbing down in our educational system. It leaves people with frustration if they have to think things through, leaving them with a preference to have someone else figure it out for them.

  136. Pingback: CBMW: A Brave New Movement: Kevin DeYoung and the Eternal Subordination of Women | BLT UNITED STATES

  137. Sensible wrote:

    I can think of several questions I want to ask, but I will start with these three: Where do asexual individuals fit in this “sexual complementarianism”? Does Mohler regard people who have no desire to sexually “complement” any union at all as “immoral”? Or is asexuality simply another form of “brokenness” in his book?

    A lot of Christians confuse asexuality with celibacy.

    They assume all adult celibates totally lack libido, that God “gifts them” with celibacy by supernaturally removing any and all sexual desire and/or any and all desire for marriage, which is all just totally false, but it’s a common belief.

    Celibates have sexual desire but choose not to act upon it, while my understanding is that asexuals lack sexual desire and don’t care about sex at all.

    I have seen some asexuals say that while they don’t care about sex or romance, they would still like to marry; ideally, they say they want marriage but with no sex and don’t feel there are many people who would agree to marry under such circumstances. They want companionship but not romance/sex.

    I would assume that the Mohlers of the world would deem asexuals as having been “gifted with celibacy” or something. Well, if at that. They tend to tout marriage to such a degree that they overlook or forget about the verses in the New Testament that speak in a positive fashion of singleness.

    (Mohler would probably tell you that you’re in error to be single, go and get married already. We were talking about him and his rotten views about adult singles on a previous thread this past week.)

  138. mot wrote:

    The Southern Baptist Convention is dying and IMO one of the major reasons is its treatment of women. But don’t tell the leaders of the SBC because they can not deal with this truth.

    Is this the motivation behind buddying up with C.J. Mahaney?

  139. Mara wrote:

    I’m not thinking Compism has much to do with fleeing sexual immorality.

    Something else, too, if you re-read the story about Joseph (which is, I assume, where all these guys get the “flee! flee sexual immorality!” thinking from), Joseph did not at first flee. He at first resisted the wife’s advances.

    He told Potiphar’s wife to go take a cold shower. After that failed on several occasions, and she came on to him once more, THEN he fled.

    Men need to be told to resist sexual temptation, not flee at the sight of a tempting woman or the mere possibility there of. Other wise, women get blamed in Christian culture for male sexual sin, and women are objectified and treated as suspicious and untrustworthy (men are told to stay away from women, especially single ones).

    I find it funny that Joseph was being tempted by a married woman, though.

    From Genesis 39:

    Now Joseph was well-built and handsome, 7 and after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, “Come to bed with me!”

    8 But he refused. “With me in charge,” he told her, “my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. 9 No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?” 10 And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her.

    See, Joseph tried reasoning with her first. He did not run away.

  140. Nancy wrote:

    I am not making fun of scripture–just some stuff people believe as their understanding of scripture.

    Shameful. Risking the appearance of making fun of the Biblescribshers™.

  141. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    Retha, I’d be glad to tell you face-to-face but that won’t happen. All you can really do in comments is make “bullet points.” And that’s not anywhere sufficient.

    I asked you similar questions up thread but you did not address those. Other than the “no women preacher” rule, compism has next to nothing to say about never married, childless women.

    They also tend to ignore never married, childless men, as well as widows, widowers, the divorced, infertile married couples, marriages where the wife has to take lead because the husband becomes ill.

    Almost all focus by gender complementarians is on marriage and parenting, and at that, to argue against their perceived enemies of secular feminists, liberals, and homosexuals.

  142. This is interesting data. Thanks for posting it.

    The complementarian movement is still spreading, though. I had been sporadically attending an Episcopal church in my town, dipping my toes into the church world again, trying to find some place that didn’t trigger panic attacks. I liked the liturgy, the calm, the sense of community worship. I was thinking about going through the confirmation process…then I got their most recent church newsletter, and they were promoting a Tim Keller book as the book they wanted the congregation to read and study together this year :roll eyes: And there are other, more subtle clues that apparently they are trying to take the congregation in a new direction. I had to stop attending. If even the Episcopal church is vulnerable to neo-Calvinism, what has the world come to??

  143. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    Retha wrote:
    Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
    the unchanging, inerrant Word of God which is quite straight forward when it speaks to male and female roles within the home and within the church.
    Okay. I am a single female. According to you, the Bible calls certain things my role in my home (where I live alone): What things are those? And give me the Bible verse which tell those are my role. (It would also be interesting if you tell me who should do those alleged female role things in a home where a man live alone.)
    And what things are my role in the church? Give me the Bible texts that call those my role. (Remember that keeping quiet in church isn’t a role – it would only denote what is not my role.)
    Until you can answer with actual gender roles and their Bible verses for women (not wives or mothers of underage children – if they are for wives and mothers it is a family role, not a gender role) in the church and home, stop talking about these hypothetical “Biblical” roles.
    You know what? Scripture inerrancy is not on the side of the gender role defenders – because there are no roles in the church or home for each whole gender, both single and marries, which can be defended from the Bible.
    If you don’t want to answer here,

    Retha, I’d be glad to tell you face-to-face but that won’t happen. All you can really do in comments is make “bullet points.” And that’s not anywhere sufficient.

    The inerrant word is “quite straight forward” about it – but seemingly not so straightforward that a few bullet points can be made with gender roles and passages that straight-forwardly show they are gender roles? I’ve been asking the question for years now, every time someone brings it up in blog comments. I also have the topic open on my blog: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/question-to-complementarians-what-is-my-gender-role/ But I never received any answer. Because there is no answer, and those who pretend there are gender roles are disrespecting scripture so much that they pretend it defends their view.

  144. @ Nancy:

    Our son was an emergency caesarean (which sounds slightly more serious than it was – it wasn’t an elective caesarean but Lesley was not in immediate danger), but I didn’t get to watch; I just got to hold Lesley’s hand while half of her was hidden by a curtain. From the other side of which, at 6:06 am, a nurse observed: It’s a little boy. Words you remember. (He wasn’t that little – 8 lbs 10 – and 14 years on he’s as tall as me. Still adorable though.)

  145. Oh, and I thought of Daisy when I saw the newsletter, because the Tim Keller book in question was “The Meaning of Marriage.” I’m sure all the single/divorced/widowed folks in the congregation are enjoying their bible study on the meaning of marriage /sarcasm

  146. Pingback: Owen Strachan of CBMW Misses the Point Entirely – It’s Not about the Missing Article, but the False Teaching | Spiritual Sounding Board UNITED STATES

  147. Raymond wrote:

    Not to distract from this post, but I would like to ask those that are somewhat familiar with my story to take a moment and life me up in prayer.

    Praying for you.

  148. @ Retha:

    Gender comps like to tell you what you cannot do as a woman (can’t lead men, cannot preach), but they don’t usually try to tell unmarried and childless women what they may or can do.

    Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe one Bible passage (in the New Testament) that does discuss what unmarried women may do, but… even in that one passage, it is in reference to marriage and parenting.

    I re-read that passage I had in mind just now, and even that one passage I had in mind – I had forgotten – but that passage assumes that the women have “their own husbands.” So even that is about married women. Hmm.

    (Anyway, I’m not saying single and childless people cannot or should not dispense advice on either topic to people who do have kids and who are married, but I would want to pass on that myself.)

    Retha – according to preacher Mark Driscoll, if you are a single adult (this was in one of his blogs), you are single because God intends to have you serve as a missionary overseas because you will be a martyr. You’re not going to live too long. At least the single males. He did not really discuss single women.

    I think this may be the page where he talks about it:
    Single Pastors? by Mark Driscoll

    I just skimmed it over. I’m not sure if that is the page I have in mind that I read weeks ago.

    If you are single, his page (linked above) will make you want to throw up. It’s chock full of many unbiblical, arrogant assumptions – he seems to feel married people are just more qualified at everything and anything, and their lives more valuable than the singles and the childless.

  149. dee wrote:

    Plus, as John Piper alludes, you can’t see their bodies when they write so they are not pressing their femininity on a man.

    Okay, the more I read this stuff the more I understand my college son. He is living in Driscoll territory. After he moved there he asked me why the college girls say that guys can’t control themselves? I asked him if the guys had such strange notions, and he said they seem to think the girls are guilty of making them have desires. My son wondered why that culture was so inundated with blaming women and not recognizing a man’s responsibility? This was more of a culture shock to him than the two foreign countries he’s spent time in.

  150. Daisy wrote:

    I have seen some asexuals say that while they don’t care about sex or romance, they would still like to marry; ideally, they say they want marriage but with no sex and don’t feel there are many people who would agree to marry under such circumstances. They want companionship but not romance/sex.

    Though I’m not asexual (only 58 and never married), I’ve always valued companionship more than sex.

    To paraphrase the Fabulous Furry Freak Bros, “Companionship will get you through times of no Sex better than Sex will get you through times of no Companionship.”

  151. Daisy wrote:

    If you are single, his page (linked above) will make you want to throw up. It’s chock full of many unbiblical, arrogant assumptions – he seems to feel married people are just more qualified at everything and anything, and their lives more valuable than the singles and the childless.

    Know what I hear them saying when you put it that way?

    “I Get Laid and YOU DON’T! NEETER NEETER NEETER!”

  152. mirele wrote:

    Baloney. Complementarianism is part and parcel of the craziness which is the semi-Arian* belief in the eternal subordination of the Son.

    Didn’t St Nicholas punch out Arius at that church council over that?

    (As St Nicholas later became Santa Claus in pop mythology, this gives a whole new meaning to the term “Mad Santa”.)

  153. Daisy wrote:

    (off topic)
    For Headless Unicorn Guy:
    My Post (D&D Movie)

    Noticed it at Slacktivist. Forwarded the link to my old D&D Dungeonmaster and weirded him out.

  154. _

    Face the Music: “Sexual Complementarianism?”

    Rally Round ‘Da Rock’: “Let none call it religious manipulation?”

    What?

    Has the church got a fixation on sexual and gender roles?

    A Red Herring, perhaps?

    (PU)

    >—>Stop female critical thinking now!

    -snicker-

    AlBuddy: “…defend sexual complementarianism ! ”

    Skreeeeeeeeeeeeetch!

    Who wants to go a proverbial twelve rounds with dis guy?

    (snort)

    Sixty percent of the church’s population are women. Is this a propaganda power mongering means of exerting overt religious control utilizing a sanction biblical message?

    Sheesh!

    Could have fool’d me…

    (grin)

    hahahahaha

    CBMW: “Hey women!, you get the comp blues… cause we ain’t got no one else to use…”

    (sadface)

    Sopy
    __
    comic relief?: Clip: “Network”; “We’re as mad as hell?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE

    A Case Of Pushing Nefarious Religious Messaging, Perhaps? :Electric Light Orchestra : “Evil Woman?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9qeJskx6r0

    Old News Revisited?: AUDIO: “Spiritual Abuse,The Complementarian Cult, and More John Piper in the Bedroom, part two.”
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jocelynandersen/2011/03/26/spiritual-abusethe-complementarian-cult-and-more-john-piper-in-the-bedroom

    :~)

  155. mirele wrote:

    @ Patti:
    Patti, I’m sure there are atheistarts and agnostics in Baptist pews as well. Many years ago a relative of mine mentioned she was a member of the Methodist Church in her small Texas town. It wasn’t for the spirituality; it was because she had a business in town. One wouldn’t be thought of in quite the right way if one didn’t show up at the Baptist, Methodist or Church of Christ on a Sunday.

    Small town Texas churches are in many cases the country club. You would be amazed at the business deals and jobs that are given because people attend FBC or FUMC in that community. I am also sure there are plenty of men ( and women) sitting in the pew every Sunday who ” Do not know Jesus..”
    But their membership improves their businesses bottom line…

  156. I forgot to say from the outset I appreciate this post. I’ve been curious lately about how accepted gender complementarian teaching is among Christians these days, or if it’s losing ground to egalitarianism, and I’ve been wondering when it’s going to fade away, and how to go about measuring that.

    It seems to be fading away, to me. There could be several reasons for it, but I personally feel one reason is that gender complementarianism fails to address everyone equally and instead most often focuses on marriage and parenting, but there are many unmarried adults in the U.S. today, and they are not having kids. Even more and more married couples are not having children.

    Instead of just dealing with these facts and helping singles and childless people, the few who seem to have noticed things have changed (such as Mohler), like to shame adult singles for being single and childless, and they like to blame feminism.

    Christians blaming feminism for singleness is very infuriating to those of us ladies raised Christians who had wanted to marry, so they are further alienating us.

    We did not reject marriage because we are feminist, hate men, or were consumed with career. I could never meet anyone. Most churches I go to, there are few single men my age. The dating sites are filled with men who claim to be Christian but they have tawdry profiles, so I don’t want to date them.

    As long as gender complementarians keep shaming singles for being single, or the rest of them just totally ignore singles altogether, I don’t see their movement lasting.

  157. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Some people (what proportion of evangelicals, I don’t know, but some) actually believe the Bible to be God’s final revelation of himself to humanity, and have doctrinal statements saying as much. In other words, the Bible is the second person of the Trinity.

    Yes, this.
    I would even go so far as to say that, among some fundamentalists with whom I am familiar, the Bible is treated as the first person of the Trinity. A book is so much tamer and more predictable than the all powerful Creator of the universe.

  158. @ K.D.:

    Oh yes, I totally get that many pew sitters are not even Christian. I guess what surprises me is how many are actually active in ministry of some sort who don't believe.

  159. My husband was a born and raised southern baptist boy. He was growing up in the Baptist church his family helped plant when I met him, I married him six months to day later. I had the opportunity to grow up in a non demonational christian church before marrying into First Baptist, I actually felt more strangled in the church I grew up in than in my husbands. We had a wonderful pastor who had his doctorate and what he taught all of us was this. Women can and would excel in any spiritual role given them by God. He had no doubt they would make great pastors, teachers, etc. He had every doubt however that men would willingly submit to their leadership. He supposed that was truly the problem if any with women stepping outside the roles prescribed by others(men) in church. My husband believes that to this day. He believes that if men could get over themselves long enough to see the work of God through women pastors, they would have a spiritual aha moment and the face of our faith would see radical change. His words not mine. I thank God for that pastor who had the courage to underline an issue that honestly put him at odds with the very convention he embraced. He was a wise man. That teaching living in my husbands heart has given me the courage to be who I really am. I know that he sees me as his equal in the important things. Can I bench press as much as he can? Or course not. There are obvious differences between us, his strengths are not mine and mine are not his. However we don’t meet the typical comp view of marriage, thank God. He does not have to be IN CHARGE in order to be content. He understands the only one in charge is Jesus and we both answer to him. Wish more folks could get that idea and be happier.

  160. Daisy wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
    Retha, I’d be glad to tell you face-to-face but that won’t happen. All you can really do in comments is make “bullet points.” And that’s not anywhere sufficient.

    I asked you similar questions up thread but you did not address those. Other than the “no women preacher” rule, compism has next to nothing to say about never married, childless women.
    They also tend to ignore never married, childless men, as well as widows, widowers, the divorced, infertile married couples, marriages where the wife has to take lead because the husband becomes ill.
    Almost all focus by gender complementarians is on marriage and parenting, and at that, to argue against their perceived enemies of secular feminists, liberals, and homosexuals.

    Same issue Daisy. Bullet point comment won’t answer the question.

  161. Nancy wrote:

    Off topic. Tomorrow at approximately high noon, God willing, my daughter-in-law will give birth by way of elective C-section of one wee miss Julia Grace. All the while my son, who is basically a genuine tough guy, will probably have passed out on the floor of the OR since he is being required to watch all this. Some of us preferred the old way where everybody waited in the waiting room,

    That was/is me. I wanted to just wait in the waiting room but NOOOOOooo. Everybody insisted I needed to be present so OK. But then I watched in horror as Dr. Carpenter (who had probably birthed 5000 babies), stuck the forceps in to drag my son out BY THE HEAD. Crimeny; no one had prepared me for that. I still shudder though my son’s head seems to sit normally atop the rest of his body 30 years later.
    I say, “bring back the waiting room.” Bonding will be just fine AFTER the messy part.

  162. Daisy wrote:

    @ mirele:
    Well, to be fair, they don’t have to have the autographs.
    The original biblical readings can be reconstructed using lower textual criticism, via the many manuscript copies, of which there are thousands (for the New Testament), some dating within about 90 years or so (such as a fragment of Gospel of John).

    It’s not as easy as all that, Daisy. I am no expert, but I can tell you there’s a huge gulf between what is taught as textual criticism in evangelical seminaries and what is taught in secular universities and mainline seminaries. Even your statement about documents within 90 years or so is barely true, if by documents you mean a tiny fragment the size of the palm of your hand upon which is written parts of some verses from John 17 and 18 (Rylands Library Papyrus P52). Don’t get me wrong, it’s a remarkable find, but it’s misleading to say that there are documents from 90 years out when it’s more like “tiny fragment of one Gospel.” I could say a lot more about this, but I am going to shut up now, because discussing the text of the Bible was one of the things that undid my faith.

  163. Patti wrote:

    @ K.D.:
    Oh yes, I totally get that many pew sitters sre not even Christian. I guess what surprises me is how many are actually active in ministry of some sort who don’t believe.

    When I was in SWBTS, it was a shock to see the men ( and women) who were there that did not have a clue…..the seminary did more to keep me OUT of the church business more than anything else….my wife and I both decided we would be best serving Jesus outside the ministry, and you know, so far, it has worked pretty well…

  164. Daisy wrote:

    A lot of Christians confuse asexuality with celibacy

    Definitely, and members of the Mohler school of thought take issue with both…in their cosmos, asexuality does exist (or it is an irrelevant “gift”), and “willful” celibacy is a synonym for selfishness…even though, as practiced by Christ, celibacy is an act of loving broadly.

  165. mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    I could say a lot more about this, but I am going to shut up now, because discussing the text of the Bible was one of the things that undid my faith.

    P.S. As I find myself veering between the faith and agnosticism, I have different reasons.

    The Bible is solid; I don’t have issues with its accuracy, from the manuscripts and so on, or the veracity / reliability of the historicity of it. Leaving the faith on that basis is weak.

  166. Sensible wrote:

    and “willful” celibacy is a synonym for selfishness…even though, as practiced by Christ, celibacy is an act of loving broadly.

    That is true.

    But there is another category they never recognize: unwillful celibates of anyone age 30 and older. I sure as heck did not want to be single and celibate this long.

    I had expected to marry. I have no idea why I’m still single. All the Mohler guys do is scream at the 20 year old men to hurry up and marry a 20 year old woman. There is no concern for anyone over 30 who is still single, and no hurrahs for us for remaining sexually pure.

  167. Sensible wrote:

    as practiced by Christ, celibacy is an act of loving broadly

    Although now I hear that, according to some in the neocal/comp camp, Christ did not eat with people who were not “convinced” of his teachings. Figures…

  168. Daisy wrote:

    All the Mohler guys do is scream at the 20 year old men to hurry up and marry a 20 year old woman. There is no concern for anyone over 30 who is still single, and no hurrahs for us for remaining sexually pure.

    That sucks. Enough said

  169. mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    I could say a lot more about this, but I am going to shut up now, because discussing the text of the Bible was one of the things that undid my faith.

    Don’t shut up! We all benefit from the open, sincere sharing of knowledge and viewpoints. 🙂

    Incidentally, studying text criticism (and source criticism, and form criticism…) raised a lot of questions and caused me a fair amount of anxiety due to the cognitive dissonance between legitimate scholarship and my uber-conservative upbringing.

    I have recently been reading John H. Walton’s new book “The Lost World of Scripture.” It’s amazing. I told my wife the other day, “It’s like I’ve finally met other Christians who have asked the same questions as me, but who actually have answers that are both intellectually AND spiritually satisfying.”

    I highly recommend the book. It could be a bit disturbing for Christians who have never studied these types of issues (i.e. it is answering questions that they’ve never asked, or even knew to ask). BUT, if you’ve been asking these questions, Walton and his co-author provide some very helpful answers.

  170. Sensible wrote:

    Although now I hear that, according to some in the neocal/comp camp, Christ did not eat with people who were not “convinced” of his teachings.

    Really?? I’ve never heard this argument before. Seems pretty silly. Do you have any links?

  171. Sensible wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    All the Mohler guys do is scream at the 20 year old men to hurry up and marry a 20 year old woman. There is no concern for anyone over 30 who is still single, and no hurrahs for us for remaining sexually pure.
    That sucks. Enough said

    Couldn’t have said it better myself….

  172. K.D. wrote:

    Sensible wrote: Daisy wrote: All the Mohler guys do is scream at the 20 year old men to hurry up and marry a 20 year old woman. There is no concern for anyone over 30 who is still single, and no hurrahs for us for remaining sexually pure. That sucks. Enough said Couldn’t have said it better myself….

    Check out Wade Burleson's new post. Nationally, divorce rate is decreasing but it's increasing in the SBC. He blames the ESS crowd and the male authoritarian rule BS for creating a recipe for marital destruction, not "the culture". I think he's definitely on to something.

    The Increasing Divorce Rate Among Southern Baptists

  173. A church I used to attend recently had a single woman missionary in the service. Because men are to be teaching when the church is gathered, the pastor taught from scripture for 20 minutes, then invited the missionary to “illustrate” for 20 minutes how that truth is worked out in her mission field. Amazing the semantic gymnastics church leaders can perform in order to avoid being taught by a woman.

  174. Nancy wrote:

    @ mot:

    The SBC has had a “functional belief” (I made that term up) that the Holy Trinity consists of the Father, the Son and the Bible. It was so in my childhood and youth and young adulthood and is still true to a large extent event though some of the terminology has minimally changed. This creates an environment of poor discernment abilities, mob thinking (what does the preacher say that I should believe about what the bible says about this or that) and in which people turn to the bible for detailed instructions about areas of life in which the bible is not designed to do that. In doing this they have betrayed God and betrayed the bible, IMO. So now they have problems? Cause and effect? You reap what you sow?

    Yes!! Bless you, you have put into words what I have been toiling over in my head, trying to think of how to express it without sounding like some wild-eyed & screaming uber-liberal.
    (See Zooey , at last, free to stop banging head against wall).

  175. dee wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    These days, I’m always a little wary of someone who says they have a “high view of scripture”

    Perhaps the view was concocted while on drugs? That would explain everything.

    ROTFL!!! Brilliant!!

  176. Daisy wrote:

    I think this may be the page where he talks about it:
    Single Pastors? by Mark Driscoll
    I just skimmed it over. I’m not sure if that is the page I have in mind that I read weeks ago.

    I skimmed it, and felt an, um, burning in the bosom to tell Pastor Mark to please kindly [censored] off. Then I saw he didn’t allow comments. LOL. 😀

  177. @ Nancy:
    nancy said “Scripture is grand and glorious and inspired, but people have always been able to formulate heresies and practice abuses while quoting scripture to do so. Complementarianism as preached by the current proponents has plowed the soil in which excesses and abuses have grown”

    I feel that the best safeguard against this is to judge mans interpretation of the written word by the character and word of Jesus Himself. might be simplistic but it works in my life. when I first heard at a church I was attending about “wife submission” “in everything!” I thought it was right first because they used so many scriptures. then I held it up to the Man Himself, it isn’t anything like what Jesus said or did or does. He esteemed the fallen woman in the story of dinner at the Pharisee simons house higher than simon who was His host. Jesus instructions to the women at the tomb to give instructions to the disciples and tell them to go and meet Him, totally overrules the concept that women cant teach men or give them instructions. I could go on with things like that that the Lord has shown me, but I think you get the idea. thank you so much for your post, it is a post I wish was the headline on the Christian news sites that are plastering complimentarianism again so much.

  178. Daisy wrote:

    The Bible is solid; I don’t have issues with its accuracy, from the manuscripts and so on, or the veracity / reliability of the historicity of it. Leaving the faith on that basis is weak.

    Wow. That comes across pretty harsh. From my own study, I have a pretty ‘un’-solid view of the availability of originals to reconstruct. The more I’ve studied this, the less solid it seems. And this is a subject that can cause a faith wobble or even crisis – especially in those raised in the conservative Christian subculture. The thing that causes my faith to remain is not that I believe the bible is ‘solid’ and accurate…it is in remembering that my faith is not (and should not be) in a book…..

  179. @ Seneca “j” Griggs:

    If you are under the Adamic curse, you should be plowing the soil, planting crops, etc. There is the STRONGEST BIBLICAL FOR THAT BEING A MAN’S PRIMARY BIBLICAL ROLE. More so that preaching, teaching or anything namby-pamby like that. Hard physical labor is Biblical for men. Nothing else comes close!

  180. Daisy wrote:

    I think John Piper said reading a book by a woman author about the Bible is acceptable for a man, but a man cannot sit in the same room as said woman as she reads aloud from her book, because something about her ‘female body’ or ‘femaleness’ (or however he put it) would be distracting to him.

    Wow, that sounds to me like a man (piper) saying he cant keep from lust if a woman is in the room and its her fault. this actually seems to be what driscoll teaches also, women in their place…the bedroom. they purport that women have no other purpose in life. it is unbelievable to me. the women I have met that are married to men in acts 29 churches seem to me like they are beaten down and very similar to domestic violence victims I have met. it is very sad. The women that the Lord used in the bible were not victims but full of faith and power and gentleness.

  181. Thank you for your blog. As a recent career-minded, single retiree who now has time to actually read a few blogs, I have been quite educated about a number of people and organizations in evangelicalism by yours, Deb and Dee! And I can honestly say I saw numerous “red flags” over many years about organizations and movements within evangelicalism–enough to stay away from most. You’ve confirmed I used good discernment. But, in addition to my study of Scriptures,reading books, and dialoguing with others’ viewpoints, one organization you just wrote about continues to be a vital resource to me–Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE). As I learn, grow, and understand who I am in Christ; as I grasp at what it means to build His Kingdom on earth; and as I previously navigated a busy career, soloed as a divorced parent(thankfully now with two beautiful adult daughters and grandparenthood), CBE continues as an affirming life-line. It is an organization with integrity, with scholarly resources, with people open to dialogue in love, with women and men with amazing stories of their own journey to Biblical egalitarianism, and with an outreach in the U.S. and internationally.I hope your readers will explore and be encouraged. And, although “endorsements” should not be anyone’s litmus test, I still enjoy reading these global leaders’ supportive words about CBE.

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/ On Menu bar, Click “About CBE” Click “Endorsers”

  182. An Attorney wrote:

    Hard physical labor is Biblical for men. Nothing else comes close!

    And that would include toiling the soil, physically sweating, eating plants it yields, and allowing it to grow thorns and thistles. No air-conditioning, desk jobs evidently. Right?

  183. Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:

    Satan is alive and well and as far as I know, 100 percent of us are born under the Adamic curse.

    Please read Genesis 3 again because only the serpent and the ground was cursed.

  184. The VOM information made me sick. Absolutely sick. I’ve been a supporter of theirs since I was a teenager, and have sent money, raised money, donated time, done their little “ship bibles to China” thingy, and really believed in their mission. Thank you, TWW, for writing this up.

  185. Another reason why Complementarianism is dying is because people are starting to see that a: it doesn't WORK, and b: if it were designed by God, it would.

    If Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever…if there truly is no male or female, and all are one in Christ Jesus….if the gifts and callings of God truly are irrevocable…then why do women SUDDENLY lose their voices and choices when they get married and become mothers in the evangelical [complementarian] church? Why does God SUDDENLY require certain works to be a follower of His, just because you're married/have children? When did holiness become gendered? When did godliness become so legalistic?

    I'm in my mid-thirties, and I think our generation is waking the heck up to the double-standards here.

  186. Daisy wrote:

    The Bible as it is today is trustworthy. There are many manuscripts of it – the original readings can be reconstructed.

    I flatly disagree on original readings being reconstructed. That does not take into consideration the process of editing that took place in both Old Testament and New Testament books. And it’s not just me saying this. However, since this is not my place, that’s all I’m going to say on the subject.

  187. Sensible wrote:

    @ Mr.H:

    Check out the debate going on here:

    http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/03/20/setting-record-straight-jesus-friend-sinners/?utm_content=bufferc1b9d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    Wow, just wow. If one was trying to present Jesus in the most flattering light to “the authorities” (as it were), you’d put him forward as a guy who would only eat with the upright. But instead, Jesus is depicted as having interactions with notorious sinners–and having pointed discussions with the Pharisees about said interactions.

    I guess the Jesus of the Gospel Coalition never talked directly to a woman who had five husbands and was living with a man not her husband, or had his feet anointed by a prostitute or had a feast with a tax collector and his disreputable friends. 0_o That’s the ONE thing about Jesus that makes him attractive to a schlub like me–that he’d be friends with a schlub like me. The Gospel Coalition writers put Jesus out of my reach. 🙁

  188. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    Wow. That comes across pretty harsh. From my own study, I have a pretty ‘un’-solid view of the availability of originals to reconstruct. The more I’ve studied this, the less solid it seems. And this is a subject that can cause a faith wobble or even crisis – especially in those raised in the conservative Christian subculture. The thing that causes my faith to remain is not that I believe the bible is ‘solid’ and accurate…it is in remembering that my faith is not (and should not be) in a book…..

    Thank you. I suspect we’re not at the same place, but I appreciate someone else speaking up.

  189. Daisy wrote:

    The Bible is solid; I don’t have issues with its accuracy, from the manuscripts and so on, or the veracity / reliability of the historicity of it. Leaving the faith on that basis is weak.

    Daisy – did you mean for this to sound so harsh? That really sounded like a smack down. It’s an area I haven’t looked at for a while, but can understand people having questions, as I can in any area. What’s simple & obvious to us is not always so to others.

  190. THE ADAMIC CURSE:
    *
    I COR 15: 21,22 – 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
    22FOR AS IN ADAM ALL DIE, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

  191. rebeccalynn wrote:

    We had a wonderful pastor who had his doctorate and what he taught all of us was this. Women can and would excel in any spiritual role given them by God. He had no doubt they would make great pastors, teachers, etc. He had every doubt however that men would willingly submit to their leadership. He supposed that was truly the problem if any with women stepping outside the roles prescribed by others(men) in church. My husband believes that to this day. He believes that if men could get over themselves long enough to see the work of God through women pastors, they would have a spiritual aha moment and the face of our faith would see radical change. His words not mine. I thank God for that pastor who had the courage to underline an issue that honestly put him at odds with the very convention he embraced. He was a wise man. That teaching living in my husbands heart has given me the courage to be who I really am.

    My father felt the same way about women in the church and in the workplace. I am so grateful. My mother and I were both given incredible gifts by God and we both went very far in our careers, thanks in part to his support.

  192. Deb wrote:

    CBMW’s revenue dropped $35,000 from 2011 to 2012, and CBE’s revenue increased by $110,000 during the same period.

    Thanks for the financial comparison between CBMW and CBE. I think a donation may be headed toward the latter!

  193. Do men realize we perhaps don’t want to see their bodies either or their weird ties or ugly shirts? Put on a robe!@ dee:

  194. Sencea, I noticed that until recently you had a blog (albeit without content). Why don’t you thoroughly articulate your viewpoint on a matter on your site, then invite feedback? It would seem to be a lot more effective than trying to shoehorn in continuous dissenting opinions elsewhere.

  195. Taylor Joy wrote:

    Another reason why Complementarianism is dying is because people are starting to see that a: it doesn't WORK, and b: if it were designed by God, it would.

    Excellent point! Thanks for this wonderful insight.

  196. @ Hannah:

    About what you said about the south and about the possible future of comp thinking:

    Part 1

    That is an interesting comparison. I think I have seen this up close. I moved from an urban border location (Louisville) to a small town in a rural county in NC when I was in my mid thirties–old enough to have seen the world of men adequately to have an opinion. There is a marked and discernible difference in the relationship between men and women in people who come from generational old south stock, in my non-scientific observation. Some have said that the plantation system (of Hollywood fame) was set up on the English manor system and that there were those who were (actually were) lords of the manor. That lord of the manor attitude is still floating around. That is similar to your quote. I think the women keep it alive as much as the men do, because there are so many advantages to being lady of the manor through marriage to the great one.

    Now may I say, this does not make “where I came from” any better. There are bullies and @#$%^ everywhere that I have been. But there is a clearly noticeable difference in gender relationships “here” as compared to “there.” And actual “yankees” are different yet. And my mom was from Texas which seems to be yet another thing. I wonder if some of this SBC love affair with patriarchy does not stem from the “S.” (Russ Moore is from Mississippi I think.) It would be interesting to see if some of this is linked to old-south nostalgia type thinking.

    Now let me just say that I think there is potentially real danger in what I am talking about here. There is a difference between red necks and lords of the manor. Redneck bullies may be loners or may run in small packs (when they get sober) but there is no cultural ideal of “we redneck bullies will rise again and redesign society like it was in the old days.” I have never heard “rednecks of the south unite.” But the lords of the manor frequently have money and position and the power to hire and fire and influence and certainly seem to think that society can be reorganized so that they will again be recognized for the superior beings that the are (or were in the old days.) And they are never black or Jewish or catholic. Occasionally one may be a widow who inherited the business. And they clearly know who is “us” and who is “them.” There are black and Jewish and catholic people of money and power here–just not of this brand of folks I am talking about.

    (continued)

  197. @ Hannah:

    About what you said and about the possible future of comp thinking:

    Part 2

    I got threatened by one of the LOM wannabes once, purporting to “protect” me from Klan violence, when I rented a house to a black couple. That was close enough to convince me that some of my observations of this culture were accurate. But now I live in a city, still in NC, and there are lots of people here from everywhere and here is much more ideologically like me. FYI: I loved Kentucky and I love NC. But loving something does not change its realities. The old south will not “rise again.” The new south is about education and research (here in NC) and agriculture (there is quite a developing wine industry here) and serious commitment to making local government function. And we have lots of people from all over, and that is seriously good. And there is money to be made in the newer ways of doing things. IMO, as money and power continue to shift there will be a desperate clinging to what is left of the old ways by those who are not able to be part of the new money. If “my grand-daddy had 200 acres of tobacco” is all one has left, as one sits in some cubbie somewhere, then one will cling to memory of grand-daddy tenaciously. Maybe that is part of what fuels this in the SBC. Maybe it thrives with increasingly dis-empowered people who cling to what they had even if it is untenable and unworkable.

    And, yes, there is no reason to believe that just because somebody is active in the church that person has any real commitment to Jesus or any actual “born of the spirit” reality that Jesus talked about. The way is narrow and there are few who find it. Dear goodness, I sure hope I have misunderstood that.

  198. rebeccalynn wrote:

    That teaching living in my husbands heart has given me the courage to be who I really am. I know that he sees me as his equal in the important things. C

    He sounds like a wonderful man.

  199. rebeccalynn wrote:
    That teaching living in my husbands heart has given me the courage to be who I really am. I know that he sees me as his equal in the important things.

    dee wrote:

    He sounds like a wonderful man.

    We do exist!

  200. Taylor Joy wrote:

    The VOM information made me sick. Absolutely sick. I’ve been a supporter of theirs since I was a teenager, and have sent money, raised money, donated time, done their little “ship bibles to China” thingy, and really believed in their mission. Thank you, TWW, for writing this up.

    For those looking for grass roots ways to get Bibles into the hands of our brothers and sisters in difficult places, may I recommend this guy.
    I know him. And as far as I can tell, he is a man of integrity.

    http://www.lovepackages.org/

    Just an FYI for those interested.

  201. @ Nancy:

    On the “lord of the manor” thing: here’s one for you.

    The modern english word “lord” actually comes from the old english word “lafwurd” which means “the keeper of the bread” (think “loaf” and “ward”). In other words, the person on whom everyone else depends for their very food.

    Yet another reason why there is only room for One of them in the church.

  202. sam wrote:

    when I first heard at a church I was attending about “wife submission” “in everything!” I thought it was right first because they used so many scriptures. then I held it up to the Man Himself, it isn’t anything like what Jesus said or did or does.

    Great comment.

  203. Godith wrote:

    Do men realize we perhaps don’t want to see their bodies either or their weird ties or ugly shirts? Put on a robe!

    Too funny!!

  204. Janet Varin wrote:

    Sencea, I noticed that until recently you had a blog (albeit without content). Why don’t you thoroughly articulate your viewpoint on a matter on your site, then invite feedback? It would seem to be a lot more effective than trying to shoehorn in continuous dissenting opinions elsewhere.

    I think it is because he secretly agrees with us and is hanging onto the vestiges of his ways for dear life.

  205. Godith wrote:

    Do men realize we perhaps don’t want to see their bodies either or their weird ties or ugly shirts? Put on a robe!@ dee:

    There’s a reason my avatar/selfie is only a mugshot.

  206. dee wrote:

    Janet Varin wrote:
    Sencea, I noticed that until recently you had a blog (albeit without content). Why don’t you thoroughly articulate your viewpoint on a matter on your site, then invite feedback? It would seem to be a lot more effective than trying to shoehorn in continuous dissenting opinions elsewhere.
    I think it is because he secretly agrees with us and is hanging onto the vestiges of his ways for dear life.

    The blog gives you the opportunity to interact should you choose.

  207. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    We do exist!

    I know you do.

    It aggravates me that comps judge me as hating men.

    I don’t. I actually like men and sometimes prefer their company. But even that is judged because what woman would prefer the company of men but one a whore or one that is trying to steal another woman’s husband.

    This judgment by the comps of me as a man-hater really stinks. There is true beauty* in men who are sold out to Jesus (rather than sold out to Driscoll’s he-man, woman hater’s club).

    [er.. i mean rugged handsomeness. :/)

  208. dee wrote:

    To Our Readers:
    Incredible Happenings Surrounding Mars Hill. We will write more tomorrow. For now, Rob Smith-a former elder, has started a Facebook page to exonerate Bent Meyer and Paul Petry while a long time member is telling people to evacuate Mars Hill
    See this post by Warren Throckmorton
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/03/20/more-mars-hill-church-grievances-former-member-calls-for-evacuation/

    The latest fiscal  report is out: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/03/21/former-mars-hill-pastor-dave-kraft-explains-charges-against-mark-driscoll/
    One minor point — according to the Petry’s, Rob Smith was a deacon, not an elder.  In many churches, this would be of little importance– but at Mars Hill, Elder = Employed by Fiscal and Deacon = Volulunteer.
    Links at WTH– especially notice the last one in Wenatchee the Hatchet’s comment. This shows that Smith was one of the unauthorized folks Petry got in trouble for consulting. He also protested to the elders over the lack of a fair trial for Petry and Meyer. Kraft was on the wrong side. Off to check out whether he’s apologized.
    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2013/11/something-new-in-timeline-at-joyful.html

  209. sam wrote:

    Wow, that sounds to me like a man (piper) saying he cant keep from lust if a woman is in the room and its her fault. this actually seems to be what driscoll teaches also, women in their place…the bedroom. they purport that women have no other purpose in life.

    Mullah Omar would agree.

  210. So, we can assume from their belief system and cherry-picked scriptures that a man is never taller than when standing on his wife?

    I’ll take my freedom in Christ and leave them to squabble amongst themselves, tyvm.

  211. @ Dave A A:
    I know Rob Smith. He is a man of integrity and is really smart. Driscoll seemed to have an ability to miff off some really fine people.

  212. @ dee:
    I hadn’t noticed earlier– Smith was placed under so-called “church discipline” by the so-called “elders” for having the nerve to beg them privately for a fair trial for Petry/Meyer. Because———-Divisive!

  213. “CBMW: A Brave New Movement”?

    What CBMW markets is not “new”. As so many here have astutely noted (and I agree), it’s simply male chauvinism and entitlement. That’s been around for ages, just not always dressed up in Christianese words and memes.

    And how can it be “brave”, if all they’re doing is taking the worst parts of the culture of male privilege, and making them sound all gospelly? What’s so brave about wanting to retreat to “the good old days” (which weren’t equally good for everyone)?

    Oh, well. 1 out of 3 ain’t bad, I guess. 😉

  214. Serving Kids in Japan wrote:

    What’s so brave about wanting to retreat to “the good old days” (which weren’t equally good for everyone)?

    If you’re the one who personally benefited in the Good Old Days…

  215. sam wrote:

    this actually seems to be what driscoll teaches also, women in their place…the bedroom. they purport that women have no other purpose in life.

    Also a core trope of PORN.

  216. Daisy wrote:

    But there is another category they never recognize: unwillful celibates of anyone age 30 and older. I sure as heck did not want to be single and celibate this long.

    Me neither.

    I had expected to marry. I have no idea why I’m still single. All the Mohler guys do is scream at the 20 year old men to hurry up and marry a 20 year old woman.

    …and start Outbreeding those Heathens.

  217. Great post Deb. So happy you’re emphasizing this! Complementarians have had their hayday but the tide is turning, praise the Lord!

    I’m sure I speak for others when I say I wish I had never gotten sucked into the trap of complementarian teaching because it’s damaging. I bought into it because of how it was advertised: It’s God’s order and therefore my life and marriage would be blessed if I conformed myself to the role requirements of my gender. At the time the first seeds were planted as a new believer attending a Bill Gothard Seminar, to the books I read and the churches/fellowship groups I got involved in that supported complementarianism, I never learned to question what I was being taught because I hadn’t been exposed to any alternative and never heard the word ‘egalitarian’. I had enough knowledge of the bible to feel a constant tension and to recognize that some things didn’t line up, but my decision to get married and stay at home full time raising them and even home-schooling them until the 3rd or 4th grades, made me the perfect target for complementarian indoctrination.

    I thank God for all the men and women who for years have labored to get books books and articles published refuting complementarianism and providing a solid biblical basis for egalitarianism. Often working in obscurity, they knew the damage that was being done to the church, and to women who were being marginalized unjustly. I’m grateful that many of them remained true and steadfast despite heavy discouragement and not seeing the fruits of their labors realized, while seeing complementarianism take center stage and churches all across the country signing on to teach its precepts. I wish I had known years ago, for example, of Catherine Clark Kroeger who you mentioned in the article, and who died 3 years ago. Her legacy will live on and I’m sure she would be encouraged by the momentum egalitarianism is gaining and the way that complementarianism is being exposed and routed. Her work along with many others provide a biblical foundation we can stand strong on in the fight against the pernicious influence of complementarian teachings that have filled the church with all kinds of thistles and weeds.

    I’m also glad that you and Dee have allowed for a discussion of complementarianism vs egalitarianism here at TWW. I can’t help but think a site like sgmsurvivors.com has lost its effectiveness in large part due to the moderators and their belief in the ESS and complementarianism. A terrible shame really, since within SGM complementarianism was a center component of their flawed gospel and false teachings. Central, not secondary. All the Mahaney’s are card carrying CBMW Members. No wonder they moved to Louisville!

    Thanks again! You’re such an encouragement! Reading your post made me throw a few more handfuls of lifeless body of complementarianism. Soon as the daisies bloom (on offense Daisy 😉 ) I’m going to stick a few on the grave just to be nice.

    His truth is marching on!

  218. @ mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort:
    Mirele – you’re welcome. From my point of view, there is no clear proof of original docs to support that the bible is ‘solid and accurate.’ It doesn’t matter that we may not be in the same place. 🙂
    I felt the ‘weak’ accusation was over the top. This was (and still is, some) an issue I have wrestled within it is not weak to doubt that claims of men concerning this book….IMO. 😉

  219. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    …and start Outbreeding those Heathens

    Ah, the fertility gospel as its finest…well at least something is getting through to the TGC crowd; they are filling their article feed with all the “relevant” titles: “Can Christian Theology Save the Family”…”God’s Scissors and the Cloth of [*cough* Complementarity *cough*] Creation”…”The New Calvinism: a Triumph of the Old”…”How a too-friendly Jesus can lead to Universalism”…and my personal favorite: “The Distrustful Generation.”

  220. mot wrote:

    @ Janet Varin:
    Sadly IMO he needs and loves attention and just TROLLS.

    He has a ‘secret’ crush on all the usurping women on this site & just can’t resist winding us up every now & then. Truth.

  221. Wartburg Watch and Spiritual Sounding Board are mentioned here in this article by Bob Allen of Associated Baptist Press regarding the mysterious and “providentially” (thanks, Dee) vanishing CBMW article: http://t.co/L4zx3AqA5H

    Poor Owen. He seems so perplexed.

  222. I wonder if Mark Driscoll will show up at the CBMW conference like he did at Strangefire?

    Doubtful. Why? You could hardly call this a conference. I mean, ok so they’re meeting in a Conference Room from 8:30am – 12:00noon. And they’re having 9 guys speak for 20 minutes each EXCEPT for the women. They’re giving 30 minutes to a panel of 5 women (moderated by 1 other woman), which means each of them will have 6 minutes to share their 2 cents. How fitting. Let’s hope the room clears of all the men during that time. Wouldn’t want to see any men sitting under the teachings of a woman. Heaven forbid. No, it’s good the women’s time is so short so they can get back to serving coffee or leave in time to prepare dinner.

    They’re also advertising that $80 – $100 worth of new books and materials will be given to each registrant who pays the $30 to attend. I’m guessing the young people will be heavily targeted at the 5 different Baptist seminaries that are sponsoring this little get-together, along with the 9 other businesses/ministries that are also sponsoring the event.

    But my-oh-my what a nice location: The Ballroom in the Galt House Hotel. Those guys are all so good at setting up these conferences and packaging their brands, arent they? Because bottom line, this is all about marketing. They want and need money and apparently couldn’t afford a larger, longer conference. Plus, their target audience is probably growing weary of all their blasted conferences. What good do they do? It’s not like they’re going to deal with any controversy except to allude to how their brand of Christianity is under attack. And what will Kevin DeYoung be speaking about? “The Beauty of Differences–In Heaven and on Earth”. What?!

    It looks to me like the CBMW is preparing for a complementarian marriage between themselves (CBMW as male leader) and the LDS (as the female who needs to be subordinated), by wooing her with bible teachings such as DeYoung’s and possibly pursuing her in a war-like posture in an effort to get regular access to her chest of drawers. It may be an odd marriage, being that the two don’t share the same essential essence. LDS is certainly prone to sin and deception like any silly woman. Obviously she is simply in need of a strong man to lead, teach, disciple, and train her. But she seems compliant and willing and who knows? There may be the possibility in the future of additional marriages to more wives, which would be exciting. That certainly would relieve a lot of the tension those men have built up inside themselves, being as keen as they are to relive the days when Old Covenant Patriarchy was the rule(s) of the day!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-dITsuj4Dg

  223. dee wrote:

    Wesley

    Of course, I forgot about the exception that women can teach men as long as the men can’t see their bodies. 😉

  224. Off topic followup:

    We have a baaaabeeeee! 7 pounds 5 ounces. And she looks exactly like a newborn. Imagine that.

  225. @ Paula:

    And they’re having 9 guys speak for 20 minutes each EXCEPT for the women. They’re giving 30 minutes to a panel of 5 women (moderated by 1 other woman), which means each of them will have 6 minutes to share their 2 cents.

    I must say I’m a little miffed that I wasn’t invited to participate in the women’s panel discussion. Nor was my husband invited to speak. We’re living right there in Louisville where the CBMW Conference is going to be!

    After all we’ve done for the CBMW over the years; my husband has even served on the Board of Directors!

    I can understand why they’re not inviting Ceige at this time, but why me? Of all people, the CBMW should accept my excuse that even if I knew what was going on in SGM all those years, since I exist in a separate female sphere, none of it was my business anyway. So, why leave ME out?

    At the very least they could have invited my daughter Nicole Greenacres to be on the panel. They know she also lives in Louisville. Her name along with mine is on the cover of “True Beauty”. Also, she has contributed articles to the CBMW. I know she is more committed to the principles of complementarianism than all five of those women on the conference panel combined!

    I really thought life in Louisville would be different than this. To be ignored like this in our own back yard makes us feel slighted. I expected more of our CBMW friends and colleages. At least they’ll be offering “True Beauty” as part of the free book give-away to the conference attendees. Maybe Nicole and I might show-up to sign a few copies but I doubt it. I’m beginning to suspect the whole reason we moved to Louisville anyway was to feed my husband’s March Madness addiction. *Sigh*

    Serving the Savior from the Basement to the Attic,

    Carolyn Mahommey @badgirltalk

  226. Thinking about my blog; It really is the ultimate male minimalist blog with a sole purpose. I’m a guy who writes terse, succinct comments, has short phone conversations, in other words, very male of a type.
    *
    senecagriggs.weebly.com
    *
    Your quintessential blog “man cave.” If only it had ESPN, I’d be happy as “a dead pig in the the sunshine.”

  227. @ Julie Anne:
    And Julie Ann-just think it took some women to perplex him. He and these other men folks just can not stand to be questioned–but by women–oh my!

  228. Paula wrote:

    It looks to me like the CBMW is preparing for a complementarian marriage between themselves (CBMW as male leader) and the LDS (as the female who needs to be subordinated), by wooing her with bible teachings such as DeYoung’s and possibly pursuing her in a war-like posture in an effort to get regular access to her chest of drawers.

    Isn’t the LDS bigger and better-financed than the CBMW?

    This is like a five-foot-nothing little guy going “WOMAN, SUBMIT!” to a six-foot-one female pro wrestler whose older and more experienced in every way.

  229. Paula wrote:

    They’re also advertising that $80 – $100 worth of new books and materials will be given to each registrant who pays the $30 to attend.

    Gotta move the inventory left over from those Best-Seller List bulk buys?

  230. Julie Anne wrote:

    Wartburg Watch and Spiritual Sounding Board are mentioned here in this article by Bob Allen of Associated Baptist Press regarding the mysterious and “providentially” (thanks, Dee) vanishing CBMW article: http://t.co/L4zx3AqA5H

    Poor Owen. He seems so perplexed.

    “Owen Strachan, executive director of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said in a Patheos blog March 20 that he doesn’t know what happened to the recent re-posting of an article that originally appeared in the Journal on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood in 2006.”

    Plausible Deniability?

    “I KNOW NOTHINK! NOTHINK!”
    — Sgt Schultz

  231. Paula wrote:

    I thank God for all the men and women who for years have labored to get books books and articles published refuting complementarianism and providing a solid biblical basis for egalitarianism.

    Paula, “Complementarianism” and “Egalitarianism” both have that long glaze-the-eyes-over many-syllabled rhythm of something out of Marxspeak. We need simpler words, more easily understandable. I’ve used “Male Supremacy” for “Complementarianism”; can anyone do a similar easily-understandable plaintext for “Egalitarianism”.

  232. Fantastic post! There are now so many voices, who along with CBE, are boldly proclaiming that God does not show favoritism.

  233. @ Patti:
    There is nothing more annoying than complementarianism being transported into countries that already have too much sexism.

    This is where we see why women’s lib has improved our lives immeasurably. The Comp view in a developing nation results in: too young marriages + too many kids + a very weak economy + many injuries on the job/lay offs + no social safety net = many desperately poor families.

    Most women I knew in India (who were quite poor) would do anything to have had a chance at post-secondary education, delayed marriage, and a good job. Instead, Christians from the west, riding in on their white horses of “knowing God” are destroying these women’s chances (and their kid’s chances) of having what we take for granted. They assume that that is how it is done in the West, so that is how they should live to get there, instead, we offer them entrenched poverty and dependance on our charity – sometimes I think that is actually what the church planters want, to feel important and imperialist.

    All comps should be banned from any mission trips ever, they just mess up an already precarious situation.

  234. What does the future hold for complementarianism? Is it truly God’s design?

    So goes this thread’s intro on the TWW home page. It’s hard to prognosticate on stuff like this. Even Yoda said that the future is always in motion and hard to see. But if I were Ace Rothstein (a Jew bookie back in the old days who was a genius at navigating the treacherous straits between the cops and Dago mob bosses), I’d say that CBMW will start singing their swan song when revenues can no longer sustain them, kinda’ like a casino that nobody goes to anymore.

    Is what the good fellas at CBMW sell truly God’s design? Some say yes and more say no. I think Marcus Aurelias (AD 121-180) said it best with regard to religion in general:

    “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not
    care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

  235. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Isn’t the LDS bigger and better-financed than the CBMW?

    Yes, and of course that’s why the CBMW is so attracted to her assets.

    But as in any true complementarian marriage which of course the CBMW promotes, the two joining themselves together are essentially different anyway, and regardless of her advantages, she must still be regarded as the follower. So, it makes perfect sense to me that the men of the CBMW would pursue the LDS because at the end of the day, what does oneness and unity have to do with complementarian marriage anyway? It’s all about getting her to agree with him.

    And I’m sure Al Mohler happily voted for Mitt Romney. What’s Mormonism got to do with it when you agree on the greater essentials, like your view of women?

  236. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Complementarianism” and “Egalitarianism” both have that long glaze-the-eyes-over many-syllabled rhythm of something out of Marxspeak. We need simpler words, more easily understandable. I’ve used “Male Supremacy” for “Complementarianism”; can anyone do a similar easily-understandable plaintext for “Egalitarianism”.

    I know right??

    I prefer hierarchy vs non-hierarchy.

    Until we all come together I’m afraid the terminology that’s been established in defining the debate will continue to be used, but the words are laborious aren’t they?

    Id like to see the word complementarianism fall out of common usage in the same manner in which segregationalists did, and the sooner the better!

  237. @ Paula:

    I bet you are right. But down the road comes the issue of polygamy. Not too long ago I read in the news that Utah has quit prosecuting polygamy. Not sure if it is true, but that is a lot further step in that direction than just separating from the fundamentalist LDS. And the LDS does favor lots of kids, to make physical bodies for little pre-existing spirit babies, I think they say. And the LDS church has lots of money and business interests. Lots. And remember a few years back when they uncovered some really bad stuff in their midst, cleaned it up and openly repented. They are better at public repentance and clean up that the evangi-cals. And there is the genealogy thing, and the prep and survival thing. And in my experience they work hard and are good to know on the job.

    What I am saying is that they have a lot to recommend them–more than the evangi-cals in a number of areas—if you don’t care about the details of their religious beliefs. But then there is polygamy. But since in this nation the evangi-cals have already tolerated (sanctioned by silence) serial marriages by divorce and re-marriage (just so nobody is unmarried whatever it takes) I think they would have weak arguments against polygamy, at best, seeing that in the NT there is no absolute prohibition against it except for some leadership.

    Question: Have the evangi-cals thought this through and are they proceeding along the current path deliberately? Or do the have their head so far (prepositional phrase omitted) that they are rushing blindly in any available direction out of dire necessity to survive?

  238. Lee wrote:

    A church I used to attend recently had a single woman missionary in the service. Because men are to be teaching when the church is gathered, the pastor taught from scripture for 20 minutes, then invited the missionary to “illustrate” for 20 minutes how that truth is worked out in her mission field. Amazing the semantic gymnastics church leaders can perform in order to avoid being taught by a woman.

    Perfect example. Yet there she was, working as a missionary – preaching, teaching and leading others to a knowledge of Christ.

    Um, I mean “inspiring”, “helping” and “demonstrating”. 😐

  239. @ Nancy:
    I’m being facetious about the CBMW literally pursuing a Comp marriage with the LDS. But with the CBMW’s adoption of the ESS making the Jesus of the NT into a different Jesus, it can’t be that offensive to the CBMW folks have done the same now can it? Birds of a feather…

    I’m divorced, btw. I noticed a recent comment about Wade Burleson having done a study about the rise in divorce among Baptists and the link to complementarianism. I’m not a Baptist, but it was certainly a big factor in my divorce.

  240. @ Nancy:

    I think Polygamy is abhorrent of course. After the Fall it took only 7generations for it to become established practice. Once women began to be “ruled over” as a consequence of sin, it wasn’t long til they were viewed as objects to possess and collect. The more money, the more wives. Hello Solomon?

    But I’m also a fan of State’s rights.

    The problem with Polygamy is that it violates a woman’s individuality, and thus her individual rights. So, I don’t see how that can be protected anywhere in the this country under our Constitution.

  241. My spouse and I recently celebrated the 35th anniversary of our wedding. Our grandson was in town with his parents, and we let our SIL drive the 2ish hours to the airport while Grandmere and Grandpa rode in the back with our almost 2.5 yo grandson, and had a ball. After we dropped them off, we went to a really fancy Cajun seafood place and had a great dinner (at lunchtime) with fantastic desserts. Then spent 4 hours driving on back roads, got lost a time or two, and finally got home in time to watch the sunset.

    Thursday, while I had to work, she tore out the old concrete steps that had gone bad, extending her plaster and plasterboard demolition skills to concrete. The lady knows how to swing an 8 lb sledge hammer and use a pick. With help from a couple of friends, we formed the steps and poured them on Friday, and helped our neighbor pour his new sidewalk to his house. Several neighbors chipped in with labor during the pours and finishing.

    It has been a week of celebration of our marriage, our grandchild (we have two more on the way, May and August), and our willing to help neighbors, some of whom we treated to our gourmet pizza — frozen self-rising four cheese pizza with additions including stir-fried sausage, mushrooms, capers, onions, garlic, more Italian cheese mix and Feta cooked til brown.

  242. BTW, we have an egalitarian marriage and have since day one — actually since we started dating (lasted less than two weeks before she proposed). Equal does not mean feminist, just equal!!! But to get there over the objections of masculinists, some feminist activism is necessary!

  243. @ An Attorney:
    Congrats on 35 years together, and going strong! Or at least your wife is strong enough to weild a sledge hammer haha jk. And with all those pizza details, I’m guessing you’re the pie man? Capers on pizza.. sounds yummy!

  244. An Attorney wrote:

    frozen self-rising four cheese pizza with additions including stir-fried sausage, mushrooms, capers, onions, garlic, more Italian cheese mix and Feta cooked til brown.

    Oh my! You made my mouth water! Sounds yummy!

    Congratulations on your 35-yr. anniversary!

  245. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Seneca, attendance at all mainstream Christian Churches has gone down because people don’t feel the need to attend Church to be Spiritual, in my view. Evangelical Churches have grown rapidly due only to the facts that they encourage people to have large families and are obsessed with planting new Churches rather than taking the time to develop strong Churches, in my opinion.

    As we see from the Driscoll and SGM cases, not bothering to have educated clergy has its downsides respecting managing money well. Most seminaries teach people how to read a balance sheet and perform other practical tasks associated with running a non-profit corporation. To my knowledge, by contrast, Joshua Harris doesn’t even have a high school diploma yet is attempting to run a huge business entity with a lot of problems.

    Someone told me that in a recent sermon he lamented that the Bible doesn’t say anything about how to run a large Church and that’s hurting his supposed attempts to reform CLC.

    Episcopalian Rectors have to go to college and seminary + serve as a deacon before they’re even considered for a Pastor’s role so they’ve probably thought through the implications of running a professional organization prior to trying to do so.

    I think that the Episcopal Church’s biggest problem was wanting to remain an enclave for rich white people instead of reaching out to people in all communities. Yet that’s changing and as a result some Episcopal Dioceses are doing better than others. For example, the Bishop of the Washington D.C. diocese learned to speak Spanish, in Minnesota, and brought 30,000 Latino people into the Episcopal Church.

    By contrast, the SBC seems to prefer to keep its Churches full of Southerners in the U.S. and only seriously reaches out to the broader world by planting Churches overseas. SBC folks don’t really want to interact with people from different ethnic backgrounds and that’s not good for growth because old Southerners are not going to be movers and shakers in the future.

    As for the treatment of women, I did some research into the Episcopal Church’s policies about preventing child abuse and discovered something interesting.

    Arguably, 40 years ago the Episcopal Church didn’t care about the abuse of women and children any more than the SBC does now.

    Now it has elaborate policies and training programs that people who work with kids must abide by/attend.

    So what changed?

    Women came into leadership roles in the Episcopal Church and fought hard for reform respecting the treatment of abused women and children about 40 years ago. This was not an organic process whereby abuse was handled differently jut because more women were in leadership positions. Episcopal women Deacons and Rectors went to bat with their male counter-parts to bring about change.

    So now the Episcopal Church has serious child abuse policies in place. Does abuse happen at Episcopal Churches? Of course. Does the Episcopal Church suffer from a huge conspiracy to shove abuse under the table because it discourages people from talking to real therapists and adhering to the law?

    No.

    There’s much evidence that it isn’t going to be wiped out by a horrific child abuse scandal due in large part to the fact that it has had women in leadership roles for decades.

    So now you could argue that both groups are struggling yet I doubt that will be the case 10 years from now.

    I doubt the male-dominated insular SBC will survive the coming abuse scandal. If it does, it will be a pale shadow of its former self.

    If the Episcopal Church is still around, as it arguably has beem, in some capacity, since Henry the 8th, it will be because it had more progressive ideas about having women in Ministry, in my view.

    We’ll see!

  246. Dee and Deb

    You mention – “Christians for Biblical Equality.”
    I thought CBE was for Equality until they refused to post some of my comments. Plural 😉
    Seems my opinions are NOT quite equal with their opinions. LOL

    All I did was challenge a few of their Non-Biblical “Traditions of Men”
    that Make Void the Word of God. Mk 7:13.
    Can you “Guess Which Traditions” I’m referring to? 😉

    And they did NOT approve, post, the comment.
    When I asked why CBE did NOT post it I received, errr, a nice reply.

    CBE – “decided that it did NOT “really” contribute to the poster’s intention
    or add meaningful comment to the discussion at hand.”

    Even after seeing, admitting, what was said was “TRUE.”
    “While what you have to say is *no doubt true* in an ideal world…”

    Go figure – Refusing to post something that is TRUE.
    Sounds like CBE is desiring “Equality for Women” to have – Power, Profit, Prestige,
    to regulate thought and words that dis-agree with them and their agenda.

    Sound familiar? 🙂

    “Equality for Women” to be – pastor/leader/reverends – able to control and manipulate.
    Just like today’s male – pastor/leader/reverends – Who want to “Run the Show” their way.
    Seems CBE is desiring Equality with YRR, Calvinistas, who regulate thought and words.

    We continued with private e-mails, 15 over a 4 -5 week period…
    But they refused to talk on their web-site where other folks could see, and debate.

    Here ‘s the explanation when I first asked why the comments, plural, did NOT post.

    “and decide whether to approve it or not. *We decided that it did not* really contribute to the poster’s intention or add meaningful comment to the discussion at hand. **While what you have to say is no doubt true in an ideal world** the fact is that we do have the organised church and it will be with us until Christ returns. This is the reality within which we operate and on which the topic is therefore addressed. As we have mentioned previously, these are doctrinal issues on which we would welcome you to correspond with us personally but they are inappropriate on the Scroll blogsite itself as our viewing audience covers a wide range of church government backgrounds.”

    Seems, CBE has achieved Equality with CBMW,
    And delete, ban, commenters who dis-agree, have a different opinion of scripture. 😉
    Even after admitting what was written is TRUTH…

    When you believe the lie you start to die…

  247. Dee and Deb

    What CBE’s title does NOT say is – “Christians for Biblical Equality for ALL Christians.”

    CBE is interested in women being able to be “Pastor/Leaders/Reverends” in “Todays Abusive Religious System.” And being considered “Equal” with men “Pastor/Leaders/Reverends.”

    BUT – Now, when a sheep, male or female, becomes a shepherd – We are NO longer equal. They are a shepherd and I‘m still a sheeple. We are NO longer equal. They become a “Leader” and I’m still a follower – We are NO longer equal. They become the “Teacher” and I’m the student – We are NO longer equal.

    To me, CBE is similar to CBMW. And both are similar to the head Pig, Napoleon, in “Animal Farm,” who wanted the authority and control over others, who wanted the – Power – Profit – Prestige – who said…

    “All animals are Equal, but some animals are more Equal than others.”

    CBE now divides WE, His Sheep, His Disciples, by gifts and talent.
    CBMW divides WE, His Sheep, His Disciples, by gifts, talent, and”Gender.”

    BUT – Still – NO equality for ALL
    Some are still more Equal, more important, then others. – Still “us” and “them.”

    BUT – In the Bible, I see – we’re ALL brethren, ALL “ONE” in Christ, and “ONE” body. And when we come together ALL can teach, ALL can get revelation from Jesus. And Jesus is the “ONE” leader. And Jesus is the “ONE” shepherd.

    I like Jesus – A Lot. 😉

    Oh yea – and CBE, are like TGC, and the CBMW I’ve debated.

    When they, those with the Power, Profit, Prestige, do NOT like the questions asked…
    When they, do NOT like to answer the simple questions asked…

    They ban you, delete you, or moderate you for eternity. 😉

    OMO – NOT much difference between CBE and CBMW…

    They both want the – Power, Profit, Prestige, Honor, Glory, Recognition, Reputation, Celebrity…
    That comes with Today’s “Title/Position” NOT in the Bible. – pastor/leader/reverend.

    And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
    and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
    John 10:16

    One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd – One Leader

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  248. A. Amos Love wrote:

    Seems CBE is desiring Equality with YRR, Calvinistas, who regulate thought and words.

    As an administrator on a discussion board, I must say we have a policy similar to CBE you describe of keeping the focus on posted topics. This is monitored as a courtesy to the one who posted in hopes of gaining insight on the subject.

    So I disagree with your conclusion A. Amos Love. I also have great respect for the organization as a whole and their efforts to correctly interpret scripture that has been erroneously twisted which results in the marginalization of women and closes the door to many opportunities to utilize their talents and gifts.

  249. @ Daisy:

    Was Wondering…

    What did I say that you dis-agree with?

    How do you dis-agree with what I wrote?

    How do you “Characterize” web-sites that dis-agree with you?
    And ask you NOT to comment? – Or – Delete your comments?

  250. Daisy – Deb – Victorious

    This is one post from CBE…
    “When We Need Women Behind the Pulpits”

    http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2013/03/when-we-need-women-behind-the-pulpits/

    Here is my comment that did NOT see the light.
    Do you think this comment is NOT, as Victorious says, “keeping the focus on posted topics.”

    ———-

    Since leaving “the Abusive Religious System” and fellowshipping with, and learning from, women on a regular basis. Yes – The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead lives in both male and female.

    I was wondering…
    Why Suggest we should have – “women behind the pulpits”

    Why would anyone want to punish women like that?

    Do you know the horrible statistics for those earning a living behind the pulpit?
    Paid – Professional – Pastors – in Pulpits – Preaching – to People in Pews?

    Being “behind the pulpit” is “The Most Risky Profession” – so says Christianity Today…
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/julyweb-only/mostriskyprofession.html?start=1

    According to – Francis A. Schaeffer’s ministry “Into Thy Word” researching pastoral trends…
    Pulpiteers – “are in a dangerous occupation… the single most stressful and frustrating working profession, more than medical doctors, lawyers, politicians…
    http://www.intothyword.org/articles_view.asp?articleid=36562&columnid=

    • 77% say they do “not” have a good marriage.
    • 71% have felt burned out or depressed.

    And, “Pastoral Care Inc.” A ministry working with “Hurting pastors” writes…
    http://www.pastoralcareinc.com/statistics/
    # 80% of pastors’ spouses wish they would choose a different profession.
    # 80% believe pastoral ministry has negatively affected their families.
    …………..Many pastor’s children do not attend church now
    ……………because of what the church has done to their parents.
    # 50% of the ministers starting out will not last 5 years.
    # 33% state that being in the ministry is an outright hazard to their family.
    #1 reason pastors leave the ministry — Church people are not willing to go
    the same direction and goal of the pastor.

    Hasn’t anyone ever wondered? Why? In the Bible?
    NOT one of His Disciples had the “Title/Postion” – pastor/leader/reverend?
    NOT one of His Disciples called them self – pastor/leader/reverend?
    NOT one of His Disciples called another Disciple – pastor/leader/reverend?

    What is popular is not always “Truth.”
    What is “Truth” is not always popular.

    ———-

    So, here I am, warning folks, women, of a dangerous proffession – pastor/leader/reverend.
    Do you think this comment is NOT, as Victorious says, “keeping the focus on posted topics.”

    Or – Was this the part of the comment they did NOT like…

    ———–

    Hasn’t anyone ever wondered? Why? In the Bible?
    NOT one of His Disciples had the “Title/Postion” – pastor/leader/reverend?
    NOT one of His Disciples called them self – pastor/leader/reverend?
    NOT one of His Disciples called another Disciple – pastor/leader/reverend?

    What is popular is not always “Truth.”
    What is “Truth” is not always popular.

  251. Concerning women pastors and the episcopalians with minor reference to how wonderful hospitals can be to interact with people.

    Friday I “had” my fourth grandchild at the local big hospital for everybody. Perfect opportunity to talk to lots of people, and if I have one propensity in life it is just that. So while the other g’mom and I are chatting here comes popping in a friendly young woman probably age 30 or so I think, fitted jeans but not tight enough to be lewd or impair movement, big smile on her face and obviously a people person. Recent pedicure and latest smart phone. She introduced herself as one of the pastors at the episcopal church where the parents are members. Pastor of children’s ministry and outreach. Turns our she is a methodist pastor (her words) with a M Div from Duke but works for the episcopalians for a part time job, having left a full time job for the methodists because she has young children. OK. So here is a mommy track methodist pastor working for the episcopalians.

    So is she a feminist or not? Are the episcopalians shooting themselves in the foot to have a woman for children and outreach? And should people have a fit about the obvious lack of denominational loyalty here?

    At the time, I had no idea what “outreach” was, so today I asked my daughter-in-law. Seems that the episcopalians are trying to reach out into the community more and not just focus on those who would be considered for possible appropriate episcopalian outreach in the past Their rec hall is now an overflow place for female homeless during the winter, for example, and said methodist female pastor working for the episcopalians helped get that going.

    So have they forsaken the gospel for reaching out to societal needs?

    And then there is Father X over there who obviously would have been a catholic except for his wife and several young children. And it shows in the worship services and the instructional material and such. At the same time, they now have something that looks like a cattle trough which they haul into the building and in which they baptize by immersion anyone who prefers immersion, no matter how wet the vestments or the floors get.

    Wait. Does that fit in with a woman pastor on staff and homeless women in the rec hall?

    I don’t know, but they have come along way in turning around that church oner there, all to the good as far as I can see.

  252. Hi Victorious

    I understand why you “have great respect” for CBE – They agree with you… 😉

    But – I see what they are doing, promoting, Women as pastor/leader/reverends – as –
    Continuing to Perpetrate the Myth – That “Todays Corrupt Religious System” is Valid. 🙁
    The 501 (c) 3, Non-Profit, Tax $ Deductible, Religious $ Corporation, the IRS calls church.
    And – That pastor/leader/reverend is a legitimate “Biblical” “Title/Position” for women…
    Even though NOT one of His Disciples had that “Title/Position” in the Bible.

    Should one of His Disciples call an IRS Corporation – His Church? AAAARRRGGGHH 😉

    And – If the “Title/Position” a women seeks – Is NOT in the Bible – Why do they want it?
    For Power, Profit, Prestige, Recognition, Celebrity? That comes with the Title?
    Or – Just because a man has that “Title/Position?” Or…

    Seems the only one in the Bible referred to as Shepherd/Leader/Reverend is {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Are these women, and men, Taking the name of the Lord? And taking that Name in Vain?

    Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;
    for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
    Exodus 20:7

  253. @ Victorious:

    You write…
    “I also have great respect for the organization as a whole
    and their efforts to *correctly interpret scripture* (But – they are NOT – and agree they are NOT.)
    that has been erroneously twisted which results in
    the marginalization of women and closes the door
    to many opportunities to utilize their talents and gifts.”

    NOPE – “the marginalization of women” only happens in “Today’s Corrupt Religious System.”

    For women there are “many opportunities to utilize their talents and gifts” in His Body…
    With His Church, The Church of God, WE, His Ekklesia, His Called Out Ones, His Kings and Priests, His Bride, His Servants, His sons, His Ambassadors, His Disciples, His Sheep, you and me…

    Are only required to be Dumb Sheep – Because Jesus said…
    MY Sheep – Hear MY Voice – and Follow Me John 10:27.
    Follow Me – and I Will Make You – Fishers of Men. Mat 4:19 – Yup, Jesus does it – NO leaders needed.

    But most do NOT like this – Being a lowly “Servant” that is available to everyone…

    In a private email CBE said…
    “The reason you are being ‘silenced’ is that your viewpoint on these matters is considered to be extreme and therefore unhelpful to peaceful and reasonable debate.”

    Now Victorious – Haven’t we, you and me, had many “peaceful and reasonable” debates?

    And – CBE did NOT say I was wrong, they actually said…
    “I agree with you that Pastor/Leader/Reverend are not ‘strict’ Biblical terms…

    “I agree with you that some church leadership titles, which definitely are non-biblical, like Reverend (as you’ve mentioned) and I could add, Canon, Archbishop (because Bishop is possible from Scripture), Cardinal, Holy Father, Pontiff, Pope etc. (to name a few) are nowhere to be found in Scripture.”

    They agree – But then the “Strange B.S.” comes to silence me…
    “your viewpoint on these matters is considered to be extreme” – ABUSE – ABUSE – ABUSE

    I point people to “the “ONE” Shepherd, the “ONE” Leader – {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
    And they call my viewpoint extreme. Hmmm?

    NO – CBE, went out of there way to keep me silent – ABUSE – ABUSE – ABUSE.
    But – I’m a big boy now, I’ve been dishing it out to “The Corrupt Religious System” and I can take it.
    Today, the Religious Leaders, in the USA, are NOT allowed to “Burn at the Stake” dissenters. 😉

    And – When CBE silences me I know they have *lost the debate* and refuse to continue. 😉
    If they had any “Biblical” evidence for their position they would continue – But they do NOT.

    When you believe the lie you start to die…

    What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
    What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.

  254. A. Amos Love wrote:

    And – If the “Title/Position” a women seeks – Is NOT in the Bible – Why do they want it?
    For Power, Profit, Prestige, Recognition, Celebrity? That comes with the Title?
    Or – Just because a man has that “Title/Position?” Or…

    Hi A. Amos Love,

    Nice to hear from you again. Of course, we’ve been round n’ round about the topic of pastor/shepherd/leader/Reverend, etc. so we’re not likely to resolve that difference of perspective, right? …smile

    What those women want, far as I can understand, is the same opportunities afforded their brothers in Christ if that is the area of interest/gifting desired. I can understand that desire not only as a woman, but as a member of the body of Christ whose scriptures reflect a God who shows no partiality with regard to ethnicity, gender, age, or other factors over which they have no control, but whose brothers do. We don’t need a reminder of the horrific injustices done in the world by those who seek to deny freedom to other based on these things.

    The body of Christ is severely lacking women’s giftings.

  255. Deb – Daisy – Victorius

    How can CBE, call themselves – Christians for “Biblical” Equality?”

    If they are promoting Non-Biblical “Titles/Positions?” 😉

    In Non-Biblical – Institutions? – Non-Biblical – Denominations?

    Non-Biblical – 501 (c) 3, Non-Profit, Tax $ Deductible, Religious $ Corporations?

    They might be Christians – But – They certainly are NOT – Drum roll please – “Biblical”

    Polish Uncle trained Amos, me…
    I always thought – for something to be “Biblical” – It had to be – IN THE BIBLE

    Seems CBE uses the word “Biblical” – Just like CBMW uses the word “Biblical.” 🙂

  256. Deb – Daisy – Victorius

    Here’s a question I asked CBE…
    Maybe youse guys and gals here can take a shot at it. 😉

    “Maybe you can explain to me…
    How, NOT exposing, a “Non-Biblical” religious system, that you call “the organized church”
    And going along with a “Non-Biblical” “Title/Position” – “Pastor/Leader/Reverend”
    Can help with “Biblical Equality?”

    ….Then – Why promote a “Non-Biblical” religious system? And a “Non-Biblical” Title/Postion?

    Why silence someone who loves Jesus – But – has another opinion? Other insights?
    Why not open this discussion to all who are on this journey that you speak about.
    I’m now thankful that someone challenged my beliefs about “the religious system” and “Titles.”

    ————-

    CBE is NOT Achiving “Biblical Equality For ALL CHRISTIANS” 🙁

    Just giving – Power – Profit – Prestige – to a select few.

    CBE has achieved Equality with CBMW… 🙂

  257. @ Victorious:

    “The body of Christ is severely lacking women’s giftings.”

    NOPE – Only “The Corrupt Religious System” is severely lacking women’s giftings.”

    Once you leave “The Corrupt Religious System” your possibilities are endless…

    Jesus said – Follow Me – I will Make You Fishers of Men

    Who knows what Jesus has in store for you, for women, for men…

    When they TRUST and FOLLOW Jesus – NOT Mere fallible Humans… 😉

    Those “Led” by the Spirit are the sons of God… 😉

    NOT those who sit in a pew, Weak after Weak, listening to the same guy… 😉

  258. A. Amos Love wrote:

    NOT those who sit in a pew, Weak after Weak, listening to the same guy

    …that would not be me btw. I gave up on pews years ago, but not on Jesus. You may be happy to know that He is my only Shepherd. 🙂

  259. @ A. Amos Love:

    Amos,
    If I were operating a blog today (I did briefly in the past), there are many of your comments that I would not find appropriate, in large part because they are repeatedly duplicative on every blog on which you post. Your point has been made. What CBE is saying is that, ideally, you are right, but practically what you say is irrelevant! And to them and their audience, they are correct. They are dealing with the world of today and they are battling the hierarchy and patriarchy of the existing Christian evangelical world and seeking equality. That is an exceedingly big task and your approach to Christian community would be another big bite that they cannot undertake. Let it be. Hundreds have read your comments, and, if they thought we could change the evangelical world in the way you advocate, might welcome that. I would. But how we get there is another issue. I am in favor of “pastorless” churches, small enough to be sharing, with rotating responsibility for preparing a discussion and study. I was in one such for a while. But converting a 1,000 member congregation or even 200 member congregation to operate in such a manner would be nearly impossible.

  260. Paula wrote:

    @ Carolyn Mahommey:
    Doesn’t your garage need to be vacuumed and the roof swept?

    I’m sure there’s some wrinkly underwear somewhere that needs to be ironed too.

  261. An Attorney wrote:

    our willing to help neighbors, some of whom we treated to our gourmet pizza — frozen self-rising four cheese pizza with additions including stir-fried sausage, mushrooms, capers, onions, garlic, more Italian cheese mix and Feta cooked til brown.

    Oooh, yum, please add this into the ‘cook til you drop’ section of TWW. I love anything antipasto on pizza, but hold the marinated artichokes if you have fructose intolerance…

  262. @ A. Amos Love:

    You portray CBE as a power hungry organization, one that seeks to have females in power and control.

    They are not asking for females to be overlords, only to have an equal place at the table.

  263. @ A. Amos Love:

    I don’t think it really concern me at this point a whole lot if the Bible has the word or class of “pastor,” “preacher,” or what have you. That is a whole other topic.

    CBE also argues on behalf of women having other roles in churches, such as Sunday School teacher, being permitted to read the Bible aloud during church services, etc.

    (Some churches do not permit women to read the Bible aloud during services, do not permit them to teach Sunday School classes, etc).

    CBE also publishes the occasional editorial explaining how gender complementarianism supports, condones, or worsens domestic abuse, how gender comp teachings infiltrate Christian dating advice books for girls (which can cause problems for teen girls), and so forth.

    CBE does not only discuss women as leaders or preachers. They discuss other topics as well.

  264. @ A. Amos Love:

    They’re promoting the equality of women to men, that’s how.

    So long as the church is going to have the office/position of preacher, they cannot and should not limit it to males only.

  265. A. Amos Love wrote:

    Why silence someone who loves Jesus – But – has another opinion? Other insights?

    Because you’re mixing apples with oranges, IMO. You want to argue that there is no such thing as a preacher. That’s a whole other topic from gender inequality in most churches.

  266. A Amos love: Nobody is against freedom of speech if he do not lend you his microphophone.

    Nobody is against equality if they do not listen to you. You have given the same opinion on multiple blog posts on several blogs in the exact same words. You say the whole of the organized church is unbiblical, not just some habits they have. Other equally sincere believers disagree.

    If you did that on my blog, I would have allowed you to comment that view once on one post, and then reminded you that it is not the topic of the post.

  267. @ A. Amos Love:

    Amos, brother, I love you, and I love your perspective. I want to add to what “An Attorney” and “Daisy” have shared.

    I’ve often been frustrated as to why Jesus has allowed many injustices to continue. He turned over tables and confronted Pharisees, but did not deal with so much. What I’ve come to see, at least in my foggy head, is that Jesus doesn’t always skip right to the desired ideal ending. At times, there seems to be progressive, scaffolded change. For example, American Slavery certainly had followers of Jesus praying against it and doing everything in their power to stop it. But, while it did still exist, those believers demonstrated love to their enemies. Eventually, the example of love overcame the hatred.

    Perhaps, among the institutional church, especially in America’s capitalistic culture, Jesus is doing a similar transformation. While I also want to “rage against the machine”, so to speak, I see little change happening that way. Instead, if I can steadily expose others to the freedom outside the system, then Holy Spirit isn’t so busy diffusing defensive attitudes.

    I see Jesus purifying His bride. I wish it was faster and much more dramatic! But, I have moments where I ride in the River. I experience how steady it flows. I find hope.

    So, Amos, and others, we must obey what we hear Holy Spirit telling each of us. We must! And, also, we must not impose what He is saying to us upon someone else. We have powerful weapons of change, and they are “not carnal”, “not Earthly”.

    Blessings to you!

  268. Haitch wrote:

    I’m sure there’s some wrinkly underwear somewhere that needs to be ironed too.

    This reminds me of a conversation I had with my son when he was three years old and we were in something of a hurry to get out…

    Me: What’s the matter?

    Small boy (screaming in mortal agony): There’s a wrinkle in my sock !!!!

  269. @ Victorious:

    Victorious

    Wow – And a happy face to boot…
    “You may be happy to know that He is my only Shepherd”. 🙂

    Wow – You and Me in agreement – About sumptin – A Notable Miracle indeed…

    Thanks for the good report. 🙂 Happy now…

    Here’s a song for you – That someone sent me today on another blog…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP7lcp0aflQ

    1 O JESUS, Friend unfailing,
    How dear art Thou to me!
    Are cares or fears assailing?
    I find my strength in Thee!
    Why should my feet grow weary
    Of this my pilgrim way?
    Rough though the path and dreary,
    It ends in perfect day!

    2 What fills my soul with gladness?
    ‘Tis Thine abounding grace!
    Where can I look in sadness,
    But, Jesus, on Thy face?
    My all is Thy providing —
    Thy love can ne’er grow cold;
    In Thee, my Refuge, hiding —
    No good wilt Thou withhold.

    3 Why should I droop in sorrow?
    Thou’rt ever by my side!
    Why, trembling, dread the morrow?
    What ill can e’er betide?
    If I my cross have taken,
    ‘Tis but to follow Thee;
    If scorned, despised, forsaken,
    Nought severs Thee from me.

    4 For every tribulation,
    For every sore distress,
    In Christ I’ve full salvation,
    Sure help and quiet rest.
    No fear of foes prevailing,
    I triumph, Lord, in Thee!
    O JESUS, Friend unfailing,
    How dear art Thou to me!

    Our best frind unfailing – IS…

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  270. Deb

    Thanks for the link to those you enjoyed perusing…
    “the many respected individuals who endorse the Christians for Biblical Equality.”

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/endorsers

    I think I might now have a better understanding of why the administrater of the CBE blog was able to agree “privately” when I challenged the Non-Biblical “Religious System” and Non-Biblical “Titles” that CBE promotes – But he was NOT allowed to agree with me in public, and have the comments to be seen in public, on the Blog.

    We actually had a great conversation “privately” in those 15 or so emails back and forth. He’s been walking with Jesus for many years and we had lots of similar experiences and understanding in common. But – He still did NOT want me posting this info on their blog.

    Maybe because of all these ENDORSERS…

    Seems there are 108 names on that ENDORSERS page. – If I counted correctly. 😉
    63 – Have the “Title” Dr., Doctor, in front of their name. I saw one medical doctor.
    17 – Have the “Title” Reverend, in front of their name. Some both – Rev, Dr.
    11 – Have the “Title” Pastor in their Bio.
    47 – Have the “Title” Professor in their Bio.
    And lots of other info, other accomplishments, and what they do, in the Bio.

    Seems many of these folks who endorse CBE, have lots of “Titles/Positions” NOT in the Bible.
    BUT – I did NOT see a “Daisy” listed. Or a “Victorious” listed. Or one of the least of these.

    Are there NO folks, without “Titles?” Or seemingly important ministry “Positions?”
    Like a “Daisy?” Like a “Victorious?” Who would be glad to, as they have, endorse CBE?
    Just the regular folks, NO “Titles” NO “Positions.” NO great achievements.
    Just folks who love Jesus. Where are they?

    Are these “Titles/Positions” recorded there to increase the “Prestige” of? Our respect for?
    “Individuals who endorse the Christians for Biblical Equality?”

    Isn’t that the way of the world?

    Yeah – With my dis-satisfaction with “The System” with “Titles/Positions”
    And giving MONEY to “The System”

    It would kinda hard for the administrater to agree with me in public… 😉

    ————–

    And congratulations on your fifth anniversary blogging…

    I’ve learned so much from youse guys and your commenters…
    Lot’s of stuff I NEVER knew existed in Christian-Dunb…. 😉

    Lots of Love and Prayers to you both…

  271. A. Amos Love wrote:

    Wow – You and Me in agreement – About sumptin – A Notable Miracle indeed…
    Thanks for the good report. Happy now…
    Here’s a song for you – That someone sent me today on another blog…

    What a beautiful song, A. Amos Love, sung by a beautiful woman with a beautiful voice! Thank you for that.

    I don’t think you were aware that we were in agreement long before this. We just never seemed to arrive at a logical, reasonable solution to the problems that exist today in churches and in the minds of many. You seemed to think that merely pointing out the error would do away with it, while I was more willing to make the best of what we’ve got for now. Historical mistakes in any area of life never move backwards, but forward in resolving to not make the same ones again. I think that’s where we are.

    Blessings to you for your passionate love of the Savior!

  272. Eric

    Thank you for the kind words and concern. I appreciate you.
    “I see Jesus purifying His bride. I wish it was faster and much more dramatic! But, I have moments where I ride in the River. I experience how steady it flows. I find hope.”

    Yup – I also see Jesus purifying today. For me it has become “much more dramatic” then it was back in 1988, when I first started to question “The System.” It was very lonely then. NOT many could or would understand. It took a few years, and a much longer story of Abuse, kinda shocking like yours, and I knew I had to leave “The System.” I cut up my papers, (yes I was ordained) and left All that I had known and trusted in. Like Abraham, I went out NOT knowing where I was going. Leaving the only family I knew. Much Pain and Tears. BUT, the pain of staying was greater.

    The benefit of the Abuse and being alone
    I had NO place else to go but to go to {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}} and Jesus is the best – yes?

    It took me 4-5 years, after I first heard from an ex pastor – “There are NO leaders in the Body of Christ” – Well, when I first heard that, just before being ordained, I rejected it right away. After all, my pastors told me, I was “Special, a “Leader,” a “Teacher.” Who I was I to refuse such wise council from such wise men. 😉

    And I was reading ALL the books about being a Leader – There are lots of them. 🙂

    But – I heard it. I did NOT like it at all. And little by little I started to question.

    Today I have met, and know, many people, many pastors/leaders who have left “The System.”
    And, for a variety of reasons. And some of my friends are pastors today – and we get along.

    I also minister to pastors who can NOT do it anymore. BUT – Have NO place to Go. Stuck…
    Did you know 50% of pastors do NOT last 5 years…
    And of those that remain, 50% do NOT want do it anymore and would leave if they could…
    Just look around – 50% of the pastors you see – Half, One out of Two, want to quit. Ouch!!! 🙁

    Their families are hurting, 70% are fighting depression,
    They’ve been burnt, burnt-out, kicked-out…

    If you want more shocking statistics I got lots.

    I love pastors – It’s “The Corrupt Religious System” that eats them up and spits them out.

    Yes – Today – With the internet, the Purifying is much “faster and much more dramatic.”
    And – “I find hope.”

    Many folks know “The System”“ is broken and are leaving “the System” in droves.
    Today they call them “Nones” – Believe in God but NOT “The System.”

    Eric – check out this EX-pastor. 33 yrs.
    Who says – “There aren’t any *church pastors* in the New Testament”

    —————-

    The Glass Pastor – “Casting Off The Task-Masters”
    http://theglasspastor.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/casting-off-the-task-masters/

    “Don’t get me wrong, for my part I did my best to play the role of ‘pastor’, but I always knew that I would not be able to really pull it off. First of all, I didn’t really buy it. **There aren’t any church pastors in the New Testament,** and I could never get past that.”

    Blessings and love to you also…

  273. Eric

    And check out this ex pastor of only 3 yers – and his name is Eric…
    I watched him on his blog go through the process When he first started to question – to leaving.
    ————-

    “I’ve Resigned from Professional Pastoring”
    http://eric-carpenter.blogspot.com/2010/09/ive-resigned-from-professional.html

    “I’m not sure how else to say this, so here it is:
    I’ve resigned from professional pastoring.

    After much study of scripture, prayer, discussions with some of my friends, and reading good books, I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer in good conscience remain a salaried pastor. I cannot find it anywhere in the bible, so I’m not going to do it.”

    —————–

    Seems the only one in the NT with the “Title/Position” Shepherd/Leader
    Is…

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  274. @ Victorious:

    You write…
    “You seemed to think that merely pointing out the error would do away with it,
    while I was more willing to make the best of what we’ve got for now.”

    Sounds good to me – I know a few friends who understand, what I understand…
    But, believe they are to remain, as you, “willing to make the best of what we’ve got for now.”

    As Eric @ Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM said…
    “we must obey what we hear Holy Spirit telling each of us. We must!
    And, also, we must NOT impose what He is saying to us upon someone else.”

    I advocate – Over and Over again – Go to Jesus for yourself. Leran from Jesus
    NOT “merely pointing out the error” – BUT – A soulution, at least for me, and others I’ve met.

    Get it from Jesus, for yourself, Directly – NO middle man – Learn to Hear His Voice…

    I (God) will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go:
    I (God) will guide thee with mine eye.
    Psalms 32:8

    Out of heaven He (God) made thee to **hear His voice,**
    that He (God) might *instruct thee:*
    Deuteronomy 4:36

    Trust in the LORD (God) with all thine heart;
    and lean not unto thine own understanding.
    In ALL thy ways acknowledge him, (God)
    and HE (God) shall direct thy paths.
    Proverbs 3:5-6

    A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the LORD (God) directeth his steps.
    Proverbs 16:9

    …the meek will HE (God) teach his way.
    Psalms 25:9

    …He (God) will teach us of his ways, and will walk in his (God’s) paths…
    Isaiah 2:3

    Yes – Go to Jesus, Directly, for Yourself, NO middle man…

  275. dee wrote:

    Marie2 wrote:
    Dorothy Patterson
    She and Paige run SWBTS. She is in charge of their “world class” school of homemaking.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/11/28/mary-kassian-and-rachel-held-evans-just-who-are-her-people/

    The whole “homemaking degree” gets me so worked up. How on earth, can The Patterson’s, charge thousands of dollars to naive (although well-intentioned, I’m sure) people for earning a worthless degree (it’s a BA in Humanities). Seriously, the only job they are qualified for is pastor’s wife and you can be one of those without giving all your money to SWBTS. Use that money and get a real education! I just feel like they are scamming people with this. However, if someone out there has this ‘homemaking concentration degree’, please, let me know and let me know if you ever got a return on your investment. Thanks…….. I guess you could be a homemaking teacher, maybe, you’d have to get your teacher’s certification for that though…..

  276. A. Amos Love wrote:

    I had NO place else to go but to go to {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}} and Jesus is the best – yes?

    Amen! I resonate completely with you, Amos, and I love you.

  277. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    This reminds me of a conversation I had with my son when he was three years old and we were in something of a hurry to get out…

    Me: What’s the matter?

    Small boy (screaming in mortal agony): There’s a wrinkle in my sock !!!!

    Oh, I sympathise ! (with your son). I was famous in my childhood for not wanting to wear certain clothes because they were un-COMF-fortable ! (pronounced that way)

  278. @ Haitch:

    Our daughter was the same (“My socks are cwumpled!!!”). But, of course, they get it from both their parents!

    I suspect that nearly all weans hate uncomfortable clothes. I still do! 🙁

  279. An Attorney – Retha Faurie

    I’m sorry you both had to read so many duplicate comments and that you feel…

    An Attorney – “there are many of your comments that I would not find appropriate,
    in large part because they are repeatedly duplicative on every blog on which you post.”

    Retha Faurie – “You have given the same opinion on multiple blog posts
    on several blogs in the exact same words.”

    And when you say…

    An Attorney – “If I were operating a blog today (I did briefly in the past),
    there are many of your comments that I would not find appropriate,”

    Retha Faurie – “If you did that on my blog,
    I would have allowed you to comment that view once on one post,”

    If that is how you both feel about these duplicate comments NO longer having value…
    And asked me NOT to post them again – On your Blog…
    I would respect your request and NOT comment.

    I did the same with CBE who asked me NOT to comment publically with certain subjects…

    CBE asked me NOT comment about, serving Communion, receiving Communion, etc
    Because those terms are NOT in the Bible. Seems Communion is 4 times in the KJV.
    Always Gr – koinonia – fellowship. Never as a Religious Ritual.
    And Communion is NOT once in most of the modern versions.
    They admitted Communion is NOT a “Biblical” word – BUT – shut up. Do NOT tell anyone.

    CBE asked me NOT post about my thoughts on – Are Pastor/Leader/Reverends, “Biblical?”

    And I respected their request. We talked “privately” but I did NOT comment on the Blog.

    And, If you ever see my duplicate Comments, on this or other blogs…
    Feel free to remind me they are duplicates you have seen before.
    Feel free NOT to read them.
    .

  280. An Attorney – Retha Faurie

    You both commented about reading dublicate comments on multiple blogs…

    An Attorney – “there are many of your comments that I would not find appropriate,
    in large part because they are repeatedly duplicative on every blog on which you post.”

    Retha Faurie – “You have given the same opinion on multiple blog posts
    on several blogs in the exact same words.”

    Thank you for reading – Some of those comments take a long time for me to write…
    I put in a lot of research trying to be accurate. And say it in a way that can be understood…
    Lots of rewriting and deleting… 😉

    Was wondering…

    Both of you – Having read so many of my comments… 🙂

    Why do you think I comment and write the the things I do on Blogs? Many Blogs?

    Why do you think I comment and write the same thing over and over again?
    .

  281. An Attorney – Retha Faurie

    You both commented about reading dublicate comments on multiple blogs…

    Was wondering…

    This is the FIRST time I have Commented about my experience with CBE.

    And this is the FIRST time I ever said…

    ——–

    CBE is NOT Achieving “Biblical Equality For ALL CHRISTIANS” 🙁

    Just giving – Power – Profit – Prestige – to a select few.

    CBE has achieved Equality with CBMW… 🙂

    ———

    Was wondering….

    Since this is the FIRST time I’ve been critical of CBE in public…

    Why are you NOW pointing out my – “dublicate comments on multiple blogs?”
    .

  282. An Attorney – Retha Faurie

    Yup – Some of those comments take a long time for me to write…

    I started on these repys to your comments about 9:15 at a Barnes & Nobles with a cup of coffee.
    And posted them at 12:19 – 3 hours later.

    In my own way to let you know I think this conversation is important.
    .

  283. An Attorney

    And I’m glad we are in agreement about many things…

    You write…
    “I am in favor of “pastorless” churches, small enough to be sharing,
    with rotating responsibility for preparing a discussion and study. I was in one such for a while.”

    Sounds good to me. I’ve been in a few. NO leaders, just Believers – Heaven on earth…

    And awhile back we were in agreement – Don’t remember the post.

    BUT – I duplicated a bunch of stuff you wrote I agreed with… 😉

    Here’s the comment I left on that thread…

    ———–

    An Attorney

    Yes – Lots of agreement – What you write bears repeating, repeating, repeating…

    @ Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM….
    “The whole idea of someone “sitting under” another person is based on the erroneous idea of “pastoral authority”. If we are “sitting under” anyone, it is the Holy Spirit.”

    @ Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM…
    “Any who claim you are “sitting under” their teaching (and thus that they have authority over you) are false teachers, aka wolves in shepherds clothing.”

    @ Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 11:57 AM…
    “the teacher deserves no special allegiance or respect, beyond what any Christian owes to every other Christian.”

    @ Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 01:32 PM…
    “The Bible teaches that all Christians are priests, and there is nothing to suggest that some Christians are to be considered more important that others. All of us have a direct relationship with God and our only mediator is Jesus. Therefore, no man (or woman) is to be “over” us or “in authority” over us with regard to our faith.”

    @ Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 05:02 PM…
    “that is partly the result of bad translation! You should check out the issue of **verbs being converted to nouns,** and **functions to positions** in the translation process.”

    @ Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 05:20 PM…
    “teaching is a function, not a position,”
    “(Jesus taught **against** the Apostles having authority over other Christians!!!!).
    “We are all on level ground at the foot of the cross.”
    “There are environments and issues where authority is necessary.”
    “Church and Christian life is not an environment where “authority” is appropriate.”

    ————

    Be blessed in your search for Truth… 🙂

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  284. Erik

    Thought you might enjoy this by Billy Graham and George Barna, a Christian pollster.

    1965 —- Billy. Graham writes a book – World Aflame.
    Billy says – “Multitudes of Christians within the church are moving toward the point
    where they “may” **reject the institution** that **we call the church.**”

    In Chapter 8 of his book, WORLD AFLAME, Billy. Graham states the following:

    “Because the church, in turning to naturalistic religion,
    increasingly proclaims a humanistic gospel,
    thousands of laymen and clergymen alike are asking penetrating questions
    about the purpose and mission of the church.
    Thousands of loyal church members, particularly in America,
    are beginning to meet in prayer groups and Bible study classes.
    Multitudes of Christians within the church are moving toward the point
    where they may **reject the institution** that **we call the church.**
    They are beginning to turn to more simplified forum of worship.
    **They are hungry for a personal and vital experience with Jesus Christ.**
    They want a heartwarming, personal faith.

    Unless the church quickly recovers its authoritative Biblical message,
    we may witness the spectacle of millions of Christians
    going **outside the institutional church** to find spiritual food.”

    ———-

    2005 —- 50 years later – George Barna writes a book called “Revolution”
    Barna says – “Millions of believers have stopped going to church..”

    http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-George-Barna/dp/1414310161

    From the Back Cover

    Millions of believers have stopped going to church…and chosen to be the church instead.

    Research by renowned pollster George Barna points to a hidden Revolution—one that will impact every Christian believer in America. Millions of committed Christ-followers, dissatisfied with the church experience, have stopped attending on Sunday mornings. Why are they leaving? Where are they going? And what does this mean for the future of the church?

    —-

    “These are people who are less interested in attending church than in being the church,” he explained. “We found that there is a significant distinction in the minds of many people between the local church – with a small ‘c’ – and the universal Church – with a capital ‘C’. Revolutionaries tend to be more focused on being the Church, capital C, whether they participate in a congregational church or not.”

  285. Daisy

    You write…
    “You portray CBE as a power hungry organization,
    one that seeks to have females in power and control.

    Sorry – I did NOT intend to portray CBE as power hungry – I like a lot of what they do and represent for women. But, a big part of what they do is promote the idea women should be – pastor/leaders – like men. And in my experience, Power – Profit – Prestige – Honor – Glory – Recognition – Reputation, comes with the territory, the “Title,” and CORRUPTS even the best intentioned believers.

    After I left “The System” I became friends, and worked with, three ladies who started ministries feeding the homeless and poor. TWO I was very close to and we became close friends ministering to the street people. The TWO were doing fine as servants. But, they wanted to be like the men. Thought the “Title” would give them “respect.” They got folks to ordain them and they became pastor/leaders. I watched them up close and personal, “change.” They started out helping, loveing, careing for, the staff, the volunteers, and the street people. Those who were the least, the broken, the forgotten.

    But – Before long the Ministry, THEIR Ministry, became more important then the people. And they would Exercise Authority and Lord it over God’s heritage just like any man. The staff, the volunteers, just became THEIR tools to build THEIR Ministry just like any ultra-authoritarian male pastor/leader. People were afraid to question THEIR “God Ordained Authority.” I was witnessing “Spiritual Abuse” by a charming, schmoosing, white haired Grandmother. And a Type A personality ultra-authoritarian. TWO different types but the “Abuse” was the same.

    It’s a long story but, – After being a full time volunteer for 3 years, NO pay, the Grandmother asked me to come on staff and get paid to live in, and run, a house they just purchased for a Mens Home to get them off the streets.

    As a volunteer, I never told folks what I believed about “The System,” about “pastor/leader/reverends.” At the time I was still trying to figure it all out, still NOT sure. But, if I was to be on staff I felt they should know what I believed. I even wrote it all out, with Scripture, hoping she would understand.

    Well, we know what happens when you dis-agree with, question, a pastor/leader. Yup, I was asked to leave. It took a couple of months but I was Excommunicated. And she also agreed that NO one in the Bible called themself pastor/leader. Damn the TRUTH – Full speed Ahead. But she got lots of “money” from “the System,” from “pastor/leaders,” who supported the ministry. She, this charming, schmoosing, white haired Grandmother, who I considered a friend…

    Told me, “I know I’m making the right decision asking you to leave…
    We just got a big $$$ check in the mail.”

    Hmmm? So Jesus now confirms his word, – With a “big $$$ check in the mail.”

    Lots of pain, and tears. Another seperation Lord – this hurts – How long O Lord, How Long…

    NOPE – In my experience – Women pastor/leaders are
    NOT much different from Men pastor/leaders.

    Power Corrupts – and – Absolute Power – Corrupts Absolutely. – Male or Female.

    That’s why I warn folks – the “Title/Postion” – pastor/leader/reverend – Is NOT in the Bible.

  286. Daisy

    You write…
    They are not asking for females to be overlords,
    only to have an equal place at the table.”

    Well, I sat at that table – And it looks good from the pews…
    But it is quite ugly close up. Rotten, Decaying, Broken, with lots and lots of “BIG Splinters”…

    When some one gets to sit down at that table the “BIG Splinters” become horrendous.

    **80% – Of those at “The Table” have spouses that whish the would choose a different profession.

    That’s a “BIG Splinter” when your spouse is NOT happy, wanting you to change jobs.

    **80% – Of those at “The Table” believe “pastoral ministry” has negatively affected their families.
    Many of their children do not attend church because of what church has done to their parents.

    That‘s a “BIG Splinter” knowing your job, is hurting your spouse, your family, your kids.

    ** 77% – Of those at “The Table” say they do “NOT” have a good marriage.

    That’s a “BIG Splinter” teaching, about the Love of God, but NOT seeing love in the marriage.

    ** 70% – Of those at “The Table” say they constantly fight depression.

    That”s a “BIG Splinter” teaching about “the JOY of the Lord, But living in so much sadness.
    And it’s tuff to have a happy spouse, good marriage, a healthy family…
    When the one at “The Table” is constantly fighting depression.

    ** 57% – Of those at “The Table” said they would leave if they had a better place to go.
    Including secular work.

    That’s a “BIG Splinter” having to go everyday to a job you do NOT like and want to leave.
    But, most pastor/leaders are NOT trained, NOT vauled, for another career – They are stuck.
    Could that be a reason for the depression? NOT having a good marriage?

    **50% – Of those who get to “The Table” do NOT last five years.

    That”s a “BIG Splinter” having spent ALL that Money to be trained as a “pastor/leader.”
    And failure, after only five years, after telling yourself and many others…
    “Hey, I’m Called of God to be Full Time Ministry, a pastor/leader – Then you’re NOT. Ouch!!!
    And that is some failure rate for seminaries – Or, is that Cemetarys.

    **And the #1 reason – Of those at “The Table” who do leave – IS…
    “Church people are not willing to go the same direction and goal of “the pastor”

    That’s a “BIG Splinter” having spent ALL that Money to be trained as a “pastor/leader”
    Being taught by pastors, seminaries, You’re the leader – leading a congregation…
    And now, you have to work with, deal with, people sheep who refuse to play…
    Follow The Leader.

    Daisy – So, please forgive me, as I continue to warn CBE, ladies, anyone who will listen…
    If you desire – “only to have an equal place at the table?” There are “BIG Splinters” coming.

    And the “Title/Position” – pastor/leader/reverend – Is NOT in the Bible.

    Maybe that is why Jesus says – The “ONE” Shepherd – The “ONE” Leader – IS…

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  287. All authority has been given by God to Jesus Christ. Ephesians 3:10 – in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

    Men have to submit too. It is not only the wife. Those who do not follow the order of God, in the complimentarian way as per scripture, are not exhibiting the manifold wisdom of God but the rebellious spirit of the enemy.
    If your idea of who is “winning” is based upon who has the most money, Complimentarian or Egalitarian, then your measurement is not scriptural.
    Submission is not, a dirty word. May the authority of scripture, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who has been given all authority by God, rule and have dominion over our hearts, mind, body and soul.

  288. Buck Thornton wrote:

    If your idea of who is “winning” is based upon who has the most money,

    I didn’t see it taht way. It looks like they are just saying that if CBMW is no earning as much money as it once was and/or CBE is out earning, this may be an indication that gender complmentarianism is on the wane.

    The Bible tells everyone to submit to everyone else (in Ephesians), but many times, gender comps ignore that verse and teach only the part from the same chapter that says wives must submit to their husbands.

    I have actually had gender comps explain away the “submit all to each other” verse because it does not fit with their male hierarchy interpretations. They try to explain to me why it does not mean that husbands must also submit to their wives

  289. @ A. Amos Love:

    You’re making too much of the table analogy.

    So long as there is office of preacher, women should not be excluded from it.

    That office is meant to serve others, not to be in power over in brutally authoritative sense of bossing people around.

  290. @ A. Amos Love:

    I know this blog and ones similar feature on abuses and over reach by preachers, but not all preachers are mean, bossy and power hungry. On occasion, we do hear of good and devoted ones.

    It is not the office that is the problem but the abuse of the office.

    Some police officers are dishonest and corrupt, but not all are. I don’t see anyone arguing we should do away with all police because some are shady and do illegal things.

  291. @ Daisy:

    The part about wives is a clarification of the previous verse. Everyone is to submit to everyone else, except wives are to submit only to their own husband and NOT to other men!!!! That is the best interpretation of the passage based on the Greek.

  292. @ Daisy:

    Men have the harder submission. But a wife still must submit to her husband.
    I am all aware of the twisting of scripture by men, who have misused it, but that does not mean the answer then is to twist it again to counter it.
    It means men who are not following the Complimentary pattern and Lording it over their wife needs correcting and hopefully a church has godly men to do that, and a wife should have a safe place at church to do that and be heard. Pastors and elders need to step up to the plate and deal with any misuse and not bury their heads in the sand. Chuck Swindoll has a great sermon on UTUBE just how to do that.
    There is another submission, and oppression, and it needs to be spoken. Christian, and secular women, are starting to ask: where are the men ? We want to marry. All there are is are boys these days. What is in marriage for men? A fifty percent divorce rate. Seventy percent of those divorces are initiated by the wife. Forty percent of those men are forbidden to see their children. The others have limited contact. Men pay the child support, 75% of all taxes, lose their house, don’t see their children or limited contact. Is this not submission or oppression ? Even if the husband has not done anything physical or oppressive. All that needs to be told the police is “I fear he may do something”. He may not have an abusive bone in his body. This is not Egalitarianism.
    A trip to the police station, the loss of your house and family is a fear men must live under – constantly. Even in Christian circles because the courts and support systems are set up for the wife to get the children. Isaiah 3:12 – Oh my people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. We are there now. As far as the financial numbers, Universities are now 60% – 70% populated by women. That means 30% – 40% of men compared to 60-70% women are getting University degrees. What is happening to the other 60-70% of the men ? That means 70% of educated women who want an equally (agalitarian) educated man are fighting at least a 2 to one battle, as only 30-40 % are getting University degrees. Of all the boys watching their parents divorce, 70% of boys of divorced parents are watching mom take the wheel, getting the house, the child support, and dad barely existing. This is not Egalitarian. Then grow up and assess the benefits of marriage, and we wonder why Complimentarianism is a hot topic now. The daughters are feeling “empowered”, and now wonder why the young available men are timid and unavailable and can’t understand why men (boys) don’t think marriage is a good deal for them. Young men are starting to go their own way, and will only marry someone who’s core values are complimentarian, to reduce the risk of being another statistic. And who taught the ways to Lemuel – Proverbs 31 – A good wife, where can one find – don’t give your strength to a woman. His mother. And what is being taught to the young Lemuels of this generation, who in 70% of the cases are watching their mothers divorce their dads ? This is not a healthy pattern. Men are becoming afraid of women. Afraid to open a door. Afraid to offer a seat. Afraid of speaking up. Afraid of being labelled a misogynist. Not fear of the Lord. Fear of females. Feminist values are being systematically indoctrinated into boys from the moment they walk into public school.
    God said Eve was to be Adam’s Helper. In John 14, Jesus states “I will send you ANOTHER helper”, the Holy Spirit. With the Holy Spirit living in us, we submit to the Father’s will with the working of the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit any less of the Trinity ? Why then do you think submission is less ? It is more.
    We must decrease so Christ can increase. Submission – as Jesus submitted to his Father, in line with the teaching of Paul and Peter.

  293. @ Buck Thornton:

    The submission referred to in Paul’s epistles is not what most people today think submission means. In the epistles, submission is MUTUAL, which is totally contrary to the meaning that word has for most people today. Most think it means that the submitter does whatever the other wants and the other makes the decisions. But if submission is mutual, that is impossible. In the NT sense, submission does not mean kowtowing to every whim of the other. It means having a mutually cooperative relationship and not being stubborn and self-serving in the relationship — for both parties. I cite here what I said above:

    Everyone is to submit to everyone else, except wives are to submit only to their own husband and NOT to other men!!!! That is the best interpretation of the passage based on the Greek. So, a wife has to submit to only one person, her husband, but a man has to submit to everyone, including his wife.

    That issue about a wife submitting to her own husband was to avoid possible misunderstanding about a women submitting to another man and it leading to sexual improprieties or misunderstandings that such were approved.

  294. Buck Thornton wrote:

    Men are becoming afraid of women. Afraid to open a door. Afraid to offer a seat. Afraid of speaking up. Afraid of being labelled a misogynist. Not fear of the Lord. Fear of females. Feminist values are being systematically indoctrinated into boys from the moment they walk into public school.

    If men are fearful of strong, independent, educated women, it’s better that they remain single. If they prefer weak, dependent, uneducated women, I think they will be forced to remain single (unless they marry a 13 yr.old) who has been indoctrinated by comp values.

    Your “boohoo” results of divorce court decisions in favor of women being the beneficiaries of some enormous “consolation prize” is skewed. Take it from one who has been there: raising the children alone, having to work 40+ hrs. a week, maintain and repair the house, grocery shop, plan weekly menus, prepare daily meals, etc. is far more difficult than writing out a check once a month to assist in the financial responsibility of supporting the children.

    Divorce is not an easy decision to make and often a choice made out of necessity for the well-being of all involved.

  295. Buck Thornton wrote:

    A fifty percent divorce rate. Seventy percent of those divorces are initiated by the wife. Forty percent of those men are forbidden to see their children. The others have limited contact. Men pay the child support, 75% of all taxes, lose their house, don’t see their children or limited contact. Is this not submission or oppression ? Even if the husband has not done anything physical or oppressive. All that needs to be told the police is “I fear he may do something”

    Are these stats due to women lying and trying to take out men? The men have nothing to do with it? This is proof that stats can be made to say whatever you want.

    Abuse has long been hidden by the church-abuse towards children and violence towards women. Finally women and children have some recourse and men are reaping what they have sown. Women have long been kept out of academia-centuries and centuries. Finally women make up 60% of academia and this proves what? That there is a vast conspiracy to sideline men?

    My father, who has long passed away, was a physician and came from an immigrant family. He used to tell me of the discrimination against women and people of color in medical school back when “men ruled the roost.” I, for one, am glad to see medical school classes made up of equal numbers of men and women as well as people of color. Now women run medical schools and are presidents of their respective professional societies. Oh yeah, and women are just as good as doctors as men, something that was long denied by the men in charge. Maybe that is the real issue? The stupid women theory no longer applies?

    The same goes for business. There is a new tv show called Crisis. The person with all the money is a woman who runs one of the most successful corporations in the world. I am glad to see women both envisioned and entrenched in those roles.

    The SBC and other groups have long deep sixed the reality that women are the ones who have led and served in missions. It is women who have been the backbone of many churches and smart pastors know it.

    As for men not going to college, I put that straight back onto the parents’ shoulders (mom and dad). In my wide circles of friends, every male has been accepted and attended college so there is no
    “discrimination” against men.

    You prefer not to admit that the problems are deeper than gender but, of course, in keeping with au courant theology, it is all the fault of women, all the back to Eve and I am tired of it.

    Never forget that Jesus chose to born of a woman and spent the many of his years with her. He apparently thought a woman was OK to raise the King of the Universe. We hear much about Mary and little about Joseph. Maybe Jesus should have given equal time to Joseph?

  296. @ Buck Thornton:
    Isaiah 3:12 isn’t talking about divorced women and their children and estranged exes.

    It is talking about these women: “The women of Zion are haughty,
    walking along with outstretched necks, flirting with their eyes, strutting along with swaying hips, with ornaments jingling on their ankles.” (vs 16)

    And it is talking about these children, that God put in place as punishment to the nation of Israel: “I will make mere youths their officials; children will rule over them.” (vs 4)

    And these are the men discussed in the chapter: “The LORD enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of his people: “It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?””(vs14,15)

    You wrote: “God said Eve was to be Adam’s helper.” Yes, that’s true and the word is the same one used for God when He is our helper. Do you think God is called our helper because He is supposed to submit to us from before time and to eternity?

    Try not to misuse the Bible, Buck. It doesn’t help anyone.

    And your mansphere generalization of what happens in divorce court is awry. Look at stats developed by people with a modicum of objectivity; they line up with experiences like Victorious. They are mine too, and my sister’s. In both our cases, our exes are doing far better than us financially, have much more free time, and see the kids regularly.

    I’m delighted when a man opens a door for me, offers me a seat, speaks openly about his views. But you are right that I don’t appreciate misogynists, such as those who think they’re ok only when women aren’t empowered or educated.

    Misogynists have no concept of submission, which Paul calls them to do to the point of death, for their wives. They only think about power and how they deserve to practice it over others. And when they don’t get it, they become angry and rant on about those who should be submitting to them.

  297. Patrice wrote:

    I’m delighted when a man opens a door for me, offers me a seat, speaks openly about his views.

    And women extend simple courtesies to men as well. I’ve helped men in the grocery store who are unable to find a product; given up my place in line to a man who was on his lunch hour and in a hurry; given advice when asked about appropriate mother’s day gifts; changed seats at a hockey game when a man had a preference for the one I was sitting in, etc.

    Courtesy is not gender-related.

  298. Dee:

    You said:”The SBC and other groups have long deep sixed the reality that women are the ones who have led and served in missions. It is women who have been the backbone of many churches and smart pastors know it.”

    I challenge the JERKS that run the SBC to read the “A century to celebrate: history of Woman’s Missionary Union by Catherine B. Allen and for them to pay special attention how the women saved the SBC in its early years by leading in the fund raising to keep the SBC alive and leading the way in missions work. What theses guys have done to women since they took over is practically unforgivable in my books.

  299. @ Buck Thornton:
    Look, it has indeed upset the old apple cart that women have discovered they are as intelligent as men, and are created with the capacity to do their own decision-making. There’s no doubt about the fact that it is an upheaval.

    Men now need to face what God created them to be all along: mutual image-bearers, equal sharing of loads, laboring for peer intimacy. It may feel like a step down, and in some ways it is because now they don’t get all the say and the best opportunities. But on the other hand, when they face who they actually are, they can find genuine relationship, and experience how lovely it is to be truly together, shouldering the burdens and enjoying the delights as peers under our God.

    It is in times of upheaval that humans show their mettle. How many men will show theirs? Certainly not all of them because many just want to grab back their illegitimate power. But there are many men have recognized that the center of the struggle lies within themselves, many who have triumphed and are becoming what God had in mind when he made them. I have so much respect for them!

  300. Victorious wrote:

    Courtesy is not gender-related.

    Absolutely. Social courtesies are meaningful and best when engaged by all. hah There have been a couple when a common courtesy reduced me to tears because I was feeling so raw. I hope that my small gestures can do the same for another sometime.

  301. @ An Attorney:

    Attorney – Agreed. James McDonald has some excellent teaching on this ( wives only submit to their husband) and states exactly what you said.

    Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her. Ephesians 5.25
    That is quite an act of submission for the man. Christ gave his life in submission to God for the church.
    The husband has quite a commission and expectation set upon him in Ephesians 5.
    Men are even commissioned to love our wives. Women are instructed to respect their husband. Who has the greater charge there ?

    I for one, am all for submitting mutually and loving a wife, and laying my life down for her.

  302. Daisy

    You write…
    “So long as there is office of preacher, women should not be excluded from it.”

    If there was an office of preacher – I would agree with you. 😉

    That’s the point…
    There is NO office of – preacher – In the Bible.
    There is NO office of – pastor/leader/reverend – In the Bible.

    And office? Seems there is NO Greek word for office – In the Bible.

    It is a man made term -The office of pastor/leader/reverend…
    And only exists in the church of man…
    The 501 (c)3, Non-Profit, Tax $ Deductible, Religious $ Corporation, the IRS calls church.

    The office of pastor/leader/reverend – is NOT found in the Bible.
    NOT one of His Disciples had the office of pastor. Or called themself pastor – In the Bible.

    When you believe the lie you start to die…

  303. Daisy

    You write…
    “You’re making too much of the table analogy.”

    Well, I do NOT think so. I have seen first hand…
    The pain that pastors and their families go thru which is horrible. Many “Big Splinters.”

    I was friends with an Episcopal Priest. Over two and half years we had sun nite and tues nite “Prayer and Praise” meetings where 12-20 folks would show up. We walked the streets together, in his small town, talking to folks about Jesus. He had started a Bible study in a barber shop. Cool – And he was a new believer, about five years, he only got to know Jesus when he was in seminary. This was his first congregation where he was the main priest. His board did NOT like it. He was in a very small town and his board said “You are embarrassing us.” I NEVER told him what I believed about “The Corrupt System” and pastor/leader/reverends. I just gave him a shoulder to lean on, to cry on. And give him Jesus. Always pointing him to Jesus. It’s a long story, But eventually the board had him fired. I saw the pain, the feelings of failure first hand, for him and his family. The stress on the marriage, living in a small town, where everyone knew the husband was FIRED. And they lived there for another six months…

    And I have ministered to other pastor/leader/reverends who can NOT do it anymore.

    The statistics say – 1600 pastors a month, that’s 19,000 a year, leave or are pushed out. Wow!!!
    That’s a lot of broken hearts, disappointments, feelings of failure, pain, “abuse.”

    That’s 1600 families a month suffering “abuse” from “The Corrupt Religious System.”

    Is that pain of failure, broken hearts, disappointments…
    Something you desire, “women should not be excluded from?”
    .

  304. Daisy

    I have seen the dangers of “Titles,” of “pastor/leader/reverend.”
    “Spiritual abuse” for both the “leader” and those “being led.”

    IMO – The man made “Title” of pastor/leader/reverend is very, very dangerous for both.

    I’m not not new to “ministering healing” to those who have been “abused”
    by those who took the man made Title of pastor/leader/reverends”

    God’s sheep, who have been **burnt,** ** burnt out,** ** kicked out,**
    or **crawled out** of “The Religious System” most today call “church.”
    With it’s “God Ordained Authority,” “Submission To Authority,” “Tithes and Offerings,”
    and other “heavy weights” put on folks shoulders that are NOT in the bible.

    I’ve also worked with more than a few pastors,
    So called “God Ordained Authority,” “Leaders” who can NOT do it anymore.

    Trying to please the denominational leaders, please the congregation
    and please it’s leaders, please his family,
    and of course Jesus.

    Who is often relegated to last place. Hmmm?

    So many masters, that’s tough; Yes?

    Preaching every week… and it better be good, being the CEO,
    the team leader, councilor, marrying, burying, smiley face. etc. etc.

    If “pastors/leaders” (as we see them today) are of God?
    He’s not taking very good care of His shepherds; Is He?

    Is having un-happy spouses, having THEIR pastoral ministry hurting their families…
    Constantly fighting depression, NOT having a close friend, NOT having a good marriage…
    Something you desire, “women should not be excluded from?”

    Because that is what comes with taking a “Title/Position” pastor/leader/reverend…

    That is NOT in the Bible – For one of His Disciples…

  305. @ Patrice:

    I don’t think any complimentarian states that women are any less intelligent than men. Women can be very gifted teachers, and in many cases more gifted than men. Praises God and the Holy Spirit for the gifts He has given.

    But that is not the issue. It’s Headship, and authority, and submission.
    Men are gifted with greater physical strength (in most cases), but they must submit not to use it against their wives to dominate them, just because they have the gift of physical strength. Every day a man of God ( as should all men) must submit that gift when loving their lives. Gentleness in exchange for brute force. It’s that surrender of the physical power that makes that man a greater man. Peter is saying the same thing for women. Not use it just because it’s been given to you, but because the scripture says to. That is the adornment.

  306. @ Buck Thornton:

    First, I have no idea where the statistics you quote come from and whether any of them are accurate – please give a source.

    Second, your statement that “Young men are starting to go their own way, and will only marry someone who’s core values are complimentarian, to reduce the risk of being another statistic” is absurd. Let’s call “complementarianism” what it is – slavery. Maybe the reason these young men are looking for a submissive wife is because their mind has been poisoned by this doctrine of male supremacy.

    Consider this fact, cited by the SBC itself:

    the widely respected Barna Research Group has released the results of an in-depth study which found that while 25 percent of American adults have been divorced at least once, the divorce rate is even higher (27 percent) among self-identified “born again” Christians and higher yet (29 percent) among Baptists. – See more at:
    http://smtp.www.erlc.com/article/why-do-baptists-have-such-a-high-divorce-rate#sthash.CowxHczo.dpuf

    Next, consider the question posed by Wade Burleson in his blog at http://www.wadeburleson.org/2014/03/the-increasing-divorce-rate-among.html :

    How can the divorce rate in every state in the union be declining while at the same time the Southern Baptist divorce rate is accelerating, but we Southern Baptists are said to be “accommodating culture”?

    the reason the divorce rate is accelerating within the Southern Baptist Convention is precisely because of a “shift in theological conviction.”

    when you go to a church led by a Southern Baptist pastor who promotes it, the emphasis of the teaching will be on “the authority of the husband” and “the subordination of the woman to her husband” (just like Jesus is allegedly eternally subordinate to the Father). When the emphasis in any Christian environment (home, church, marriage, etc…) is on authority, a breach in relationship is ripe.

    So maybe your demand that women be slaves to their husbands is a cause of marital breakups rather than a solution.

  307. Buck Thornton wrote:

    But that is not the issue. It’s Headship, and authority, and submission.
    Men are gifted with greater physical strength (in most cases), but they must submit not to use it against their wives to dominate them, just because they have the gift of physical strength

    Egads! Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears you are defining loving your wife as the absence of using physical strength against her??? That’s the craziest analogy I’ve ever heard. Loving her is loving her to the extent Jesus loved the church…that is, by laying down his very life for her!

    See the Greek definition of “gave him up for her” Eph. 5:25

    paradidōmi
    Thayer Definition:
    1) to give into the hands (of another)
    2) to give over into (one’s) power or use

    The word is used 117 times in the NT most often interpreted to be handed over.

  308. Buck Thornton wrote:

    I don’t think any complimentarian states that women are any less intelligent than men. Women can be very gifted teachers, and in many cases more gifted than men. Praises God and the Holy Spirit for the gifts He has given.

    You say that in this comment but in the first one (with the stats), you say the opposite. Pick the stance you truly believe and stay with it.

  309. JeffT wrote:

    So maybe your demand that women be slaves to their husbands is a cause of marital breakups rather than a solution.

    It certainly was the cause of mine. After 19 years of it (first falling in behind, then trying to work it more equitably to constant refusal and increasing cruelty), I had more than enough.

  310. @ A. Amos Love:

    Above posts regarding the pain of pastors, their lives, their families.
    That is why such a good wife, a good helper, is so important. The wife is not to be excluded. She is part of the painful process. She is not a doormat -she is invaluable.
    When one falls down, the other is there to pick them up. Being a pastor, and a pastors wife, is a very heavy burden for both. If both are burned out, then the other is not there to pick up the one who is down.
    Doing God’s work is not an easy task. In today’s society especially it is so unwelcome. One of the reasons for the burnout and frustration is that authority and submission is not accepted by anybody. Especially Christians. So many people are suffering that pastors can not keep up with the wounded flock, and so much suffering is because Christians will not live out the word.
    I have worked in secular, academic institutions where a major component of staff are women. Very smart and capable women. The amount of sick leave issues for mental health reasons, including physical, is astounding. The use of prescription drugs for depression, bi-polar etc. and other problems is heartbreaking. The amount of young adults entering University with mental health issues and brokenness at such an early age before they really start living their lives is heartbreaking. What is not being spoken is the fact that the percentage of women who are suffering in this area as opposed to the percentage of men is very lopsided. Nancy Leigh DeMoss has excellent teaching on UTUBE ( Lies women believe) and she discusses this in an honest and transparent way, and the video looks to be 10-15 yrs old. It has only exacerbated since then.
    The way North America is going is not sustainable. It is time to get back to living by God’s design. We need to get back in harmony with his perfect order.

  311. Buck Thornton wrote:

    That is not what I said. You are twisting words.

    Kindly restate your position on husbands loving their wives and the extent of that love.

  312. Buck Thornton wrote:

    But that is not the issue. It’s Headship, and authority, and submission.
    Men are gifted with greater physical strength (in most cases), but they must submit not to use it against their wives to dominate them, just because they have the gift of physical strength. Every day a man of God ( as should all men) must submit that gift when loving their lives. Gentleness in exchange for brute force. It’s that surrender of the physical power that makes that man a greater man.

    First, let me say that only one place in scripture is a husband given authority and that place is 1 Cor. 7 and the wife has the exact same authority.

    It does appear from your comment that you see male physical strength as a “gift” (scripture, please) that is not to be used against the wife. You said it is the gift that you need to “submit.” Again, here are your words: “Every day a man of God ( as should all men) must submit that gift when loving their lives.”

  313. Buck:

    You will never convince me of this man headship. I’ve seen what it has done to the Southern Baptist convention–IMO destroy it. So, no, for me I’ll pass on it. You say the Bible says so on this. I am not convinced.

  314. Buck Thornton wrote:

    Doing God’s work is not an easy task. In today’s society especially it is so unwelcome. One of the reasons for the burnout and frustration is that authority and submission is not accepted by anybody. Especially Christians. So many people are suffering that pastors can not keep up with the wounded flock, and so much suffering is because Christians will not live out the word.

    Oh good night!

    -You are equating God’s work with pastors.
    -You seem to imply that the “sheep” are refusing, for no good reason, to obey the authority of their pastors. In reading this blog, can you see any sort of reason why the “sheep” no longer trust the pastors? Give me one good reason to blindly submit to men who are playing games with the pastorate: their vision, their authority, their money, their anointing, their ….
    -So, pastors are failing because Christians will not live out the word? How about pastors, way to0 many of them, who don’t.

    I no longer trust pastors on their positions alone, even in supposedly “good” churches. I have good reason not to do so. And, as a Christian, I am living out the word , some days better than others, but you might only see it context of the church.

  315. Daisy

    I’m NOT a fan of the CBE – They promote both Male add Female – pastor/leader/reverends.
    A very, very, dangerous position for both Male and Female, and their Families.

    When a sheeple takes a “Title” we are NO longer equal. There is NO more “Biblical Equality.” 🙁

    They are the shepherd – While I’m still a sheep. — NO longer equal – But Separate
    They are the leader – I’m still a follower — NO longer equal – But Separate
    They are the teacher – I’m still a student — NO longer equal – But Separate

    “Titles” say, – I am – You are NOT…
    And “Separates” His Sheeple.

    The “Title” shepherd-pastor/leader says – I am – You are NOT….
    And comes between Jesus, the “ONE” Shepherd – And His Sheeple.
    And “Elevates” the human shepherd-pastor/leader over His Sheeple.

    And before long, “The Power, The Profit, The Prestige” that comes with the “Title”
    Alows shepherd-pastor/leaders to “Control and Manipulate” His Sheeple.

    “Titles” -” Separate” —– “Titles” – “Elevate”
    Eventually – Those with the “Titles” – “Control and Manipulate”

    So it has always been – So shall it always be…

    Power CORRUPTS…

    But I would be a fan if they became CBEAC. 😉

    “Christians for Biblical Equality for ALL CHRISTIANS.”

    EX-clusive – CBE – “Titles/Positions” – NOT in the Bible – Available to only a select few…
    IN-clusive – CBEAC – “Titles/Positions” – In the Bible – Available to who-so-ever-will…

    ALL believers, Male and Female, can be – His Bride – “Biblical Equality.”
    ALL believers, Male and Female, can be – His Servants – “Biblical Equality.”
    ALL believers, Male and Female, can be – His Disciples – “Biblical Equality.”
    ALL believers, Male and Female, can be – His Ambassadors – “Biblical Equality.”
    ALL believers, born of the Spirit, come and go like the wind. – “Biblical Equality.”
    ALL believers, Male and Female, Led by the Spirit – are – His sons – “Biblical Equality.”
    ALL believers, Male and Female, are – Kings and Priests unto God – “Biblical Equality.”
    ALL believers, Male and Female, can Hear His Voice and Follow Jesus – “Biblical Equality.”
    ALL believers, Male and Female, Have the same Spirit that raised Christ – “Biblical Equality.”
    ALL believers, Male and Female, can be – Taught of God – NO middle man – “Biblical Equality.”

    ALL believers, Male and Female, – **In Christ** – are “ONE”
    Neither Male Nor Female ——“Biblical Equality.”

    Be blessed in your seach for Truth…

    [[[[[[ Jesus }}}}}}

  316. @ Buck Thornton:

    Buck – You’re funny – Have you actually read my comments… 🙂

    You write…
    “One of the reasons for *the burnout and frustration* is that authority and submission is not accepted by anybody. Especially Christians. So many people are suffering that pastors can not keep up with the wounded flock, and so much suffering is because Christians will not live out the word.”

    NO – “the reasons for *the burnout and frustration* for pastors and their families – IS…

    They have taken a “Title/Position” NOT in the Bible – for one of His Disciples.
    Jesus NEVER taught, or asked, any of His Disciples to have the “Title/Position” pastor/leader.
    Almost NOTHING of what today’s pastors DO – Is In The Bible – Of course they are burntout.

    And – They have taken a “Title/Position” – a “NAME” – that belongs only to Jesus – In the Bible.

    Jesus calls Himself – “The “ONE” Shepherd – The “ONE” Leader.
    And NOT one of His Disciples called them self – shepherd – Or leader. Go figure… 😉

    Seems, – The folks you pay, to shepherd, to lead, are taking the NAME of the Lord thy God..
    And taking that NAME in Vain….

    Ex 20:7
    Thou shalt not take the NAME of the LORD thy God in Vain;
    for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his NAME in Vain.

    And your funny thought about – “One of the reasons for the burnout and frustration
    is that authority and submission NOT accepted by anybody.”

    Wht authority does someone have who takes a “Title” NOT in the Bible? For His Disciples?
    Wht authority does someone have who takes a “Title” that belongs only to Jesus. 😉

    And – “submission NOT accepted by anybody.”
    Submission to one of Today’s pastors/leader/reverends?
    NOPE – Tried that a few times – toomuch pain and tears.

    Think I’ll continue to submit to “The “ONE” shepherd – The “ONE” Leader….

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
    What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.

  317. @ Patrice:

    As a man, I fully agree. My relationship with my spouse is better when there is open sharing and caring, and she feels that she can initiate conversation about anything and is free to make decisions, which she is. But it is still hard for her, after 35 years, having been raised in a different sort of environment, to accept that I expect truly equal participation in our lives, from A to Z, including equal initiation.

  318. @ Buck Thornton:

    Headship is a mistake of translation and of the language of the day versus our understanding today. In NT times, head meant source not boss. If they had meant boss, they would have said “heart”, because the heart was thought to be the center of knowledge, thinking and decision making. We retain a bit of that in talking about one giving one’s heart to Jesus (or to a person we love).

    And the concept of submission in the NT is very, very egalitarian — everyone is to submit to everyone else, EXCEPT the only man a woman is to submit to is her husband (to avoid bringing a bad rep on the church due to the public morality standards of the time. Every man to every man and woman, every woman to her husband and to every other woman. Very mutual, very egalitarian, not at all complementarian!!!! And the real thrust is that the word translated “submit” must have a totally different meaning than we use today, because I submitting to you and you submitting to me would be totally contrary to our understanding of the word submit — but that is what the scripture teaches. So we need to rethink what NT submission really looks like, because it is equal, not complementarian.

  319. Buck Thornton wrote:

    Wow. Does anybody here like their pastors, or men ?

    I like my man. 🙂
    My former pastor? Well, let’s just say karma is a you-know-what.

  320. dee wrote:

    What does that have to do with our comments?

    Perhaps loving men means love being ruled by a man to him?
    If you don’t want to be ruled by one then you don’t love men?
    Just guessing here. Stabs in the dark.

  321. Buck Thornton wrote:

    Wow. Does anybody here like their pastors, or men ?

    I don’t go to church anymore. The pastor at my last church, from what I knew of him from when I did attend, was okay.

    I hope to marry eventually…. to a dude of the male gender. So no, I don’t hate men.

    Rejecting gender complementarianism as taught by some Christians is not = hating men. (If that is what you were driving at.)

  322. Buck Thornton wrote:

    She is not a doormat -she is invaluable.
    When one falls down, the other is there to pick them up

    But how gender comp is taught by a lot of Christians, women are encouraged to be doormats. They are taught to exist solely to meet the needs of the husband, to build him up, and help him achieve his goals in life.

    I’ve yet to see a gender comp teach that a husband is to build up his wife, help her pursue her life goals, etc., which is not to say such gender comp material cannot be found, but I don’t come across it.

    As to this, “When one falls down, the other is there to pick them up”

    I’m over 40 and never married. the body of Christ is supposed to function to serve all – but too often, gender comps elevate marriage to the point they ostracize, overlook, or exclude widows, the divorced, never married adults, and widowers.

    Some Christian books about family, dating, and marriage even teach that adult singles exist to prop up and help Christian married couples. Singles are not viewed as being worthy of being helped or served by married people or the church as a whole.

    A person should not need a spouse to help them get up in life. Some people will never marry, or their spouse will die – other Christians should be there to help such people.

    From Matt. 12, Jesus said not all Christians will marry:

    For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

    Such believers will not have a spouse to help them get up when they fall, that is where other Christians are to step in to help them.

    That is why Jesus taught:

    (From Matt 12),

    While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

    48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

    Are you married now? Your spouse will die one day, maybe even before you die. You will be single again.

  323. Buck Thornton wrote:

    One of the reasons for the burnout and frustration is that authority and submission is not accepted by anybody. Especially Christians.

    Christians are not supposed to be in authority over each other, not even husbands over wives, that is an unbiblical teaching.

    Jesus said to his followers,

    25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
    26 Not so with you.
    Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—
    28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matt 20)

  324. @ An Attorney:
    This authority-over BS is hard for everyone to let go, even the women. Deeply tied into the sense of our nature and value. I wish your wife well, releasing those chain remnants.

    I am glad for men like you.

  325. @ Buck Thornton:

    I’m a woman who has never married. I hate to be a broken record, but… gender comp is completely pointless to men and women who never marry.

    You guys fixate to an unhealthy degree on roles for MARRIED PARENTS. Anyone who does not fit the criteria of married with three kids by age 25 is persona non grata.

  326. Buck Thornton wrote:

    Men have the harder submission.

    No they don’t.

    Buck said,

    But a wife still must submit to her husband.

    And the Bible says a husband must submit to his wife.

  327. @ Jeannette Altes:

    You don’t have to have the original documents to know what they said.

    That is the point of lower text criticism.

    Contrary to what she was saying above, lower text crit is lower text crit, regardless if it is carried out by an atheist, Hindu, evangelical, Muslim, or a Quaker.

    You can use lower text crit on the remaining copies of the Scriptures (the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts we have) to figure out what the original readings were.

  328. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I think CBMW put that article back up. They have really ventured into Mormon Territory and Islamic Territory with their teachings that women will continue to be submissive to men in the afterlife.

    It’s utterly amazing to me that any group that calls itself Christian would never the less echo the same teachings on the genders and marriage that one can find in groups they otherwise disagree with (Mormonism, Islam).

  329. Buck Thornton wrote:

    I have worked in secular, academic institutions where a major component of staff are women. Very smart and capable women. The amount of sick leave issues for mental health reasons, including physical, is astounding….What is not being spoken is the fact that the percentage of women who are suffering in this area as opposed to the percentage of men is very lopsided.

    I’ve also worked in secular academic institutions and know that this is pure crap. If Christians can’t be truthful, why do they even keep a faith?

    As for Nancy Leigh DeMoss, I challenge you to read a book review by Barbara Roberts:

    http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2013/01/07/nancy-leigh-demoss-says-women-victims-must-reverence-their-abuser/

  330. Buck Thornton wrote:

    have worked in secular, academic institutions where a major component of staff are women. Very smart and capable women. The amount of sick leave issues for mental health reasons, including physical, is astounding. The use of prescription drugs for depression, bi-polar etc. and other problems is heartbreaking. The amount of young adults entering University with mental health issues and brokenness at such an early age before they really start living their lives is heartbreaking. What is not being spoken is the fact that the percentage of women who are suffering in this area as opposed to the percentage of men is very lopsided. Nancy Leigh DeMoss has excellent teaching on UTUBE ( Lies women believe) and she discusses this in an honest and transparent way, and the video looks to be 10-15 yrs old. It has only exacerbated since then.

    Buck
    I am beginning to think that you have a real problem with women. Let’s see. They don’t submit. They have mental health issues. They must not like men and pastors. My husband thought that was really funny, BTW. Quick note: there are men on this blog who do not like some pastors as well!

    Men, on the other hand, are more mentally stable. Good night! This is ridiculous. If you are trying to convince us of your wisdom, you are failing miserably. You spout stats for some things and wrongly conclude what the stats mean. You spout other things with no stats, based on your “experience.”

    As for Nancy Leigh DeMoss-she has never married and she is extremely wealthy. She presumes to tell women how to live yet has not experienced many of the same pressures that many women have. Most single women have to struggle to put bread on the table. Many married women have experienced abuse, sick children, monetary issues, etc. yet she is the one lecturing on how to do it. And here it is from the above link that Patrice supplied.

    “There are extreme situations where an obedient wife may need to remove herself and/or her children from proximity to her husband, if to remain in that setting would be to place themselves in physical danger. However, even in such a case, a woman can — and must — maintain an attitude of reverence for her husband’s position; her goal is not to belittle or resist him as her husband but, ultimately, to see God restore him to obedience. If she provokes or worsens the situation through her attitudes, words, or behavior, she will interfere with what God wants to do in her husband’s life and will not be free to claim God’s protection and intervention on her behalf.”
    Lies Women Believe: by Nancy Leigh Demoss

    My bet is the DeMosses would have not allowed Nancy to be abused. Back to the mansion for Nancy.

  331. Nancy Leigh DeMoss: Multimillionaire

    Just so everyone knows, Nancy has led a charmed life. She is the daughter of Arthur DeMoss and the Chairman of the Arthur DeMoss Foundation

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Arthur_S._DeMoss_Foundation

    Nancy S. DeMoss, Chairman of the Board and Treasurer, ($254,500 in 2004) This is her salary-not her inheritance which was probably significant considering her lifestyle. The foundation has $404 million in assets.

    From Time Magazine

    Nancy plays host at evangelizing dinners for the rich and powerful at her houses in Florida and Manhattan (one invitee estimated the events’ cost at $80,000 each). Privately, she contributed $70,000 to Newt Gingrich’s political-action committee, GOPAC

    Read more: Who Are Those Guys? – TIME http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,28859,00.html#ixzz2xJaoA100

    Arthur made his dough in selling life insurance to “clean living” Christians

    http://articles.philly.com/1986-06-16/news/26045434_1_leighton-ford-evangelical-christian-leaders-memorial-service.

  332. @ dee:
    Frankly, I think Nancy has little to say to the average woman and the above quote about reverencing the position of an abusive husband is crap!

  333. I am beginning to think that you have a real problem with women.
    Just so everyone knows, Nancy has led a charmed life
    My bet is the DeMosses would have not allowed Nancy to be abused. Back to the mansion for Nancy.

    Wow !

  334. @ Buck Thornton:
    I am concerned that your rhetoric is getting way over the top. Please dial it back on the women have mental health issues, want divorces from good men issues, are taking over academia from men, etc.

    if this continues, i will have to consider you a troll.

  335. @ Buck Thornton:
    Yeah, in fact you did not make one comment on Nancy Leigh DeMoss’s statement about reverencing an abuser husband. And yeah, given Art DeMoss’s history, I think he would have had strong objections to a man abusing his daughter. And I bet there would have been precious little reverencing going on. WOWZA!

    So, up your game, friend.

  336. Buck

    I am putting you into moderation. I will approve your comments, most likely, unless they continue to escalate. Since I am going to bed, I cannot keep an eye on things.So, unless Deb is up, I will not approve further comment until @ 9AM EST. Night night.

  337. dee wrote:

    Please dial it back on the women have mental health issues

    I didn’t even completely understand his comments about that, or what it had to do with anything.

    My mother (who was married to my dad for many a decade) was the very picture of gender complementarian house-wivery, SAHMism, gender comps say all women should aspire too, and she still had depression and anxiety attacks.

    So if he’s trying to say lack of submission in a marriage is what causes or contributes to mental health issues, I say nope to that. Some submissive, Christian, married ladies still have issues, too.

    A lot of men also suffer from anxiety and depression. Men with mental health problem usually go under-reported, from what I have read, because many men do not like admitting to anyone that they have depression (at least this is true of Americans).

    Considering that this guy is probably a troll, I’ve probably already wasted too much time on this as it is.

  338. Pardon the interruption, but have any of you seen this:

    http://repentantpastor.com/about/

    Former Mars Hill pastors are writing repentance letters on a blog and inviting people to bring their issues to them so they can repent and do right. If this is a genuine as it seems, it’s amazing!

  339. Back on topic, at my first college (one I don’t claim) I lived in a dorm paid for by the DeMoss family.

  340. Nancy Leigh Demoss. The brand of faith she promotes isn’t a strong enough imitation to produce in her the holiness she appears to embody. Her wealth may serve to insulate her, but she has put herself in a position over the years where it becomes fair to examine her. Yet, how well is she really known and is her life empowered by the things she preaches? I personally don’t buy into her. I think she’s another fraud.

  341. Okay: Here are some stats for University: This is only one. Individual Universities will provide numbers:

    http://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/CurrentTermEnrollment-Fall2013.pdf

    In some areas of study/ programs women outnumber the men almost 2 to 1. You can also see the numbers of male students is decreasing and females are increasing, year by year.

    Because Nancy Leigh DeMoss has a high income, should not demonstrate the quality of her teaching. Her teaching is sound, despite her income or where she came from. The comments made about her here could use some grace, (maybe moderating)whatever the position you take on her teaching. All I stated is “wow” to the graceless comments, including the comment stab I must have a real problem with women because I am blogging about Complimentarianism, which disagrees with most of the bloggers here I see. And I am the one who is to be moderated. Nancy is not advocating tolerating abuse. Basically she is saying, do your part, yet don’t let his behaviour infect your soul, and hate in return. Take the higher ground (1st Peter).
    As far as the mental health issues. Working in an academic institution does not make one an expert on the issues. You have to be privy to the information.I have been responsible for sick leave issues, absences. All I am saying is the numbers of women absent from the workplace compared to men are very lopsided. The numbers can not be measured or discussed, because it would not be “appropriate”, but they are there. There are a lot of reasons for that, some being that women are carrying a huge load as single mothers, as was highlighted by a female blogger above. Secular reasons – not just regarding Complimentarian or Egalitarian and I did state that it is heartbreaking. Which it is as well as for men. I do think though there are a lot of spiritual , out of God’s order to the problem as well.
    Last night I went to see the new movie Noah. Near the end, his wife states of one of his decisions: “I will hate you”. If it was Noah in the movie saying this to his wife….outrage would ensue.
    It is socially acceptable to make this statement, without an eyebrow being raised. Men deserve to be hated is acceptable speech. I am sorry, but it is not.
    May the spirit of Christ, indwell richly all the bloggers here.

  342. P.S. For anyone who may question my position on this issue, I think the quote above is outrageous, bordering on heresy. I don’t hate Mr Strachan, far from it. I’ve actually had a good conversation with him on another issue and assured him I was praying for him.

    But here, he’s adding to the Gospel of Jesus Christ by raising a secondary doctrine to the level of primary, and making a belief in the doctrine of complementarianism a litmus test of salvation.

  343. @ chris:
    I’m sure Owen would count me among the lost and without salvation. Thankfully he does not get to make the final call on my salvation.

  344. @ mot:

    I do not know Owen Strachan, but I thought the article on the Keller’s to be excellent. I know the Keller’s teaching on Gender roles and it is excellent.
    They also live it out in their marriage.

  345. @ dee:

    So is he saying that Christians who don't believe in the complenentarian concept have succumbed to non-Christian thought? I'm sure Owen has non-Christian thoughts as much as anyone else 🙂

  346. Buck, I accept you as a complementarian, and I accept Wade Burleson as an egalitarian.

    But you’re missing the point here. What we (Dee and I among others) don’t accept is an addition to what Scripture requires for salvation, which is to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord.

    I love Tim Keller. But agreeing with his stance on the comp/egal debate is not required for entrance into Heaven.

  347. chris wrote:

    But here, he’s adding to the Gospel of Jesus Christ by raising a secondary doctrine to the level of primary, and making a belief in the doctrine of complementarianism a litmus test of salvation.

    Chris,

    Jesus didn’t approve of Pharisees adding to the rules either…

    From Matt 23:

    “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,…

    Jesus says that people who add to the rules do it to puff themselves up.

  348. First, I don’t think Complimentarian is a doctrine for salvation. I don’t think the Owen Strachan article said that. A blogger “felt” that Owen was saying that.
    I think the Complimentarian “model” best reflects scripture. Having said that, if you are Egalitarian, you love your wife, if she respects you, Christ is first in your marriage, and you mutually work out a great marriage and those in Church see a great marriage, then God Bless you. That is not your defining doctrine for salvation. To be a Complimentarian ( or Egalitarian for that matter) and carry out a complimentarian marriage best reflecting God’s order, but everyone in church sees you as Pharisees and spiritual pride where other brothers or sisters second class citizens, I think that is a bigger problem.
    I am divorced. I was divorced prior to salvation at age 42, saved and became a new creation. All my sins were forgiven. It’s like Jesus taking a leper and making him clean. One moment a leper – when he went back to the Pharisees they can’t see that you don’t have a spot of leprosy on you, and still call you a leper. That is calling unclean what Christ made clean. I have run across in Church that despite being a new creation and made clean, I am divorced and can therefore not infect a “pure” sister in remarriage with the sin of divorce smothered all over me. This despite being a new creation and made clean. On the one hand promoting “doctrine” but the next calling unclean what Christ has made clean. So you can come to the pearly gates and say, but I did not marry a divorced person, see how clean I am, and then be told, that’s all fine, but you called unclean what I have made clean. See what I am saying ?
    There are some excellent teaching on divorce and remarriage on how/when divorce and remarriage can take place. There are some repentant features built in if done properly. Some great teaching from Baptists. Then there are those who are hard liners, forbidding it.
    For those that are teachers/ preachers, they have to preach the truth.
    I think Complimentarian best models God’s order. If you have a great marriage as an Egalitarian, that is not going to send you in the lake of fire.
    None of us meets God’s perfect order, and grabbing onto one school of thought in one area of your life, and then feeling spiritual pride because you built your life on that one thing, not like those other Pharisees or Christians over there, is dangerous territory. In my father’s house are many rooms Jesus said. Watch out that person you could not stand here on earth does not become your roommate in heaven and told by God to get along.
    I live in Canada but a lot of my study and research is in the bible belt of the US. Whether Owen Strachan, or the SBC, or the DTS, I hope you realize just how good the teaching you are surrounded with.

    Buck,
    But you’re missing the point here. What we (Dee and I among others) don’t accept is an addition to what Scripture requires for salvation, which is to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord.

    I love Tim Keller. But agreeing with his stance on the comp/egal debate is not required for entrance into Heaven.

  349. @ Buck Thornton:
    Re your uni stats: no one argued that women haven’t been attending at high rates. People argued against your proposal that women are mentally disturbed while doing so. It is good to be honest in a debate.

    I worked closely enough with fellow faculty and students in my academic institutions to know what’s going on, so no, I am not ignorant. You are correct that many women in this world have to do way too much but it is simply bizarre to conclude that women shouldn’t be educated rather than that men shouldn’t step up to half of the work. “We are in this together.”

    But then, you backed down and put it all into this one statement, “All I am saying is the numbers of women absent from the workplace compared to men are very lopsided.” Ah. So have you done some life research on why that might be? No, you haven’t. But let’s take one possibility. Children are still the main domain of women. Every person gets sick occasionally. Multiply the usual number of absences (for reason of illness) by the number of children and voila. See how that goes?

    Nancy DeMoss makes declarations on issues of which she is ignorant. She is obviously uneducated both academically and experientially. We conjecture on reasons for her ignorance and why she is given platform. The bubble that wealth provides is a likely partial reason for the former and most of the reason for the latter.

    “Taking the higher ground” when someone is an abuser in your home means requiring him/her to leave or leaving yourself. It is not healthy for the abuser to keep abusing, and it is not healthy for the abused to keep taking it. DeMoss is ignorant of this foundational knowledge.

    I don’t agree with “complimentarianism”, but in its milder forms, it is earnestly-meant obedience to literalism, and I respect the intention. Do you have respect for those who earnestly believe a view different than yours?

    Finally, so because a woman in a shabby movie says “I will hate you”, you are unhappy because, although no one should hate, men can’t say it in real life?

    You are the only one who proposed “hate” in this thread—we hate men (and women!). Several commenters kindly asserted that it is not true for them. Neither do I hate men. You would see this if you knew me. However, I do not put up with crappy thinking when it passes by me, particularly when another group is devalued by it and the thinker audaciously drags God into it. My crankiness is equal opportunity.

    You seem to not understand that even if you were my enemy, (which I have no basis to decide), I am called to love you. I want to be a clear channel for the Holy Spirit so that her love can do its good work for all. Many of the commenters here, and certainly our good hosts, think this way, too. In fact, it is because of this desire that I have spent time writing you on this thread.

  350. @ Nice Kekbulb:
    Yeah, I know, but even a singular storll needs love. Relentless compassion, like. So occasionally, full-bore just to show. And I do mean full bore. lol

  351. @ Buck Thornton:

    I believe there is false teaching coming from the area you claim as having great teaching.

    Where does God talk about order or His perfect order? It seems that some of us have a hard time believing that God does a perfect work in us “without” this mystical perfect order AKA heirarchy.

  352. Patrice wrote:

    @ Buck Thornton:
    Children are still the main domain of women. Every person gets sick occasionally. Multiply the usual number of absences (for reason of illness) by the number of children and voila. See how that goes?

    The reasons why children are the domain of women is another huge spiritual and scriptural issue. Check out Divorce Corp. And then check out boycottdivorcecorp. Men are fighting for their children half time. The system in America, as well as Canada, is one sided against the father.

    Nancy DeMoss makes declarations on issues of which she is ignorant. She is obviously uneducated both academically and experientially. We conjecture on reasons for her ignorance and why she is given platform. The bubble that wealth provides is a likely partial reason for the former and most of the reason for the latter.

    Wow. What would you say if Nancy Leigh DeMoss were to say your opinion did not count due to your lack of monetary resources and it’s lack of made your opinions suspect ?

    “Taking the higher ground” when someone is an abuser in your home means requiring him/her to leave or leaving yourself. It is not healthy for the abuser to keep abusing, and it is not healthy for the abused to keep taking it. DeMoss is ignorant of this foundational knowledge.

    I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement: a) that you understand that is what she is saying to accept abuse and b) that she is ignorant and without foundational knowledge.

    Do you have respect for those who earnestly believe a view different than yours?

    Read my last post. I accept your viewpoint as the way you see it. I believe it to be erroneous understanding of scripture, but I do not think it will lead anybody to kept out of heaven.
    If you evangelize to an unbeliever, are you “respecting their viewpoints” and worldview ?

    Finally, so because a woman in a shabby movie says “I will hate you”, you are unhappy because, although no one should hate, men can’t say it in real life?

    I posted to watch “Misandry in the Media” on UTUBE. There’s a bunch of videos. If you don’t think there is a systematic problem after watching them, then I don’t know how I can say much more on that.

    You are the only one who proposed “hate” in this thread—we hate men (and women!). Several commenters kindly asserted that it is not true for them. Neither do I hate men. You would see this if you knew me. However, I do not put up with crappy thinking when it passes by me, particularly when another group is devalued by it and the thinker audaciously drags God into it. My crankiness is equal opportunity.

    Again: Watch “Misandry in the Media”.

    I want to be a clear channel for the Holy Spirit so that her love can do its good work for all. Many of the commenters here, and certainly our good hosts, think this way, too.
    However, I do not put up with crappy thinking when it passes by me.I want to be a clear channel for the Holy Spirit so that her love can do its good work for all.

    Sorry: got to call you on that.

  353. Buck Thornton wrote:

    If you evangelize to an unbeliever, are you “respecting their viewpoints” and worldview ? Sorry: got to call you on that.

    First of all, I don’t “evangelize” an unbeliever. That’s condescending and people don’t listen to views offered in that attitude. Moreover, it’s certainly not how Christ did it. I show them Jesus’ love through my life/words, they inevitably eventually ask about it, and then I tell them why it is so good and true.

    Second, certainly I respect their viewpoints/worldview. Thinking something is awry doesn’t mean you have no respect for it. Most views are a mix of truths/lies and I work hard to find the truths that they hold to and work from there.

    As to “Sorry…” Perhaps you believe yourself super-glued to the Holy Spirit? I wish you humility, Buck, which comes with a full experience of the love of God. Take care.

  354. Patrice wrote:

    Buck Thornton wrote:

    I am called to love you. I want to be a clear channel for the Holy Spirit so that her love can do its good work for all. Many of the commenters here, and certainly our good hosts,

    Patrice- A female holy spirit ?
    As the Apostle Paul says in Scripture: it was not Adam that was deceived but the woman. Then she deceives others. You are right at work Eve.

  355. Buck

    One comment was removed until you provide an explanation. And tone down your rhetoric.