Guest Poster at SBC Voices Shares Concerns About Extreme ‘Church Discipline’

"Leeman and those who advocate a return to some form of 19th Century Baptist disciplinary structure do not want to see church members abused.  That is clear.  But I believe their recommendations, if followed, make it almost a given that abuse will occur."

Church Authority and Church Discipline (SBC Voices)

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=4031&picture=holy-bibleHoly Bible

An interesting discussion has been taking place over at SBC Voices under a guest post entitled Church Authority and Church Discipline.  SBC Voices is a blog that discusses issues of concern to Southern Baptists.  Dave Miller serves as editor; however, Dr. Tony Kummer owns and runs the blog. There are 15 contributors who cover a variety of topics, and on occasion they feature articles written by individuals outside their group. 

An anonymous poster, who is a friend of Dave Miller, recently shared his concerns in the Church Authority and Church Discipline post.  Dee and I are fairly certain we know the identity of the post's author, who is squarely in the Calvinist camp.  This individual has been following our blog for quite some time and has become alarmed by how church authority and discipline are being misused in Christendom.  No doubt some of the stories we have featured (Todd Wilhelm/UCCD and Karen Hinkley/TVC) have made an impact.  As we head toward our 7th year of blogging, it is interesting to go back and read our initial post Who Hijacked My Church?, in which we shared our concerns about church discipline.  Don't get us wrong, we believe in church discipline; however, we have first-hand knowledge of cases where church discipline has been misapplied and used solely as a control mechanism. 

While we hope you will go over and read the entire post at SBC Voices, we are including two screen shots of paragraphs that definitely got our attention.

************

http://sbcvoices.com/church-authority-and-church-discipline-anonymous/

AND

http://sbcvoices.com/church-authority-and-church-discipline-anonymous/

************

As I write this post, the SBC Voices post has around 160 comments.  There has been a lively discussion, which we hope will continue over there as well as here at TWW.  Jonathan Leeman posted a comment responding to the guest poster's concerns, and Dee has chimed in with several comments (here is just one of them). 

Dee Parsons says

August 14, 2015 at 9:43 am

Anonymous and Jonathan Leeman

There is another issue which is rarely discussed and that has to do with a person who can no longer be a member of a particular church due to an unresolvable conflict in philosophy.

As Jonathan knows, a man decided to leave well known 9 Marks church because he could no longer support that church’s continuous endorsement of books written by an SGM pastor whose churches have been embroiled in a sex abuse scandal. His stand was logical, understandable and biblical.

This man was even asked by that church to be a leader prior to his decision so we are not talking about an ill-informed member. He left and decided to carefully assess other churches before committing to attend a particular church. He has since done so.

But according to 9 Marks rules, he was not allowed to resign from the church until he committed to another *9 Marks approved* church. His name was then added to a care list-a term meaning the person is heading for church discipline. They refused to remove his name for months in spite of repeated requests. The church did not allow room for resignation due to right of conscience. This is disturbing.

In my opinion, which is given quite regularly to the dismay of some, this is an example of how even the experts of church discipline, 9 Marks, can abuse bright, thoughtful and committed Christians.

The Village Church is led by one of the most admired Neo-Calvinist leaders. Even they got it wrong, really wrong. If they couldn’t get it, why should Leeman think that others will not practice abusive church discipline?

I believe that Jonathan is nice guy who truly wants to do his best for the kingdom. Until his tribe is better able to deal with the obvious favoritism shown towards their friends, deal with the fact that even their BFFs get it terribly wrong, and admit their disdain for those who see the problems, then the system is deeply flawed and should be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

The conversation has continued since the post was first published.  I have enjoyed the discussion, and I thought this comment summed things up fairly well (from our perspective):

http://sbcvoices.com/church-authority-and-church-discipline-anonymous/

We are grateful that some are starting to take notice of church authority / church discipline gone awry and hope that it will continue to be discussed.  We believe church discipline has reached a tipping point and pray that some serious changes will be made in the way it is carried out.  We fear that we have seen just the tip of the iceberg regarding abusive church discipline.

We are always interested in hearing from our brothers and sisters in Christ who have been wrongly 'disciplined'.  If you would like to share your experience with us, you can contact us by email – dee@thewartburgwatch.com or deb@thewartburgwatch.com

Comments

Guest Poster at SBC Voices Shares Concerns About Extreme ‘Church Discipline’ — 1,201 Comments

  1. js wrote:

    If you can’t see the God-given callings I see I can’t make you see them.

    I do see a God-given calling for all Christians. Imitate Christ. Be conformed to the image of Christ. Be transformed by the renewing of your minds. What I do not find is any assignment of gender Roles. You are the one who is insisting that God assigned a hierarchy. Where? I have pointed you to the text of Genesis where God described his Very Good Creation. There is not a hint of hierarchy there. There is certainly a distinction between male and female. But the distinction, just like the distinction among the Persons of the Trinity, is not one of hierarchy.

    Trinity is a word that is used to describe the body of understanding about God in the Orthodox Creeds. I’m happy to refer to Father or Son or Holy Spirit or God or Triune God or whatever term you wish or the text employs.

  2. @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    Yes. The only purpose a married woman has to live is to serve and submit to her man.
    My husband’s my Shepard. I must submit. He maketh me to do his bidding. He leadeth me where he will. He supervises my soul. He maketh sure I walk the paths he designates, for his authority’s sake. Yea, though I wish to be human, I am only his shadow. I have no life, for I must submit. My submission comforts him, for he controls my life ……..

  3. Lydia wrote:

    @ Max:
    Max, I would deeply appreciate it if they would use some simple common sense when it comes to the “plain reading” of scripture. Heck, women have a “work” for salvation. Not just repentance and belief, either, but they have to have kids! Does it even occur to them that many women died back then having children? Well, we know those women are “saved”, right?
    It is too beautiful of a passage to mangle like that. Messiah was promised through women as God told Eve. Women would be a conduit to Redemption! Mary bore Jesus.
    It is about being “saved” through the “childbearing” of Messiah because of the fertility cult in Ephesus who taught that Eve was formed first and so many women died then in childbirth. Not to worry….you don’t need that pagan cult. You have THE CHILDBEARING to “save” you.
    It is just too beautiful to allow that ridiculous interpretation. It is no wonder the evil one has a special hate for women as we saw soon after the fall.

    And think of it…our Lord humbled Himself to the point of being circumscribed in the womb of a woman, His mother Mary! Talk about humility! And He was raised and taught by her. Hmmm….something to think about.

  4. js wrote:

    Can you give me the specific verses where Grudem does this editing of the Holy Spirit? I would like to study this further.

    I already did. 1 Corinthians 11:10. Do you think it is acceptable for someone with a high view of the text to do what Grudem did?

  5. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    Their God-given callings in marriage of submission and servant-leadership are different but do not inherently lead to denial of personhood.

    Again, you are asserting what you have not demonstrated from the text itself. If one person has less personal agency–is irrevocably subject to another person–that subject person has their personhood diminished. Putting a pretty label on it doesn’t change the reality.</blockquote

    Does a child have less personhood than a parent? I say no, even though they have less personal agency as a child. Yet the child submits in obedience to the parent.

    The wife is not irrevocably subject to her husband, her subjection is voluntary. Even in arranged marriage cultures there is a voluntary element. And in Christ, it is always a voluntary thing. This is not a prescription for marriage in general, it is specifically part of the new creation in Christ. Wife and husband carry out these God-given callings for the express purpose of imaging the Lord Jesus, who though He was rich made Himself poor and who emptied Himself and humbled Himself.

  6. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    Can you give me the specific verses where Grudem does this editing of the Holy Spirit? I would like to study this further.

    I already did. 1 Corinthians 11:10. Do you think it is acceptable for someone with a high view of the text to do what Grudem did?

    I didn’t see that. Is that the only text you are thinking of? I would like to study them all and will get back to you on my thoughts.

  7. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    This is a crucial discussion, and kudos to js for participating.
    TVC shares the same gender hierarchy views as js. They wanted Karen to stay with Jordan Root. She was disciplined for making decisions without the church’s input. There is some bad fruit emanating from this thinking.

    Thank you, yes. Karen Hinkley’s experience is the bitter fruit of a bitter root. It was totally predictable given their core beliefs about females, marriage, and clerical authority. And all of that is rooted in their aberrant Theology proper.

  8. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    If you can’t see the God-given callings I see I can’t make you see them.

    I do see a God-given calling for all Christians. Imitate Christ. Be conformed to the image of Christ. Be transformed by the renewing of your minds. What I do not find is any assignment of gender Roles. You are the one who is insisting that God assigned a hierarchy. Where? I have pointed you to the text of Genesis where God described his Very Good Creation. There is not a hint of hierarchy there. There is certainly a distinction between male and female. But the distinction, just like the distinction among the Persons of the Trinity, is not one of hierarchy.

    Trinity is a word that is used to describe the body of understanding about God in the Orthodox Creeds. I’m happy to refer to Father or Son or Holy Spirit or God or Triune God or whatever term you wish or the text employs.

    But though you know Trinity is a thoroughly biblical concept you would struggle to point to one verse which clearly illustrates it. In the same way, God-given callings in marriage are evident in the text as I read and study it even though you don’t see it there.

  9. js wrote:

    Does a child have less personhood than a parent? I say no, even though they have less personal agency as a child. Yet the child submits in obedience to the parent.

    So the parent is to the child as the husband is to the wife?

  10. js wrote:

    I haven’t looked at the preceding verses yet but I trust the late Bruce Metzger as a Greek scholar (and lead of the NRSV) more than I would trust myself.

    Bruce Metzger was an accomplished scholar, no doubt. And he was not YRR. But he was not infallible. There is no contextual reason to make the participle from verse 21 into an imperative in verse 22.

  11. js wrote:

    Am I subjugating them to injustice or am I calling them to obedience to God, even if they can’t fully understand it or fully accept it?

    It’s not either/or, I suspect. You may be subjugating them to the injustice of obedience while God is calling them. Which is probably why many can’t fully understand it. I know I don’t.

    But more to the point, why would someone who doesn’t believe in God pay attention to a religious stranger’s criticism of his/her own sexual identity? It would be extremely rude of you to plunge through someone’s personal boundaries in such a manner. Simply and fully unacceptable. So I hope you never do it.

  12. js wrote:

    I doubt we are exactly the same.

    I’m not saying you are exactly the same or are guilty of the same things. What I’m saying is that this hierarchy has been used against women in many churches. I think of it as a spectrum. On one end you have extreme Patriarchy. On the other end it may be more benign. Somewhere in the middle you have TVC.

    Gram3 was harmed by this very thinking, which is why she wants you to prove your case.

  13. Will M wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Which is pretty amazing considering the Holy Spirit apparently plays the role of child in the Trinity. Or maybe grandchild. I can’t quite understand if the Eternal Son is the Son or if he represents the subordinate woman. Hence my confusion regarding the status of the Holy Spirit in the hierarchy within the immanent Trinity.
    I cannot figure out the role of the Holy Spirit in the NeoCalvinism either. They do not talk about the Holy Spirit a lot. I know that you cannot pray to him. I think the Spirit is some kind of gofor for the Trinity.

    Truth is, as we confess in the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit is God and He is a person. Therefore, we can pray to Him. We can entreat Him and ask Him to intercede for us. He is not to be ignored.

  14. js wrote:

    But the point is submission does not equal inequality.

    Perhaps mutual submission (on the part of believers) does not equal inequality. However, one-sided submission does.

    After all, Jesus did say He came to do the will of His Father. However, He also said, “I and the Father are One.”

    I’m not sure a husband and wife can say that. Yes, “the two shall become as one” but there’s that little “as” qualifier in there. “As” one what? And does that “as one” require the wife to subsume her very self and personhood under that of her husband? (Which is the teaching I’ve been sitting under for the past decade or so, until I decided that our teen daughters deserved to be persons in their own rights, exercising the gifts given to them by God for His own purposes, and hopefully some day to His glory. Yet they were being raised to believe that any gifts that did not fit a submissive wife should be either discarded or twisted (beyond recognition, some of them) to fit the “role” (or “calling” if you prefer) of submissive wife.

    Yes, to me, people insisting on (non-mutual) submission certainly seem to fit that (unfair-sounding) term “female suborinationists.”

    Then there’s that “one” verse, that talks about one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

    The only outright *stated* hierarchy I see there, actually, places God above the rest.

  15. @ js:
    A wife is not a child who requires the superintendence of his/her parents until the child reaches maturity. The law was given to those who were immature. We are all called to attain maturity or fullness or completeness in Christ, whether male or female. A wife does not need her husband in order to conform herself to Christ. If that were the case, then unmarried women would be pretty much out of luck because they would not have anyone to submit to and thereby attain maturity. Some churches have “solved” the single woman “problem” by teaching that the elders are her spiritual covering. Gothard comes to mind. That did not work out very well for Karen Hinkley, did it?

  16. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Blue, I can’t speak to the whole controversy in the SBC, since I have never had anything to do with them or Wayne Grudem et. al.

    But I have to disagree with your assessment of the pushback js is getting re. some of his statements. I do not think he is being bullied (though that can happen on any site, and I have seen it happen here, in the past). I *do* think that many of those responding to him have been pushed around by people who advocate what he advocates, and what is currently advocated by the men who run the SBC. In fact, some of these commenters who are responding to js are from the SBC themselves, and know far more about all of these controversies than you or I. Again, that doesn’t mean that I think it’s OK to bully people, but I honestly do not believe that is what’s happening here.

    No offense intended, truly. I hope you will come back. And I do know what you mean about some of the comment threads over the past few months. There are times that it feels like things are ceaselessly going in circles, and I wish that could/would stop. I dunno; maybe you see me as part of the problematic group of commenters? If so, please understand that the individual I’ve responded to is saying things that I heard over 30 years ago, and in the exact same words. It gets hard to put up with after a while, especially when said commenter refuses to engage with various questions posed to them.

    That said, I am guilty of overdoing it at times, and I suspect that goes for many of us here.

    Hope you’ll come back.

  17. js wrote:

    But though you know Trinity is a thoroughly biblical concept you would struggle to point to one verse which clearly illustrates it. In the same way, God-given callings in marriage are evident in the text as I read and study it even though you don’t see it there.

    Please re-read my previous comment on this topic. We can use whatever terminology you prefer or the text itself uses. Now, back to the topic at hand. You want to maintain that there are gendered Roles that are irreversible. I deny that the Bible teaches anything about Roles. At all. The Bible teaches believers how we are to conduct ourselves, not how we are to order others to conduct themselves. The Holy Spirit indwells male and female believers in an undifferentiated way, as far as I can see from the text. What need does a married woman have for another junior Holy Spirit? Who is the junior Holy Spirit for an unmarried woman? What rational unmarried woman would give up her freedom in Christ in order to place herself under the rule of another human being?

  18. js wrote:

    But though you know Trinity is a thoroughly biblical concept you would struggle to point to one verse which clearly illustrates it. In the same way, God-given callings in marriage are evident in the text as I read and study it even though you don’t see it there.

    {Trinity – a union of 3 persons; a group of 3; the state of being three-fold or triple.}
    Father + Son + Holy Spirit = 3; a trinity

    I could glean from some texts that the Bible does not apply to women.

  19. js wrote:

    the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is sin

    But does it really? Or is that an interpretation?

    I honestly would like to know if I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by apologists who are interpreting scripture differently from what I grew up with, or if there is actual evidence and legitimate scholarship involved in the claim that the Bible does not denounce homosexuality as we understand it today (male with male, female with female) but that it was referring to temple prostitution, or abusive relationships.

    Help? (not directed to JS, because the answer is already in the comment — “homosexuality is sin.” But is there genuine, sound exegesis that allows people to be “christian” and “homosexual” at the same time?

    Of course, there are an awful lot of people proudly wearing the “christian” label who are in egregious sin themselves… hateful, hateful people. Lovers of themselves, proud, arrogant, abusive… (not to excuse one thing labeled as sin by bringing up others, just musing)

  20. js wrote:

    Wife and husband carry out these God-given callings for the express purpose of imaging the Lord Jesus, who though He was rich made Himself poor and who emptied Himself and humbled Himself.

    See, that is the problem. You are separating Christ into male characteristics which males are to image and female characteristics which females are to image. I say that all Christians are called to be conformed to the image of Christ, and that includes laying down your life for others (childbirth or making a living for your family or going overseas as a missionary are examples), loving others with a generous love, not lording it over others but assuming the position of a servant, speaking the truth in love, and every other thing that Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, showed us that a True Human should be. All of those characteristics of New Humanity should be exemplified by all who are part of the New Creation where there are no more human social markers that divide us.

    There is no hierarchy either between male and female or between laity and clergy. We are all one in Christ. We have different gifts, but we are one Body, and no part is more equal than another part. We are a Kingdom of Priests of the New Covenant, regardless of our gender.

  21. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Gram3 was harmed by this very thinking, which is why she wants you to prove your case.

    More specifically, some people I care about very much were greatly harmed by this, and I have seen the pattern repeated over and over. And it isn’t just male-female. It is the anti-Christian power paradigm that creates such destruction in the body.

  22. js wrote:

    The Bible gives us more patterns than prescriptions.

    oops, I am back. This is extremely dangerous thinking. I hope I am misunderstanding you. Descriptions or patterns are part of the narrative. They are not commands/prescriptions. For example, in Eph the closest we see to a “prescription” in that passage is “be filled with the Holy Spirit”. A wife in the 1st century did not submit, she obeyed. The only power women had were in the pagan cults. It could be that your understanding of how kephale was understood by that audience is part of the problem. We are also allowed to use common sense which is not used in many comp circles. How on earth did TVC come to believe Karen must submit to being in a marriage to a Pedophile? Even Paul told slaves to gain their freedom if they could.

    To even write that all believers (male/female, Greek/Jew, Slave/Free) submit to one another was quite radial and subversive but it was all about this “new life”. That theme is all over the letters if you look for it past the roles, rules and formulas that most focus on. When we focus on New Life and New creation imagine what we could all do together!

    I would highly recommend reading the Gospels a lot. Then interpret Paul through a Jesus filter.

    We cannot pretend that it was not written to specific audience in a specific time. The overarching theme of the NT letters is “new creation” and New Life as believers within that culture. Transforming. But so many want to focus on a caste system pink and blue Christianity.

  23. Gram3 wrote:

    You are separating Christ into male characteristics which males are to image and female characteristics which females are to image. I

    This is another big problem, isn’t it? If these gender “role” characteristics are spiritual, then how can we strive to be like our male Savior? Did Jesus Christ not transcend such thinking? Some say yes but ONLY for salvation.

    Besides the obvious physical functions of child birth, how are women believers spiritually different? Focusing on the spiritual aspects only.

  24. refugee wrote:

    Then there’s that “one” verse, that talks about one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

    Yes! No human mediators needed.

  25. @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    Also, if we do not speak up and refute these doctrines, there will be more Karen Hinkleys. You can see it taking shape at the Voices thread. They do not understand the real problem. They are so focused on a narrow issue that they totally miss the larger picture. Much like the Pharisees who were so diligent to observe the law that they totally missed the Incarnate Torah when he visited. It is not a matter of if there will be more victims like Karen. It is a matter of when. And it is shocking to me that pastors over at Voices are so blind to the heart of Jesus and are parsing how far discipline should go when that is not what caused such trauma to Karen and other victims of Power Religion, whether it is YRR or charismatic or whatever. We need to refute false doctrine and hold fast to sound doctrine. And sometimes we need to be willing to be called bullies or minions of Satin when we do that.

  26. @ Max:

    Well, that made me sick to listen to, Max. Chadler went on to say that he basically preaches to men. He’s read the stuff on how to preach to both sexes, “but he goes after the men.” No reason for women to even go to his church. He preaches a blue gospel and you can understand why Karen received the treatment she received. She is a second class citizen in the blue kingdom of Matt Chandler.

  27. @ Lydia:
    A huge problem is that the nature of the local cultures into which the Bible was written has been obscured either by time or by design. The meaning to the original audience has been totally bypassed and the *application* is being made into the *principle* instead of the *principle* being derived and then developing culturally-specific *applications* of that *principle.” If we observed proper hermeneutical methods, we would not be mistaking applications/instructions as principles. That is how we miss the point.

  28. js wrote:

    If you think the biblical role for male servant-leadership leads to entitlement you obviously haven’t studied Ephesians 5 very carefully.

    Huh. So, your reading of Ephesians 5 which you think says entitlement is an impossibility, trumps my experience when a child and a wife, plus the experience of many women in my small circles alone, to say nothing of many who come to this blog.

    There’s a bitsy problem here, js. It’s called the triumph of ideology over reality.

    The Bible is not God. It is a series of written testimonies of God. God is the Person against which we can lean our understanding. He resides with you and me, living our reality with us. He is the One Who Knows.

  29. Lydia wrote:

    Besides the obvious physical functions of child birth, how are women believers spiritually different? Focusing on the spiritual aspects only.

    Females are more easily deceived. Paul said so plainly. 🙂 Other than that, I don’t have any spiritual differences I can think of.

  30. js wrote:

    I understand you to mean that belief in roles in marriage of servant-leadership and submission means inherent inferiority or second-class status for women. Thus one class of people lording over another solely on the basis of an uncontrollable reality (gender).

    As well as women being required to be silent in church. (Another verse that some people take quite literally, along with the verse about a woman not being allowed to teach a man.)

  31. @ Gram3:
    Yes. IMHO, these men in the SBC are to busy debating THE LAW (men’s law) to get out there in the lost world and lead people to Jesus.

  32. @ refugee:
    (Oh, I’m sorry if this breaks the rules and derails the thread. Apologies. I don’t know where to post the question, actually, but I’d really like to find an answer. I am studying, but there are so many avenues and issues, it’s going to take me awhile to puzzle it out and find the right references and actually learn enough to maybe know something.)

  33. Gram3 wrote:

    @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    Also, if we do not speak up and refute these doctrines, there will be more Karen Hinkleys. You can see it taking shape at the Voices thread. They do not understand the real problem. They are so focused on a narrow issue that they totally miss the larger picture. Much like the Pharisees who were so diligent to observe the law that they totally missed the Incarnate Torah when he visited. It is not a matter of if there will be more victims like Karen. It is a matter of when. And it is shocking to me that pastors over at Voices are so blind to the heart of Jesus and are parsing how far discipline should go when that is not what caused such trauma to Karen and other victims of Power Religion, whether it is YRR or charismatic or whatever. We need to refute false doctrine and hold fast to sound doctrine. And sometimes we need to be willing to be called bullies or minions of Satin when we do that.

    When and if “Matt Chandlers” come to my church, I’m outta there for good. If the men want the church all to themselves, they’re welcome to it. I’m having enough problems with the way things are right now!

  34. Js wrote:

    But nobody was calling it out apparently, which was why a leader stepped up to call it out.

    I would say that he was teaching a young church how to handle the situation. The problem with today’s church is that leaders teach other members to depend on the leaders. The leaders want to be the ones to be responsible for all issues. Many leaders want the issues brought to them instead of discipleship happening among the body members.

  35. Patrice wrote:

    Huh. So, your reading of Ephesians 5 which you think says entitlement is an impossibility, trumps my experience when a child and a wife, plus the experience of many women in my small circles alone, to say nothing of many who come to this blog.

    Good men cannot see past their own good character. It is not the good things that are affirmed by a System but the evil things which are either permissible or not precluded by the System that create the destruction. Obviously a good man would not lord it over his wife, but a bad man is not going to be constrained by a law that says he must not be abusive. A bad man will find a way to use the System to justify his evil. Same for a woman. A system of rules cannot produce the righteousness of Christ, even if the system is designed by John Piper himself.

  36. Darlene wrote:

    JohnD wrote:

    Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
    But, I can NOT get my hands/mind around the concept that Calvanista’s are advocating the concept/need/requirement of a “mediator”, What?
    The Village Church’s “Church Discipline Guidelines” are on their website. This is what they say about sanctification: “The Lord created the method of church discipline as His intended means of sanctifying the church and her individual members. This is how he intends to sanctify His people and therefore failure on our part to carry out his desires is decidedly unloving.”
    They do concede elsewhere in the document that the Holy Spirit can do some of the work of sanctification without them.

    Church discipline as the “intended” means of sanctifying the church? Even the Orthodox Church, of which I am a member, and which these NeoCal types would say has a controlling hierarchy (which btw is not true), do not think the church takes precedence over the Holy Spirit in sanctifying the believer. Look folks, again it is time to say it. If you are in a 9Marx or Acts 29 or NeoCalvinist church…RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! Or soon, if you don’t tow the line, YOU WILL BE DISCIPLINED. And it might just be over a simple thing as disagreeing with your husband, and someone overhearing it in the church halls.

    +1,000,000 [if I could vote your comment up]

    This is so true!!! This was EXACTLY my experience.

  37. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    Yes. The only purpose a married woman has to live is to serve and submit to her man.
    My husband’s my Shepard. I must submit. He maketh me to do his bidding. He leadeth me where he will. He supervises my soul. He maketh sure I walk the paths he designates, for his authority’s sake. Yea, though I wish to be human, I am only his shadow. I have no life, for I must submit. My submission comforts him, for he controls my life ……..

    Sounds like a remake of Psalm 23.

  38. js wrote:

    In marriage I believe wives submit to the servant leadership of their husbands while maintaining full equality as children of God and full responsibility to live faithfully before God.

    Words. It’s all just words. Very discouraging.

    It means nothing. It is a resounding gong, a clanging cymbal.

  39. @ Gram3:
    I think the Julie McMahon case is another instance of Power religion creating a rolling disaster. Instead of standing on the principles of Christ-likeness, people are supporting the Celebrity from whom they derive glory themselves. It is not YRR, and the doctrinal contours are not the same, but the same evil spirit of lust for power and influence *is* the same.

  40. Lydia wrote:

    You cannot seem to understand that verse 21 is in there. How do you get around that? Seems selfish to me that you want to. :o)

    (Look at an interlinear. They even added a word to verse 22)

    He doesn’t get around it. He re-casts it to fit “roles” and “leadership” issues.

    Ephesians 5:21 is a classic verse on mutual submission, which I believe because that is what the text says. How do we submit to one another is the question of leadership and roles and there we disagree on what the text means.<

  41. Velour wrote:

    Will M wrote:
    No another poster. I do like a lot of the Orthodox view on some theological matters, but not Orthodox.
    Thanks, Will.

    Velour, that would be me. I’m an Orthodox Christian. But I do think another gentleman with the name of Bill G., who has commented at TWW is also Orthodox.

  42. @ refugee:
    Refuge,
    I can’t speak for everyone else, but I certainly don’t mind you breaking the discussion in an attempt to learn.
    If you have a Bible handy, read Romans 1:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. There, you will find Paul’s references to homosexuals. In 1 Cor., “effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” is referring to homosexuality.
    At least, that is how I understand it.
    If you don’t have a Bible handy, let me know and I will post the passages for you.

  43. Nancy2 wrote:

    No, women are not inferior. We’re just commanded to play the roles of inferiors.

    There you go. Neatly sums it up.

  44. js wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    original Mitch wrote:

    I am not criticizing the blog author at all but rather noting the inconstant application of the “rules”. When I see things like this I wonder “why”.

    Consistency is not valued. The one who has the authority makes the rules. I don’t have a problem with blogs having their own rules, because it is the blog owner’s blog. However, inconsistent application of the rules makes the rules not really rules except when the “authority” chooses to apply them in however the “authority” chooses to apply them. This is basically a spirit of lawlessness and damages their credibility. I have found that they break the same rules they apply to everyone else because they can.

    Logic, the Biblical text, hermeneutical methods, discipline rules, whatever. We have to live by their rules, but they do not have to live by their rules. See C.J. Mahaney and Dr. Discipline Dever.

    I don’t necessarily think they’re breaking any rules here or being inconsistent. Unless Denny Burk is the writer here (which I doubt) I don’t know of any of the other well-known bloggers who require a full name in comments. From my perspective, I think there is a difference in anonymity within the church versus anonymity online. Almost none of us are using our real names here at TWW, for example. But within the local church, I could see the difficulty of anonymous letters and such, as leaders who receive such letters can’t usually really address the situation with the people involved. Thus there may be leaders who discourage anonymous letters and such. I can’t judge their motives for this but I doubt in many cases that it is just a control and authority issue. Often it is a ministry issue. Not being able to be reconciled with the one offended because of anonymity is difficult. My guess is that leaders who encourage others to not be anonymous are most likely talking about life in the church rather than online life.

    If church members are in an authoritarian church, then they will face church discipline if their names are found out. Matt Chandler called someone a “narcissistic zero” for submitting an anonymous complaint. And look what happened to Karen Hinkley and other Village Church Members and attenders whose names were known? *Church Discipline*, being lied about, excommunicated, shunned, gossiped about, excluded from small groups and Bible studies. Just wicked and evil!

    If your church is so unsafe that people will be punished for coming forward, then don’t blame church members under the ruse they aren’t *reconciled*, blame the church leadership for not being like Jesus Christ in their behavior.

  45. Darlene wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    Will M wrote:
    No another poster. I do like a lot of the Orthodox view on some theological matters, but not Orthodox.
    Thanks, Will.

    Velour, that would be me. I’m an Orthodox Christian. But I do think another gentleman with the name of Bill G., who has commented at TWW is also Orthodox.

    Great. Thanks, Darlene!

  46. Will M wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    It gets even creepier. I can remember when Bruce Ware was vascillating around on whether we should pray to Jesus or not. ‘They really do have a problem with 3 different gods in a caste system trinity.
    Been there. This teaching filtered down to my (previous) NeoCal church. They could not find a place in scripture where you prayed to Jesus. I bit my tongue and did not mention Stephen. Looking back, I probably should have. One of our young NeoCal pastors actually posited that (due to His Omnipresence) God (the Father) was in hell but the Son was not. I kind of questioned then if the Father and Son are truly of one substance. Did not go over well!

    Well, technically many Evangelicals will say the proper way to pray is to address our prayers to God the Father in the name of Jesus. I don’t ignore any of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. I have prayed to God the Father, God the Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit. So much of what these NeoCals teach seems like a restricted and methodical system.

  47. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Would be sorry to lose your perspective. I am honestly trying to understand, but the semantics are daunting.

    I came from two decades’ immersion in patriarchal culture, and have seen terrible outcomes from demanding submission of women while giving lip-service to Christlike love from men.

    A lot of the vitriol you’re seeing is, to my mind, the cries of freed slaves (to the precepts of men, not necessarily God) who refuse to voluntarily clap the irons back on again.

    Js sounds so loving and reasonable in some of his comments, it makes me pause and reconsider my experience, what I have seen with my own eyes, what I have felt. But the “other side” has some thought-provoking arguments (the mutual submission in verse 21, for example, that leads the entire discussion to follow), and it is very frustrating that he ignores those points and simply restates his position.

    Frustration leads me to react, rather than respond. I don’t know if it’s the same for others.

  48. GovPappy wrote:

    @ Albuquerque Blue:
    I disagree with that assessment.

    It’s a hot topic because many of the people here have had bad experiences with the theology being argued.

    And js and/or us can leave at any time. Nobody is being bullied here. It’s not like we’ve taken over someone else’s blog. You’re seeing “groupthink” because the only people left talking about it on this thread are the ones arguing or interested in learning.

    The fact that js is the only one currently sticking around to argue his side is just unfortunate for his cause, but hardly anybody’s fault here. He’s espousing a cause that many here have been personally burned by, so of course they’re interested, and angered. Nobody’s calling names and assuming he’s an awful person that I’ve seen. It’s a hot disagreement, that’s all.

    Thanks, GovPappy. I concur. Over at SBC Voices they won’t even give my posts the time of day and Dave Miller hasn’t posted my comments or those of others. JS is espousing a system that is extremely destructive and authoritarian, and it has really harmed the lives of many of us who comment here (and we have witnessed it harm others).

    Perhaps I missed some comments of JS, but overall I have found that JS’ comments are dismissive to those of us who have been harmed by these authoritarian churches and systems. It is a doctrine of men and an Anti-Gospel that is being promoted.

  49. js wrote:

    I don’t see anywhere in what I’ve written an attempt to shut down any and all criticism of the YRR but I do occasionally write against what I see as unfair criticism.

    You have repeated this several times now. I believe Dee responded to your criticism. She pointed out all the articles TWW has posted about other ‘tribes.’ Did you not see her response?

  50. @ refugee:
    You might try Matthew Vines’ book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-sex Relationships . I haven’t read it but I hear it’s a fairly thorough presentation of an Evangelical reading of the Bible.

  51. Velour wrote:

    Thanks, GovPappy. I concur. Over at SBC Voices they won’t even give my posts the time of day and Dave Miller hasn’t posted my comments or those of others. JS is espousing a system that is extremely destructive and authoritarian, and it has really harmed the lives of many of us who comment here (and we have witnessed it harm others).

    Perhaps I missed some comments of JS, but overall I have found that JS’ comments are dismissive to those of us who have been harmed by these authoritarian churches and systems. It is a doctrine of men and an Anti-Gospel that is being promoted.

    Besides SBCVoices not posting my comment/questions, I attended a 3-day SBC planter church seminar in Louisville with my husband in 2011. I was completely shut out of all activities because I am a woman. When it comes to husband and wives in mission work, the wives are treated like furniture. At least that’s been my experience.

  52. refugee wrote:

    @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Would be sorry to lose your perspective. I am honestly trying to understand, but the semantics are daunting.

    I came from two decades’ immersion in patriarchal culture, and have seen terrible outcomes from demanding submission of women while giving lip-service to Christlike love from men.

    A lot of the vitriol you’re seeing is, to my mind, the cries of freed slaves (to the precepts of men, not necessarily God) who refuse to voluntarily clap the irons back on again.

    Js sounds so loving and reasonable in some of his comments, it makes me pause and reconsider my experience, what I have seen with my own eyes, what I have felt. But the “other side” has some thought-provoking arguments (the mutual submission in verse 21, for example, that leads the entire discussion to follow), and it is very frustrating that he ignores those points and simply restates his position.

    Frustration leads me to react, rather than respond. I don’t know if it’s the same for others.

    Abq Blue,

    Aren’t you in a recovery program? Is this conflict triggering something for you? Family stuff, perhaps?

    We really value you here. This is a hot topic – church discipline – and it’s time that it was discussed out in the open. It’s like cleaning an abscess. It’s dirty work but the infection must come out. We were sold a lie about church discipline. A harmful, un-Biblical lie that has ZERO to do with the love of Jesus Christ or The Gospel. It’s a doctrine of men. Mean-spirited, controlling, unloving, evil men.

    Thank goodness The Shepherding Movement founders were repented of it and its many abuses, how un-Biblical it is.

  53. Will M wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    It gets even creepier. I can remember when Bruce Ware was vascillating around on whether we should pray to Jesus or not. ‘They really do have a problem with 3 different gods in a caste system trinity.
    Been there. This teaching filtered down to my (previous) NeoCal church. They could not find a place in scripture where you prayed to Jesus. I bit my tongue and did not mention Stephen. Looking back, I probably should have. One of our young NeoCal pastors actually posited that (due to His Omnipresence) God (the Father) was in hell but the Son was not. I kind of questioned then if the Father and Son are truly of one substance. Did not go over well!

    Well, I think technically in many Evangelical circles they would teach that our prayers should be directed to God the Father in Jesus’ name. Being that each of the members of the Holy Trinity are Persons and God, each deserve our honor, worship and prayers. Remember what the Nicene Creed says: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.” Of course I didn’t say “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son” because the Eastern Churches have never confessed the filioque. And that’s a whole nuther can ‘o’ worms. 😉

  54. refugee wrote:

    I came from two decades’ immersion in patriarchal culture, and have seen terrible outcomes from demanding submission of women while giving lip-service to Christlike love from men.

    Same here. In my case, my husband isn’t the problem. In fact, ours looks like the typical conservative arrangement. He’s a good man. Leadership, on the other hand, berated him more than once for giving me too much independence. When the leadership wanted something from me, they leaned on my husband to coerce me.

  55. Men and women are equal in every single way- Read the American Constitution, the Canadian Bill of Rights and other governing documents. Read the bible for it’s inspiration, but read it in the context of its history. If you are a believer, then these “secular” documents are just as much a part of God’s plan as the bible, maybe more. Our society does not always put the ideals into practice but they exist in principle. We have freedom of thought, we have freedom of association, we have freedom of religion. A pastor is a person, a citizen, just like you. What is a woman’s role?, the same as a man’s – Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  56. Gram3 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Perhaps that is because they have never really thought it through.

    That was my personal experience. It was never an issue in my marriage or in my birth family or in my professional life. I am a real complementarian, not a Female Subordinationist calling myself a complementarian. Due to painful circumstances that were basically put upon us an people dear to us, I saw the System for what it really is, and I started studying. Then, when I saw how “conservatives” whom I had trusted had twisted the text and how illogical their reasoning is and how slippery their language is, I got a bit upset.

    My mission field is People Who Assume Because They Never Thought About It And Believe What They Are Told By People They Trust. The fields are ripe.

    This! Way to go, Gram3!

  57. Lydia wrote:

    Patrice wrote:

    Where on earth did the “stand on a stage and speak” to a large audience with no interaction come from? It is the worst possible method for the Body of Christ. Yet, many have been told the sermon is the most important event of their week. Mahaney used to say this all the time.

    The idea of a “stage” is rather recent – I’d say post-modern Christian thinking, even in Protestant circles.

  58. Janet Varin wrote:

    Dee said: I believe that Jonathan is nice guy who truly wants to do his best for the kingdom.

    Dee, I choose to think you’ve inadvertently perpetuated an error in thought. I contacted electronically both Leeman and Dever to articulate what 9 marks church discipline looked like in my case (isolation, false and baseless accusations, partiality, berating, slander of my own character to the families of children I had taught, and brothers and sisters I had loved to serve for many years. Obviously, the icing on the cake was publicly denouncing my character so that I would remain isolated and find my job search even more difficult.) I received no response from either, although I made it clear I hoped to.

    Have you told Karen Hinkley that Matt Chandler is basically a nice guy? I think you believe that because Leeman hasn’t been personally linked to a case of abusive discipline (yet) that his hands are clean. To author the rules by which others can do violence, to defend those rules even though you are aware that they are used as a weapon of abuse, and to ignore a voice of one who has suffered abuse based on your writings is cowardly and indefensible. Leeman is a coward. A theologically bankrupt coward.

    I am not surprised, either. I have contacted them as well about the excommunications/shunnings at my church of godly Christians for the slightest dissent. They would not respond either. They keep defending their stance. They don’t want to admit how much damage they have done to peoples’ lives, to churches, to relationships, to the Gospel, to the name and the cause of Christ. They are full of pride and arrogance. Conceited.

  59. Nancy2 wrote:

    When and if “Matt Chandlers” come to my church, I’m outta there for good. If the men want the church all to themselves, they’re welcome to it. I’m having enough problems with the way things are right now!

    Isn’t it ironic? Church seems more and more to be “by men, for men” and “women need not apply” (themselves, or even attend. Their husbands can go and soak up all the learning and then go home and teach the wives, after all. But then who’ll make the coffee? Or take care of the food? Or run the nursery. Oh, wait, don’t need a nursery if the non-essential people stay at home).

    And yet, I remember concern 30 years or so ago, that the problem was being stated as this: churches were woman-dominated, and it was difficult to get men to attend, much less take an active part.

  60. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Correction: On page 18 Ware says we should pray to the Father through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. Parents incorrect teach their children to start their prayers with “Dear Jesus.” It has been a long time since I read the book, and he no doubt elaborates later. I just wanted to clarify my previous comment which may be accurate but which is not in the first few pages. In any case, it certainly makes it odd that Jesus is interceding for us but we are not supposed to pray to him.

    Gram: It’s flat out ignoring Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, two Persons of the Holy Trinity who are co-equal with the Father. And this is all to preserve some Patriarchal teaching on the Trinity which succeeds in subordinating women? Say it ain’t so.

  61. Gram3 wrote:

    Good men cannot see past their own good character … A system of rules cannot produce the righteousness of Christ, even if the system is designed by John Piper himself.

    Yes. This is the problem I perceive with Js. He cannot see past his own goodness, cannot seem to conceive of the abuse and despair that the “system” enables, even encourages.

    And saying, “What man intended for evil, God meant for good” offers cold comfort these days.

  62. Js wrote:

    But nobody was calling it out apparently, which was why a leader stepped up to call it out. I don’t defend the yrr in all their ways but I can’t build a biblical bridge to the absence of any leadership in the local church.

    I’m not sure how you and I got to absence of leadership from my comment. On that subject I would advocate something similar to Jeffersonian theory, that which governs best governs least.

  63. js wrote:

    Where is the Trinity? Show me the text. I’ve been looking for years for the magic Trinity text and I just can’t find it.

    Good, that means I don’t need to believe in the Orthodox view of the Trinity to be an official Christian then, right? But I will probably still be called a heretic by those same Orthodox Christians. Go figure!

  64. refugee wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    When and if “Matt Chandlers” come to my church, I’m outta there for good. If the men want the church all to themselves, they’re welcome to it. I’m having enough problems with the way things are right now!
    Isn’t it ironic? Church seems more and more to be “by men, for men” and “women need not apply” (themselves, or even attend. Their husbands can go and soak up all the learning and then go home and teach the wives, after all. But then who’ll make the coffee? Or take care of the food? Or run the nursery. Oh, wait, don’t need a nursery if the non-essential people stay at home).
    And yet, I remember concern 30 years or so ago, that the problem was being stated as this: churches were woman-dominated, and it was difficult to get men to attend, much less take an active part.

    Refugee, the leader – “pastor” in Christian cult I was part of at one time taught that the fellowship really consisted of the males. And that females were to submit to “Jesus and the brothers.” Of course what it really boiled down to was: Submit to the men. And when the men weren’t manly men, they were derided and criticized publicly.

  65. Darlene wrote:

    Well, technically many Evangelicals will say the proper way to pray is to address our prayers to God the Father in the name of Jesus. I don’t ignore any of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. I have prayed to God the Father, God the Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit. So much of what these NeoCals teach seems like a restricted and methodical system.

    You know the really cool thing? I don’t think He cares if we get it right or not. He loves for us to seek His wisdom. I know folks who call Him, Abba. (Always make me think of that singing group from Sweden and then I get those songs in my head instead of listening to prayers…..oh dear)

  66. Lydia wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    Well, technically many Evangelicals will say the proper way to pray is to address our prayers to God the Father in the name of Jesus. I don’t ignore any of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. I have prayed to God the Father, God the Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit. So much of what these NeoCals teach seems like a restricted and methodical system.
    You know the really cool thing? I don’t think He cares if we get it right or not. He loves for us to seek His wisdom. I know folks who call Him, Abba. (Always make me think of that singing group from Sweden and then I get those songs in my head instead of listening to prayers…..oh dear)

    I believe that when we can’t verbally pray what we need to say, God hears what is in,our hearts.

  67. Darlene wrote:

    Well, I think technically in many Evangelical circles they would teach that our prayers should be directed to God the Father in Jesus’ name.

    Totally off topic (well, maybe not completely totally) but one of my pet peeves is praying with people in a group. I’m self-conscious as it is, and often don’t say much of anything, just keep silence, so maybe I don’t even have any right to say this… I find it jarring, when the person praying aloud says, “Father God” every fifth word or so, as if God has ADD or something and they have to bring His attention back to the prayer.

    There, I said it. Apologies to any who found this offensive. Whew.

  68. Darlene wrote:

    refugee wrote:
    Nancy2 wrote:
    When and if “Matt Chandlers” come to my church, I’m outta there for good. If the men want the church all to themselves, they’re welcome to it. I’m having enough problems with the way things are right now!
    Isn’t it ironic? Church seems more and more to be “by men, for men” and “women need not apply” (themselves, or even attend. Their husbands can go and soak up all the learning and then go home and teach the wives, after all. But then who’ll make the coffee? Or take care of the food? Or run the nursery. Oh, wait, don’t need a nursery if the non-essential people stay at home).
    And yet, I remember concern 30 years or so ago, that the problem was being stated as this: churches were woman-dominated, and it was difficult to get men to attend, much less take an active part.

    Refugee, the leader – “pastor” in Christian cult I was part of at one time taught that the fellowship really consisted of the males. And that females were to submit to “Jesus and the brothers.” Of course what it really boiled down to was: Submit to the men. And when the men weren’t manly men, they were derided and criticized publicly.

    Why even bother to go to church, then, if one is a woman?

    Why bother to marry at all, for that matter?

  69. Darlene wrote:

    Gram: It’s flat out ignoring Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, two Persons of the Holy Trinity who are co-equal with the Father. And this is all to preserve some Patriarchal teaching on the Trinity which succeeds in subordinating women? Say it ain’t so.

    Well, I don’t think what Ware says is so, but he says it is so. I doubt if the Father is overly offended if we pray to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit, both of whom intercede for us. I do think that Ware’s reading of the intra-Trinitarian relationships is an extreme form of social Trinitarianism that is nearly tri-theistic in that he seems to be asserting that there is a divided will in the Trinity. He defines relationships according to relative power, and I simply do not see a power relationship between the Eternal Three. I see mutual indwelling and mutual absolute love being the basis for their relationships rather than relative power.

  70. Lydia wrote:

    I know folks who call Him, Abba. (Always make me think of that singing group from Sweden and then I get those songs in my head instead of listening to prayers…..oh dear)

    Thank you for the chuckle.

    This topic makes me anxious enough, it is nice to find a smile along the way.

  71. Nancy2 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Darlene wrote:
    Well, technically many Evangelicals will say the proper way to pray is to address our prayers to God the Father in the name of Jesus. I don’t ignore any of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. I have prayed to God the Father, God the Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit. So much of what these NeoCals teach seems like a restricted and methodical system.
    You know the really cool thing? I don’t think He cares if we get it right or not. He loves for us to seek His wisdom. I know folks who call Him, Abba. (Always make me think of that singing group from Sweden and then I get those songs in my head instead of listening to prayers…..oh dear)

    I believe that when we can’t verbally pray what we need to say, God hears what is in,our hearts.

    That’s scriptural.

    (cut and pasted from Bible Gateway)
    Romans 8:26-27New International Version (NIV)

    26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

  72. Bridget wrote:

    Good, that means I don’t need to believe in the Orthodox view of the Trinity to be an official Christian then, right? But I will probably still be called a heretic by those same Orthodox Christians. Go figure!

    Not me. I love talking about controversial unorthodox views. It is as if so many have been taught it is a sin to discuss other views or question anything that has been handed down. I don’t get it. Tradition is not bad in and of itself but we can really get stuck there if not careful.

    I think the concept of Trinity comes from 1 John 5 and Matthew 28:19. It is really a label of convenience, it seems.

    I have a question: which one is the Lord of Hosts in the OT? :o)

  73. Gram3 wrote:

    He defines relationships according to relative power, and I simply do not see a power relationship between the Eternal Three.

    This causes big problems for the cross, too. Does it lessen the sacrifice?

  74. Gram3 wrote:

    I see mutual indwelling and mutual absolute love being the basis for their relationships rather than relative power.

    And I believe that our divergence regarding the nature of the intra-Trinitarian relationships carries over into how we view other relationships. If it’s about relative power, then it is about who is first at the love feast or who sits at the right hand of Jesus in the Kingdom or whose gifts are more important or which gender can exercise which gifts in what setting and whether the Jewish widows get more than the Gentile widows and on and on and on.

    However, if our basic paradigm is that of mutuality and oneness and mutual love and deference and respect and elevating others rather than ourselves and taking on the yoke of a servant rather than mounting the heights of the Temple, then that results in a church and a marriage an friendships that look very different than ones shaped by a relative power paradigm.

  75. refugee wrote:

    I find it jarring, when the person praying aloud says, “Father God” every fifth word or so, as if God has ADD or something and they have to bring His attention back to the prayer.

    lol I always supposed it was because they had ADD and needed to keep reminding themselves that they were talking to God, who is, after all, invisible, and quiet too. 🙂

  76. @ refugee:

    No way am I offended. I find it uncomfortable unless I am with very close friends who know me well. For some reason, Matthew 6 has become very real to me in ways unexpected. And this is more than I usually share but praying in restaurants is something I won’t engage in at all. I always feel like I should strap on a phylactery or something. I don’t judge others who disagree with me, though.

  77. Lydia wrote:

    This causes big problems for the cross, too. Does it lessen the sacrifice?

    Not sure what you mean by lessen. I think, for me, it is meaningful that the Eternal Son left the place that was rightfully his and humbled himself in an unimaginable way for me for the simple reason that he loves me. I don’t know why he loves me. Ware’s narrative of the Obedient Son has a different feel for me. Not that feelings are determinative. However, if the Eternal Son was only doing what he was obligated to do as the Obedient Son, then the reason for Jesus’ obedience and his enduring the Cross is much different, ISTM.

    Both ways of looking at the Cross involve love and obedience, but it is how and why his love and obedience are expressed that makes a difference for me.

  78. Gram3 wrote:

    However, if our basic paradigm is that of mutuality and oneness and mutual love and deference and respect and elevating others rather than ourselves and taking on the yoke of a servant rather than mounting the heights of the Temple, then that results in a church and a marriage an friendships that look very different than ones shaped by a relative power paradigm.

    +1000 This is the structure of my life and relationships* and it is very different than the hierarchical model which was handed to me and I blindly followed for much of my life.

    *Except that I don’t elevate others rather than myself, but focus on the needs at hand, whether they be mine or others’. Which is also opposite my old paradigm, where I always put everyone before myself because I was the bottom.

  79. Gram3 wrote:

    BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    This is a crucial discussion, and kudos to js for participating.
    TVC shares the same gender hierarchy views as js. They wanted Karen to stay with Jordan Root. She was disciplined for making decisions without the church’s input. There is some bad fruit emanating from this thinking.

    Thank you, yes. Karen Hinkley’s experience is the bitter fruit of a bitter root. It was totally predictable given their core beliefs about females, marriage, and clerical authority. And all of that is rooted in their aberrant Theology proper.

    Yes, and here is conservative Baptist pastor Wade Burleson’s very good article on that subject: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/05/it-takes-village-covenant-to-raise.html

  80. Patrice wrote:

    *Except that I don’t elevate others rather than myself, but focus on the needs at hand, whether they be mine or others’. Which is also opposite my old paradigm, where I always put everyone before myself because I was the bottom.

    Yes, I get that distinction, and I have also done what you describe. I would say that it is both/and. I don’t think of myself more highly than I ought, but I don’t think of myself as less than I ought, either. I think it is possible to have self-respect while also having a disposition to put the needs of others before my personal preferences in particular situations. It isn’t a rule but rather an attitude.

  81. Gram3 wrote:

    Both ways of looking at the Cross involve love and obedience, but it is how and why his love and obedience are expressed that makes a difference for me.

    Sign seen on a plaque in a schoolroom yesterday:

    “Jesus, the ultimate volunteer.”

  82. I have to let y’all know what’s go in’ on in my neck of the woods this weekend. FYI, I live 30 miles from Hopkinsville, KY.

    1.). Little Green Men Days in Kelly, KY — just north of Hopkinsville Fri, Sat., and Sun. This is a festival based on claimed sightings of space aliens. (Google it). Live music, costume contests, food …..

    2.). Legacy Men’s Conference in Hopkinsville. Claims to be “an event like no other encouraging BIBLICAL MANHOOD open to all men. Includes keynote speakers, conferences, and breakout sessions! From 7:30 am Sat. Until 4:55 pm.
    (No gurlz allowed)

    So, guess where I plan to be on Saturday???

  83. Gram3 wrote:

    @ js:
    A wife is not a child who requires the superintendence of his/her parents until the child reaches maturity. The law was given to those who were immature. We are all called to attain maturity or fullness or completeness in Christ, whether male or female. A wife does not need her husband in order to conform herself to Christ. If that were the case, then unmarried women would be pretty much out of luck because they would not have anyone to submit to and thereby attain maturity. Some churches have “solved” the single woman “problem” by teaching that the elders are her spiritual covering. Gothard comes to mind. That did not work out very well for Karen Hinkley, did it?

    Spot on, Gram3!

    And it didn’t work out very well for the women under Gothard who were sexually abused by him. Why is it that were are supposed to get our rules from all of these men who are caught in sexual sins? Sick rules come from sick men, who generally have sick secrets.

  84. Nancy2 wrote:

    I have to let y’all know what’s go in’ on in my neck of the woods this weekend. FYI, I live 30 miles from Hopkinsville, KY.

    1.). Little Green Men Days in Kelly, KY — just north of Hopkinsville Fri, Sat., and Sun. This is a festival based on claimed sightings of space aliens. (Google it). Live music, costume contests, food …..

    2.). Legacy Men’s Conference in Hopkinsville. Claims to be “an event like no other encouraging BIBLICAL MANHOOD open to all men. Includes keynote speakers, conferences, and breakout sessions! From 7:30 am Sat. Until 4:55 pm.
    (No gurlz allowed)

    So, guess where I plan to be on Saturday???

    You will be chained to a sewing machine sewing NeoCal/Hotel California burkas for me to sell at the big, upcoming Church Discipline conference…that’s where you’ll be spending you Saturday!

    Signed,

    Velour,
    Product Development at
    Shehad (pronoun “She” + Had, sounds like Jihad) for the
    NeoCal’s War on Women Product Line

  85. Gram3 wrote:

    ot sure what you mean by lessen.

    If He is a lesser god in the ESS paradigm it brings problems in that respect when you add in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I have heard them mangle Philippians 2. “The God poured out His wrath on His Son” (He had to pour out His wrath somewhere and it should be us) instead of “Jesus Christ willingly giving up His glory to be a sacrifice” or “Jesus Christ defeating death”.

  86. okrapod wrote:

    Jesus, the ultimate volunteer.”

    I saw a bumper sticker that said “Jesus called, He wants His religion back”. :o)

  87. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I can sew at night.
    Rewrite: Hotel Neo/California?

    What are you going to use for a logo?

    Brilliant, Serf Nancy2! Hotel NeoCalifornia!

    Logo. Do you have ideas? Stockades? Something like Calvin’s Geneva? Burnings at the stake?

  88. Lydia wrote:

    okrapod wrote:

    Jesus, the ultimate volunteer.”

    I saw a bumper sticker that said “Jesus called, He wants His religion back”. :o)

    Honk = Amen!

  89. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I. Otw for burning at the stake, since that’s what Calvin is infamous for!!!

    Nancy2,

    OK, so I’m picturing a burning stake for the “t” in Hotel NeoCalifornia.
    That would make a nice logo for our NeoCal wares for the big, big, big
    Church Discipline conference that is up and coming.

    Singe [burnt at the edges],

    Velour,
    Product Development
    at Shehad [She, pronoun, + Had, sounds like Jihad] for
    the NeoCal’s War on Women

  90. okrapod wrote:

    “Jesus, the ultimate volunteer.”

    Yes, and I don’t think he was a volunteer in the Army sense of that word, either, though I’m pretty sure that is the view that ESS proponents favor.

    Must not have been a public school.

  91. Bridget wrote:

    Well, that made me sick to listen to, Max.

    Sorry to have contributed to your illness, Bridget. New Calvinism has that effect on certain folks. Considering your health, do not listen to the other 3 parts of John Piper’s interview with Matt Chandler. The arrogance alone spewing from these folks should have a medical alert associated with the videos. I continue to be amazed that so many 20s-40s are falling for this. The Pied Piper has surely cast a spell on them.

  92. @ Lydia:
    I don’t have a problem with PSA except when it is put forth as the only thing that the Atonement was about. That is a whole other line of questioning at my most recent former church. If I am understanding you correctly, the concern is that a “lesser” God would not be able to fully absorb/pay for/satisfy the Father’s wrath at offenses committed against his holiness. And that is my understanding. I see the Cross/Resurrection/Ascension as the ultimate display of God’s attributes. There is perfect love, perfect holiness, perfect mercy, perfect justice, perfect righteousness, perfect humility, perfect glory, and everything else, and we dare not over-emphasize one at the expense of the others.

    Did I come close?

  93. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t have a problem with PSA

    I should have added that the reason I don’t have a justice problem with PSA is that God as the Eternal Son played by the Triune God’s own rules, so to speak. He provided his own lamb. And I don’t mean that in a modalistic sense, either, just to be perfectly clear to all those just tuning in.

  94. Max wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Well, that made me sick to listen to, Max.

    Sorry to have contributed to your illness, Bridget. New Calvinism has that effect on certain folks. Considering your health, do not listen to the other 3 parts of John Piper’s interview with Matt Chandler. The arrogance alone spewing from these folks should have a medical alert associated with the videos. I continue to be amazed that so many 20s-40s are falling for this. The Pied Piper has surely cast a spell on them.

    I liken it to carbon monoxide poisoning.

  95. Nancy2 wrote:

    js wrote:

    Does a child have less personhood than a parent? I say no, even though they have less personal agency as a child. Yet the child submits in obedience to the parent.

    So the parent is to the child as the husband is to the wife?

    That would, indeed, be pretty sick.

  96. Gram3 wrote:

    If I am understanding you correctly, the concern is that a “lesser” God would not be able to fully absorb/pay for/satisfy the Father’s wrath at offenses committed against his holiness.

    That is very close. Except perhaps it is often presented as Jesus being ordered in a way to go. That Jesus would not dare equate himself as equal with the Father and how that relates to the cross. (Phil 2 interpretation they use for ESS) The whole cosmic child abuse paradigm of an angry God who needs to punish someone.

    Personally, I think the Christ is Victorious position works best with Born Again, New Life, New Creation, conquering death, etc. I think it works best with the Jewish aspect, too, of ending the Law.

    There is probably a mix with some Ransom, too. We will ask after the marriage feast. :o)

  97. AnonInNC wrote:

    I don’t treat a membership covenant as a red flag. I treat it as an ejector seat. Meaning if I get one of those things put in front of me for me to sign, I immediately eject myself from that church.

    I’m an adult. I neither need nor want church leaders to control where I work, where I live, what car I buy, where I shop, whether or not I marry, whether or not I have kids, how/where those potential kids will be educated, how many Sundays I can miss church, whether or not I attend weekday small groups, outreach/fellowship/retreat events, or whether or not I can stop attending altogether. I can’t imagine I would get along well with any sort of control freak church that imposes covenants to basically control my life.

    I attend conventions (of a non-religious variety) several times throughout any given year. Somehow I don’t think that would sit too well with these authoritarian-types either. I mean, can you imagine? Missing five or six Sundays out of the year to have a little FUN? Blasphemy!

    This! Yes! Yes! Yes!

    I had everything from my friendships controlled by the NeoCal pastors/elders, my home décor

    Home decort: demanding that I get rid of an Italian cross that was a birthday gift and I’m not even a Catholic but a woman Pharisee was *offended* when she saw it in my home and the senior/pastor elder backed her up that he would be *offended* too). I was *offended* by their rudeness. I didn’t walk in to their homes and tell them to line up their most expensive birthday gifts, the ones they like the most, and they had to get rid of them on my dictates!

    *Demanding that I be *friends* with their obnoxious women friends, no thanks I pass. I choose a better set of friends. I will be cordial but that’s it.

    *The chairman of the elder board called me when I got a new job to give me *advice* on how to handle myself. Just arrogant! I’m a grown woman. I don’t need his advice. It’s one thing if somebody calls you for advice or asks you for advice. It’s quite something else to insinuate yourself into someone’s life and give unsolicited advice as though they have to listen to it.

    *And on and on. The most insufferable control freaks. Just arrogant.

  98. refugee wrote:

    I find it jarring, when the person praying aloud says, “Father God” every fifth word or so, as if God has ADD or something and they have to bring His attention back to the prayer.

    There, I said it. Apologies to any who found this offensive. Whew.

    No apology needed for me there refugee, I stand in solidarity with you. I lived the Calvary Chapel thingy for 15 years until I walked away. Man can them guys pray the lingo!
    Here’s what Solomon had to say on the subject:

    Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.

    Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

    ¶ For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.

    ~ Ecclesiastes 5:1-3 ~

  99. @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Albuquerque, I don’t know how to respond because I do not understand the problem, and maybe it is generational or cultural or something else. Please imagine we are sitting in my living room with a cup of coffee or whatever you like, and please hear me as you would in that kind of setting. Or wherever you might feel comfortable.

    Many people have been terribly damaged and continue to be hurt by these doctrines. I don’t know if you have personally witnessed that harm done to the souls and sometimes the bodies of women who have been taught that they are less than. That is what is being said by the “complementarians” even though they couch that in clever language.

    I do not know if JS is a die-hard or if he is a guy who is trying to do the best he can to be as obedient as he can to the God we worship. I understand that you do not believe in our God, but I think that JS and I do believe in the same God. I think that JS has been wrongly taught, and I am challenging him, not as a person, but rather as someone who is asserting some facts. Back when I was in college seminars, the professors used a more Socratic and confrontational style, and they made us defend our positions, in real time. I doubt that professors are encouraged to challenge their students points of view any more.

    I learned from our last exchange on this, or maybe it was another one, from Numo that the environment online at Facebook and Twitter is not conducive to thoughtful interaction and people get nasty and personal. I don’t believe I did that with JS, though I also believe that I pressed him strenuously to prove what he was asserting. And the reason is because real people are being hurt, and I do not believe that JS wants to hurt people.

    I once believed something very much like what JS is saying, and I know that I was much more obnoxious than he has been here about it. I was wrong, and I said some things to people in my ignorance. In my case it was somewhat willful ignorance, however I do not know that about JS. He may be like I was before I had to pick up big pieces of people’s hearts who were shattered by these doctrines.

    Maybe to you this is all irrelevant and maybe even silly. But to people who desire to do what is right and to prevent as much pain as possible, it is important to argue, challenge, test, probe, and however you want to describe what happens here at TWW. Karen Hinkley is not an outlier. Julie McMahon is not an outlier. The people I love who were shattered are not outliers.

    I don’t know what you think is castigating or where strong challenge crosses a line, but perhaps you could think of me as a defense attorney for women who have been unjustly accused and incarcerate on evidence that is false, even if the witness believes it is true. I am defending women, and really the men who are victims as well, from teaching which harms them and which dishonors the character of our God. I do not think that JS desires to dishonor God, but sometimes we do things that we do not intend to do because we haven’t learned yet. And the way we learn is to be challenged on our facts and our understanding.

    I hope you decide to participate here because I believe that all perspectives should be heard. I am a strong advocate for more speech and not less, but I also do not advocate for a speech code which imposes rules which exceed accuracy and personal attacks. I think that the Deebs are free to make their decisions about which stories to cover without being second-guessed or shamed because they made editorial decisions which some commenters here may not like, whether that commenter is me or JS or anyone else. It used to be rude to come into someone else’s home and criticize them for not doing things the preferred way. I appreciate their forbearance on a number of things. Mostly my verbosity.

  100. refugee wrote:

    js wrote:

    In marriage I believe wives submit to the servant leadership of their husbands while maintaining full equality as children of God and full responsibility to live faithfully before God.

    Words. It’s all just words. Very discouraging.

    It means nothing. It is a resounding gong, a clanging cymbal.

    Exactly.

    And this is a political ideology that is foisted as “The Gospel” among some groups. It is not. There are whole segments of society, including conservatives who don’t subscribe to this drivel. I come from a ranching family. And they are conservatives. And no, they don’t subscribe to these nonsense and never have.
    Men and women are respected. Period.

    It’s a bit of a credibility problem that all of the big name proponents of this drivel have all been accused of – what else – sex crimes.

  101. Gram3 wrote:

    Back when I was in college seminars, the professors used a more Socratic and confrontational style, and they made us defend our positions, in real time. I doubt that professors are encouraged to challenge their students points of view any more.

    Here is an example of making students *think* on their feet. Professor Michael Sandel’s Justice class at Harvard University. Choose a topic to watch. Anything from Affirmative Action to Lying.
    http://www.justiceharvard.org/watch/

  102. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Albuquerque Blue:
    Albuquerque, I don’t know how to respond because I do not understand the problem, and maybe it is generational or cultural or something else. Please imagine we are sitting in my living room with a cup of coffee or whatever you like, and please hear me as you would in that kind of setting. Or wherever you might feel comfortable.

    Many people have been terribly damaged and continue to be hurt by these doctrines. I don’t know if you have personally witnessed that harm done to the souls and sometimes the bodies of women who have been taught that they are less than. That is what is being said by the “complementarians” even though they couch that in clever language.

    I do not know if JS is a die-hard or if he is a guy who is trying to do the best he can to be as obedient as he can to the God we worship. I understand that you do not believe in our God, but I think that JS and I do believe in the same God. I think that JS has been wrongly taught, and I am challenging him, not as a person, but rather as someone who is asserting some facts. Back when I was in college seminars, the professors used a more Socratic and confrontational style, and they made us defend our positions, in real time. I doubt that professors are encouraged to challenge their students points of view any more.

    I learned from our last exchange on this, or maybe it was another one, from Numo that the environment online at Facebook and Twitter is not conducive to thoughtful interaction and people get nasty and personal. I don’t believe I did that with JS, though I also believe that I pressed him strenuously to prove what he was asserting. And the reason is because real people are being hurt, and I do not believe that JS wants to hurt people.

    I once believed something very much like what JS is saying, and I know that I was much more obnoxious than he has been here about it. I was wrong, and I said some things to people in my ignorance. In my case it was somewhat willful ignorance, however I do not know that about JS. He may be like I was before I had to pick up big pieces of people’s hearts who were shattered by these doctrines.

    Maybe to you this is all irrelevant and maybe even silly. But to people who desire to do what is right and to prevent as much pain as possible, it is important to argue, challenge, test, probe, and however you want to describe what happens here at TWW. Karen Hinkley is not an outlier. Julie McMahon is not an outlier. The people I love who were shattered are not outliers.

    I don’t know what you think is castigating or where strong challenge crosses a line, but perhaps you could think of me as a defense attorney for women who have been unjustly accused and incarcerate on evidence that is false, even if the witness believes it is true. I am defending women, and really the men who are victims as well, from teaching which harms them and which dishonors the character of our God. I do not think that JS desires to dishonor God, but sometimes we do things that we do not intend to do because we haven’t learned yet. And the way we learn is to be challenged on our facts and our understanding.

    I hope you decide to participate here because I believe that all perspectives should be heard. I am a strong advocate for more speech and not less, but I also do not advocate for a speech code which imposes rules which exceed accuracy and personal attacks. I think that the Deebs are free to make their decisions about which stories to cover without being second-guessed or shamed because they made editorial decisions which some commenters here may not like, whether that commenter is me or JS or anyone else. It used to be rude to come into someone else’s home and criticize them for not doing things the preferred way. I appreciate their forbearance on a number of things. Mostly my verbosity.

    Standing ovation, Gram3.

    You, Dee, Deb, and countless others here saved my sanity and deprogrammed me from the hateful stuff that was crammed down our throats at my former Gulag NeoCal Church. I would not *bow and scrape* to them and I paid for it: I was excommunicated and shunned and lost all of my friendships of 8-years. They were all ordered not to speak to me again.

    I saw other lives, including men, damaged before me. A good and godly doctor, much older than me. His crime? Dissent.

    I didn’t have all of the knowledge and life experience that you have, Gram3 (and Gramp3 too). But I had this: Jesus said we aren’t supposed to do this to one another. I don’t care how much these mortal men demand this, it is wrong, evil, hateful and the Lord himself forbids it. I thought it was disgusting and evil what was done to my fellow Christians. And I was no longer willing to subdue my growing anger at the injustices being perpetrated.

    I know how Jesus felt when He went into the temple and tossed the tables over.

    Thank you for being there for me. Thank you for leading me out of the pit of darkness they had me in.

    I feel that because of you – and the others here too – I can smile again.

  103. Lydia wrote:

    That is very close. Except perhaps it is often presented as Jesus being ordered in a way to go. That Jesus would not dare equate himself as equal with the Father and how that relates to the cross. (Phil 2 interpretation they use for ESS) The whole cosmic child abuse paradigm of an angry God who needs to punish someone.

    I think understand. Under the ESS view, the Father sent or ordered or commanded the Son to become incarnate and become the atoning sacrifice. In our most recent former church, PSA was considered the only valid view of the Atonement. I agree with you that the Atonement is so much more than propitiating God’s rightful wrath at our sin. However, to limit the Atonement in that way is to, IMO, deny the other benefits of the Atonement which other Christian traditions have noted. Certainly to deny the Jewish aspects of atonement would be ridiculous.

    I see a Triune God whose holiness has been violated by sin. The offense is so great that it cannot be covered (in the shame/honor sense) without a sacrifice of like magnitude/glory/weight/honor. If that is true, then the effective Atoning Sacrifice must be as glorioius/weighty/honor-worthy as the offended God. There is no sacrifice less than God himself, and so he provided the Lamb. That is a sketch of my understanding of the Big Picture. He also bought us out of the slave market, so to speak. He has provided a path to the New Creation. He has fulfilled the Law which had power over us which we do not have the power to obey. All those things and, no doubt, much much more beyond what we can imagine. This is why I don’t do Systematics very well.

  104. @ Velour:
    I am happy to be your advocate, and it makes me smile to know that you can smile again. I have seen other women restored, too. And I have seen men freed from the burden of believing they need to be Christ to their wives. We need to love and serve one another however we can. By this shall all people know that we are his disciples. If we love (including correct and sharpen and encourage and lift up) one another. We love God (and others) because he first loved us. So should we love one another.

  105. refugee wrote:

    js wrote:
    the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is sin
    But does it really? Or is that an interpretation?
    I honestly would like to know if I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by apologists who are interpreting scripture differently from what I grew up with, or if there is actual evidence and legitimate scholarship involved in the claim that the Bible does not denounce homosexuality as we understand it today (male with male, female with female) but that it was referring to temple prostitution, or abusive relationships.
    Help? (not directed to JS, because the answer is already in the comment — “homosexuality is sin.” But is there genuine, sound exegesis that allows people to be “christian” and “homosexual” at the same time?
    Of course, there are an awful lot of people proudly wearing the “christian” label who are in egregious sin themselves… hateful, hateful people. Lovers of themselves, proud, arrogant, abusive… (not to excuse one thing labeled as sin by bringing up others, just musing)

    I would highly recommend the book, “Torn.” I have always had a traditional understanding of those passages. Though the book does have the scripture exegesis in there that presents another way to interpret them, and which I have been thinking over, that is not his main point. The very sweet, devout spirit of the man who wrote the book shines through every page. He comes as a peace maker. He is very respectful of Christians who hold the traditional interpretation that those who are attracted to the same sex must live in celibacy just as those who are attracted to the opposite sex but not married must. But he makes it all real for the reader, not something abstract. One of the best books I’ve read recently.

  106. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I am happy to be your advocate, and it makes me smile to know that you can smile again. I have seen other women restored, too. And I have seen men freed from the burden of believing they need to be Christ to their wives. We need to love and serve one another however we can. By this shall all people know that we are his disciples. If we love (including correct and sharpen and encourage and lift up) one another. We love God (and others) because he first loved us. So should we love one another.

    Amen, Sister Gram3! Thank you my sweet, sister.

    A shout-out to Brother Gramp3, too! (Thanks for the name of my Sunday morning bowling team.)

  107. I see the note at the top of the page about Josh Dugger. Dugger is a prime example about how church discipline can all be a badly acted out play. Dugger knew the words he was supposed to say and how he was supposed to present himself. His parents went on national TV in front of millions declaring that he’d gone through discipline, repented and had been restored and had since been living the life of a godly man. None of that was real. It was just playing church and yet people bought into the act. You see the authorities set up all these rules to judge your “fruit” and people like Duggar or Jordan Root only have to play along. No one here is suprised that Duggar still has issues.

  108. Muff Potter wrote:

    No apology needed for me there refugee, I stand in solidarity with you. I lived the Calvary Chapel thingy for 15 years until I walked away. Man can them guys pray the lingo!

    Let me be clear on this:
    If that’s what floats their boats and grooves with the dictates of their consciences, then so be it. Who am I to say they’re wrong? But on the other hand I can almost guarantee with certainty that they wouldn’t be so tolerant with me and what I consider to be prayer.

  109. Celia wrote:

    I see the note at the top of the page about Josh Dugger. Dugger is a prime example about how church discipline can all be a badly acted out play. Dugger knew the words he was supposed to say and how he was supposed to present himself. His parents went on national TV in front of millions declaring that he’d gone through discipline, repented and had been restored and had since been living the life of a godly man. None of that was real. It was just playing church and yet people bought into the act. You see the authorities set up all these rules to judge your “fruit” and people like Duggar or Jordan Root only have to play along. No one here is suprised that Duggar still has issues.

    Precisely.

  110. Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:
    I don’t see anywhere in what I’ve written an attempt to shut down any and all criticism of the YRR but I do occasionally write against what I see as unfair criticism.
    You have repeated this several times now. I believe Dee responded to your criticism. She pointed out all the articles TWW has posted about other ‘tribes.’ Did you not see her response?

    I saw her response and I respectfully engaged with it, IMO. I disagree and I can leave it at that. We’ve gotten far afield from that original point, and that’s ok.

  111. Velour wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    js wrote:
    Does a child have less personhood than a parent? I say no, even though they have less personal agency as a child. Yet the child submits in obedience to the parent.
    So the parent is to the child as the husband is to the wife?
    That would, indeed, be pretty sick.

    No, not at all what I am saying. My point was to debunk the idea that submission equals inferiority. I would argue that children are of no less value than parents even though they are called to submit to their parents and wives are of no less value than husbands for following their God-given calling of submission. The issue is not an equating of parents and children with husbands and wives but a demonstration that if submission in a situation one cannot control (being born a child of parents) does not imply inferiority than neither does voluntary submission in the case of a Christian wife.

  112. Bridget wrote:

    Js wrote:
    But nobody was calling it out apparently, which was why a leader stepped up to call it out.
    I would say that he was teaching a young church how to handle the situation. The problem with today’s church is that leaders teach other members to depend on the leaders. The leaders want to be the ones to be responsible for all issues. Many leaders want the issues brought to them instead of discipleship happening among the body members.

    I agree with you here. This is a big problem. It doesn’t mean we remove all leadership but leadership in the church at large is in need of a major overhaul, as TWW displays daily.

  113. Darlene wrote:

    Look folks, again it is time to say it. If you are in a 9Marx or Acts 29 or NeoCalvinist church…RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! Or soon, if you don’t tow the line, YOU WILL BE DISCIPLINED. And it might just be over a simple thing as disagreeing with your husband, and someone overhearing it in the church halls.

    As happened to a friend of mine who was a member at TVC, and put through “discipline” for supposedly being overheard by a pastor telling her husband to “hush” while walking down a hallway..

  114. Patti wrote:

    @ js:
    This Bruce Metzger? http://www.gracembc.org/images/BM_METZGER.pdf

    Pretty low hit piece on Metzger IMO. His theological views have little to do with the discussion at hand. That he was an eminent Greek scholar is undeniable and that is the context of the discussion we are having here. It is his ability with the Greek that counts.

  115. @ js:
    A child grows up and is no longer subject to his/her parents. When does a wife grow up so that she no longer requires an overseer?

    Your analogy does not work, and I really wish that you would just stop and think through how the things you are saying might sound to a woman who is told she must submit because God has “called” her to submit. If God has “called” me to do something and I decide not to do that (decline to volunteer my submission for some reason) then I am sinning in this System. The husband retains the option to declare that my failure to voluntarily submit is due to my rebellion against God or my sinful desire or for, really, whatever reason he may choose to reject my refusal to “voluntarily” submit. That makes the woman’s status inferior. I do not understand why you refuse to see this simple reality.

  116. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    I dropped out of this thread for about a day until I showed up this evening, and I’ve not seen every post made after I was last here (I may go back later and read them; I don’t know).

    From what I recall since I was last on this thread, though, JS is a little too keen on defending preachers (especially YRR ones, or Neo Calvinism itself), rather than considering that some preachers or systems of theology are abusive / can be abusive, and that congregants are being hurt by preachers.

    IIRC, JS also is a proponent of gender complementarianism, which is an odious belief among some Christians than women are second tier to men. They will tell you that women are equal in worth but not in role to men.

    Gender complementarianism is sexism with a thin coat of Biblical paint applied to make it sound okay.

    I was brought up in gender comp, and it harmed me. How it harmed me would take several pages worth of commentary to explain, so I won’t get into it here.

    If Gram and others were challenging JS on gender comp or abusive preachers, I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

  117. js wrote:

    No, not at all what I am saying. My point was to debunk the idea that submission equals inferiority. I would argue that children are of no less value than parents even though they are called to submit to their parents and wives are of no less value than husbands for following their God-given calling of submission.

    It does in fact indicate inferiority, because it’s based on a trait the person is born with (gender), and the status can never change.

    A child does not stay a child but grows up and becomes an adult.

    A woman stays a woman and will never be allowed to be a preacher or leader in some churches, even if that is what God has called her to do or gifted her with, or no matter how much education and training she receives.

    So yes, gender comp teachings really do convey that women are of lesser value than men. Saying they are equal in value but not good enough to do X, Y, or Z “role”, is saying they are not really equal in value to start with. It’s double speak meant to confuse people.

    The Bait & Switch of Complementarians
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/bait-switch-complementarians

  118. js wrote:

    following their God-given calling of submission.

    That is your interpretation of a few verses. It is not everyone’s interpretation that a wife submits to her husband in some way that a husband does not also submit to his wife.

  119. Gram3 wrote:

    Your analogy does not work, and I really wish that you would just stop and think through how the things you are saying might sound to a woman who is told she must submit because God has “called” her to submit.
    If God has “called” me to do something and I decide not to do that (decline to volunteer my submission for some reason) then I am sinning in this System. The husband retains the option to declare that my failure to voluntarily submit is due to my rebellion against God

    As a woman who has never married, I don’t figure into their gender theology, except for maybe the wack-a-doodles such as John Piper who tries to extend gender comp outside the realms of marriage and church, as explained here:

    An Accidental Feminist? by Carl Trueman
    http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/an-accidental-feminist#.VdVLo7JViko

    But again, with a lot of these complementarian guys, they only care about controlling and suffocating married mothers, not childless and-or never married, adult women. Complementarians are almost always too preoccupied with marriage and motherhood.

  120. js wrote:

    My point was to debunk the idea that submission equals inferiority.

    Submission does not equal inferiority unless the submission is due to one’s *status* when that *status* is assigned solely due to gender. Or race. Or social class. Or place of birth.

    Please do not continue to make this basic mistake. Status, vocation/calling/role or whatever term you choose to employ does not mean the same thing as an attitude or an action. Those are two very different things. One is compulsory, no matter how many times you say submission is voluntary. If God has called me to the status of Submitter, then I must be a Submitter.

    Would you say the same thing to a black man? Because in my lifetime that is exactly what a lot of people thought. God created races that were designed to be ruled over for their own good. We have, thankfully, put those ideas behind us for the most part.

    Why does a single woman’s status change to Submitter when she marries?

  121. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:
    But that’s just it. If you tar everyone outside the YRR as Female Subordinationists and then link them with ESS and then call ESS a rank heresy pretty soon you have a pretty small Christianity. I know some of TWW readers would think Piper is a false teacher but probably not Wright.
    I did not draw those connections. What I said is that the YRR have made Female Subordinationism a distinctive and they, themselves, have said it is essential to “picturing” and transmitting the Gospel faithfully. Female Subordinationism is a *distinctive* of YRR, but it is not *exclusive* to YRR. Female Subordinationism is the norm across human cultures across time. It is the essence of fallenness, not of the New Creation.
    ESS, as far as I know, is not exclusive to the YRR. George Knight III is not YRR, but the YRR have certainly taken his idea and built their System upon it.
    I am not the one carving Christianity into male and female parts. I’m not the one disfellowshipping people for questioning the doctrine. I’m not the one shutting down the conversation, nor am I the one who is ignoring or altering the text.
    Do you think what Grudem has done to the ESV in 1 Corinthians 11:10 is acceptable?

    So I did a little looking in to 1 Cor. 11:10. I assume the word you say is inserted is the word “symbol.” If that is incorrect please disregard all I am about to say.

    I do not jump to the conclusion that the ESV has “symbol” because of some plot on Grudem’s part to hold down women.

    The translation is an acceptable translation based on the context of the verse wherein some interpreters (and all translators engage in interpretation) would take the coverings mentioned earlier in the text to be the authority talked about in verse 10. Therefore, for clarity in translation the word symbol is inserted into the text. This is standard operating procedure in Bible translation and is not part of some nefarious plan.

    As further support for this assertion, having surveyed several English Bible translations I found the word “sign” or “symbol” in many, including the ESV, HCSB, NET, ASV, NKJV, NASB and NLT. Even the NIV listed it as an alternative reading. My contention is that if this was just Grudem being sneaky these other translations would not have the rendering he has in the verse. When we are talking about the ASV having it, a translation from 1901, surely Grudem is old but he’s not that old! The NKJV has it and I believe it is from 1982 or so. The NASB from 1971 (though I looked at the updated 1995 text so I am not sure if this is a change between versions).

    Bottom line is, if you think this is adding words to what the Holy Spirit said, you should take all your English translations to Goodwill in the morning and stick with reading only from the Greek text because every translation does exactly what you see at 1 Corinthians 11:10 at multiple places. And of course even if you just stick with the Greek there you have textual variants and the like to wade through.

    Personally I like what the KJV and NKJV do in cases like this: they italicize the word to show that the word in translation has no exact equivalent in the Greek text but has been supplied for clarity of understanding. Alternative readings in the footnotes are also good. With more dynamic translations like the NIV, this kind of italicizing would be impractical.

  122. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:
    My point was to debunk the idea that submission equals inferiority.
    Submission does not equal inferiority unless the submission is due to one’s *status* when that *status* is assigned solely due to gender. Or race. Or social class. Or place of birth.
    Please do not continue to make this basic mistake. Status, vocation/calling/role or whatever term you choose to employ does not mean the same thing as an attitude or an action. Those are two very different things. One is compulsory, no matter how many times you say submission is voluntary. If God has called me to the status of Submitter, then I must be a Submitter.
    Would you say the same thing to a black man? Because in my lifetime that is exactly what a lot of people thought. God created races that were designed to be ruled over for their own good. We have, thankfully, put those ideas behind us for the most part.
    Why does a single woman’s status change to Submitter when she marries?

    My view is that it is not a matter of gender but of marriage. When a woman marries she is voluntarily entering into a relationship of the God-given callings of submission and servant leadership for the sake of imaging Christ. The two become one and Jesus is visible in the relationship of husband and wife. Singleness has its own unique ways of imaging Christ and is commendable in its own right. A woman is not called to submit because she is a woman, a wife is called to submit because she is married. Not all women will marry, not all women are Christians. Women who are Christians and marry are called to submit IMO to the loving servant leadership of their husband. This is very different than a black man who was born black and came up in a Jim Crow system.

  123. Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:
    following their God-given calling of submission.
    That is your interpretation of a few verses. It is not everyone’s interpretation that a wife submits to her husband in some way that a husband does not also submit to his wife.

    That’s fine. We should all stand up for the interpretation we believe is right and be willing to change if convinced otherwise. I am not saying anybody has to accept what I am saying but I appreciate the right to say it and value what others say as well, even if I disagree.

  124. @ js:

    But husbands are also called to submit to their wives.

    Eph 5.21,
    “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

    -That verse applies to married people of both genders.

  125. Daisy wrote:

    js wrote:
    No, not at all what I am saying. My point was to debunk the idea that submission equals inferiority. I would argue that children are of no less value than parents even though they are called to submit to their parents and wives are of no less value than husbands for following their God-given calling of submission.
    It does in fact indicate inferiority, because it’s based on a trait the person is born with (gender), and the status can never change.
    A child does not stay a child but grows up and becomes an adult.
    A woman stays a woman and will never be allowed to be a preacher or leader in some churches, even if that is what God has called her to do or gifted her with, or no matter how much education and training she receives.
    So yes, gender comp teachings really do convey that women are of lesser value than men. Saying they are equal in value but not good enough to do X, Y, or Z “role”, is saying they are not really equal in value to start with. It’s double speak meant to confuse people.
    The Bait & Switch of Complementarians
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/bait-switch-complementarians

    Women are born women but women are not born married. And marriage is the context for the submission I am talking about, marriage being a voluntary agreement entered into, not a status one is born with.

  126. Daisy wrote:

    @ js:
    But husbands are also called to submit to their wives.
    Eph 5.21,
    “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
    -That verse applies to married people of both genders.

    See up thread for an earlier discussion of this. There is an answer to this (though most here disagree with that answer).

  127. js wrote:

    Women are born women but women are not born married. And marriage is the context for the submission I am talking about, marriage being a voluntary agreement entered into, not a status one is born with.

    But women stay women their entire lives. You don’t give them a chance to leave your gender purgatory by education or training.

    Also, the Bible calls husbands to submit to wives, as I was just saying,
    But husbands are also called to submit to their wives.
    Eph 5.21,
    “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
    -That verse applies to married people of both genders.

  128. Gram3 wrote:

    If God has “called” me to do something and I decide not to do that (decline to volunteer my submission for some reason) then I am sinning in this System.

    Yes. At that point you are “voluntarily” choosing to defy God’s calling.. But still we have not defined exactly what this calling is except to submit to her “leader” husband. What does that mean in every day terms? What does that submission look like to the leader who gets to define it? It seems to me the “leader” would decide what that means interpreting scripture for every day interactions and scenerios. How would she know if that is not the case? This subject is often vague which is why Piper sounds so silly when he gives scenerios like women ‘giving directions’ to a man.

    This is the stuff that make Talmuds needed. And yes, I did see couples immersed in this silliness with their eyes on one another’s “roles” instead of Christ. Me thinks Satan is delighted. He is especially delighted when it becomes taught as part of the Gospel.

    But the constant mapping to children is probably the most degrading to grown up women. I am amazed that is not obvious.

  129. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ js:
    Children grow up. What happens to wives?

    Ideally, they grow old together with a man they love and that loves them and together through fulfilling their God-given callings they are both sanctified deeply through their marriage. But I know we don’t live in an ideal world yet.

  130. js wrote:

    See up thread for an earlier discussion of this. There is an answer to this (though most here disagree with that answer).

    At this time, I don’t feel like scrolling up. It’s getting late, and I’m tired.

    The Bible is clear on that point, all believers submit to all other believers, whether single, married, man or woman. You’re advocating that men can be bosses over their wives, but the Bible says you are not to lord authority over others, and Eph 5 is not saying men have authority over their wives.

    Maybe I’m wrong but you seem to think a wife submitting to a husband equates to husband being boss over wife, hubby getting final say so in disputes, and the other gender comp stuff I grew up hearing and see now.

    It’s not your place to ask or tell wives to submit. The submission as seen in the text is asking wives to do so. It’s not a hubby’s right or preacher’s right to shame women into it, hit them over the head with it, demand it of them, etc.

  131. @ js:
    You have not addressed the salient point. The addition is not necessary to Paul’s argument unless the translator already assumes that the text could not possibly mean what it says. That verse makes perfect sense in the context of Paul’s *entire* argument. Once again, a verse is taken out of its context, massaged via the insertion of words, and transformed into the exact opposite of what the text actually says. This is not a clarity issue. This is an ideological issue.

    You say that others have inserted this “clarifying” text, so what is my problem. Those words were added at a time when it was inconceivable to the translator that a woman might have authority over her own self. That is a concept which still escapes too many in conservative churches. Therefore, if you *assume* that a woman must be under a male’s authority, then of course you will also *assume* that the text needs some additions for clarification. The fact is that these additions are *not* necessary for clarity. Unless, of course, clarity means female subordination.

    Is it permissible for liberals to do this to the text to “clarify” the things that they find awkward and in need of clarification? If not, then why not? What is the principle?

  132. js wrote:

    My view is that it is not a matter of gender but of marriage. When a woman marries she is voluntarily entering into a relationship of the God-given callings of submission and servant leadership for the sake of imaging Christ. The two become one and Jesus is visible in the relationship of husband and wife. Singleness has its own unique ways of imaging Christ and is commendable in its own right. A woman is not called to submit because she is a woman, a wife is called to submit because she is married. Not all women will marry, not all women are Christians. Women who are Christians and marry are called to submit IMO to the loving servant leadership of their husband. This is very different than a black man who was born black and came up in a Jim Crow system.

    Can I ask you a question. What was/is your relationship with your own father?
    All of the people I know who subscribe to this:
    a) had abusive fathers; and
    b) or non-existent fathers.

    It is rare that someone has a loving, decent father who subscribes in any way shape or form to this nonsense. Going back two and three generations, what was your grandfather like and your great-grandfather.

    The people I know who subscribe to this don’t know how to be men in real life and they are grasping at straws. And it shows. They can’t admit that they don’t know how to do it, so they admit a very rigid set of rules to compensate for telling the truth and having to figure out life.

  133. js wrote:

    Ideally, they grow old together with a man they love and that loves them and together through fulfilling their God-given callings they are both sanctified deeply through their marriage. But I know we don’t live in an ideal world yet.

    I hope you’re not missing her point.

    Women stay at the lowest rung in your gender purgatory because a woman can never stop being a woman.

    But a child can change, grow into an adult.

  134. js wrote:

    Women are born women but women are not born married. And marriage is the context for the submission I am talking about, marriage being a voluntary agreement entered into, not a status one is born with.

    Actually that was not true in the 1st Century. Most marriages were arranged as part of a group’s identity. Womb identity was a big concept in the 1st Century. Marriage was thought of at birth. You would marry within your tribe or class. And often much younger women were married off to older men. These scriptures we are discussing become a bit clearer when we view them through the Paterfamilias of the Household codes.

  135. js wrote:

    Bottom line is, if you think this is adding words to what the Holy Spirit said, you should take all your English translations to Goodwill in the morning and stick with reading only from the Greek text because every translation does exactly what you see at 1 Corinthians 11:10 at multiple places. And of course even if you just stick with the Greek there you have textual variants and the like to wade through.

    Translators make translation decisions. Obviously. Their translation decisions need to be rational and not ideological in any direction *so that their translation faithfully represents what the Spirit inspired.* But perhaps my view of inspiration is more traditional than yours. If the text makes sense the way it was inspired, then it needs to be translated that way. Play the text where it lies.

  136. js wrote:

    they italicize the word to show that the word in translation has no exact equivalent in the Greek text but has been supplied for clarity of understanding.

    Which Grudem and the translation team at Crossway decided they did not need to do. That is at best misleading, and there is no reason other than ideology for them to hide the fact that they have inserted words into the text which change its meaning to the precise opposite.

    As I said, Grudem would have a fuschia fit if a “feminist” did this by, for example, omitting some words or adding some other words where it is convenient. God’s word should not be a political or ideological weapon.

  137. js wrote:

    Women are born women but women are not born married. And marriage is the context for the submission I am talking about, marriage being a voluntary agreement entered into, not a status one is born with.

    To restate what you said, only reversing the roles:

    Men are born men but men are not born married. And marriage is the context for the leadership I am talking about, marriage being a voluntary agreement entered into, not a status one is born with.

    Compare the two statements and see how they sound.

    My husband and I entered a partnership — not an agreement that one would lead while the other would submit.

  138. js wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    js wrote:
    Does a child have less personhood than a parent? I say no, even though they have less personal agency as a child. Yet the child submits in obedience to the parent.
    So the parent is to the child as the husband is to the wife?
    That would, indeed, be pretty sick.

    No, not at all what I am saying. My point was to debunk the idea that submission equals inferiority. I would argue that children are of no less value than parents even though they are called to submit to their parents and wives are of no less value than husbands for following their God-given calling of submission. The issue is not an equating of parents and children with husbands and wives but a demonstration that if submission in a situation one cannot control (being born a child of parents) does not imply inferiority than neither does voluntary submission in the case of a Christian wife.

    You are espousing a man-made political belief as The Gospel. A cultural mindset. One that is yours and that of like-minded people.

    I come from a long line of conservative Christians who just happen, for the most part, to be ranchers. Your curious beliefs, fairly recent I might add, were certainly not a part of ranch life where men and women pulled their weight and were respected for same. They were Christians. They were conservatives. They got along fine. This game that all of you play really had no place in their lives and they honestly couldn’t be bothered with these kind of games. If you actually spend your time on this, on espousing this, than you have far too much time on your hands, your job isn’t demanding enough, and you haven’t focused on The Gospel. Nobody needs the other stuff. They just need The Gospel.

  139. js wrote:

    Women who are Christians and marry are called to submit IMO to the loving servant leadership of their husband. This is very different than a black man who was born black and came up in a Jim Crow system.

    How so? Many people cited the curse on Canaan to justify Jim Crow. I’ve heard it in church! God ordained the races to be separate just like the sons of Noah were the fathers of separate races. The arguments sound ridiculous now, but back then that is the way some people (not all by any means) thought, and they used the Bible to justify what they already thought or wanted to think.

    Where do you find these different ways of imaging Christ? Where is Christ’s image sliced into tranches? Why would a rational woman decide to be a Submitter when the Holy Spirit fully indwells her? How does the way a single woman images Christ different from the way a married woman images Christ? How does a single man image Christ in a way that is different from a married man? The questions are endless and the effort expended in compliance is pointless.

  140. js wrote:

    Ideally, they grow old together with a man they love and that loves them and together through fulfilling their God-given callings they are both sanctified deeply through their marriage. But I know we don’t live in an ideal world yet.

    And In your ideal world, wives stay on the bottom rung.
    The ideal world is heaven. Will we wives fulfill our God-given callings by still being submissive to the men?

  141. js wrote:

    See up thread for an earlier discussion of this. There is an answer to this (though most here disagree with that answer).

    I do not recall your answer. I am familiar with the CBMW “answer” which basically makes wives analogous to slaves or children. This is also where some appealed to the Bible to support slavery because “Paul did not abolish slavery, but only regulated it.” The fact is that you are severing Paul’s instructions from the cultural context of the Greek household codes of the time. That is not sound conservative hermeneutical practice.

  142. Velour wrote:

    Can I ask you a question. What was/is your relationship with your own father?

    I wonder if JS is married. If so, I wonder how his wife reacts to his God-called authority.

  143. js wrote:

    Ideally, they grow old together with a man they love and that loves them and together through fulfilling their God-given callings they are both sanctified deeply through their marriage. But I know we don’t live in an ideal world yet.

    Is it possible for a couple who has been married for a very long time to be sanctified without observing this System of Roles? Is Gramp3 de-sanctified every time he “submits” to me, or am I de-sanctified if I slip up and accidentally sacrifice for him? How are we sanctified by Roles and rules?

  144. Daisy wrote:

    Maybe I’m wrong but you seem to think a wife submitting to a husband equates to husband being boss over wife, hubby getting final say so in disputes, and the other gender comp stuff I grew up hearing and see now.

    Yes, Daisy. This is precisely what it means.

    To give you an idea of how bizarre the comp doctrine plays out, at my former Gulag NeoCal Church, the hubby getting to be the *final say* played out with chilling results according to the pastors/elders.

    Issue: The pastors/elders’ friend who they invited to become a member, didn’t tell a soul, and he’s a Megan’s List sex offender. I saw the sex offender run his hands through my friends’ young son’s hair, and his parents had no idea the man was a sex offender!

    The pastors/elders insisted in a meeting with me that it wasn’t a big deal, that they would let the sex offender touch their kids and he did.

    The senior pastor/elder told me that if the father in the family ok’d the sex offender touching his children than the father’s word “was final” and the mother had no say!

    Me: “Fathers AND mothers are required by law to protect their children. It is a crime for them NOT to protect their children. If a mother fails to protect her children and harm comes to them, she is not off the criminal hook by saying that she abdicated responsibility to her husband. She can be arrested, prosecuted for felonious child abuse, and if convicted serve time in prison. Her children can be taken from her and put in foster care.”

    The comps insisted that “these were the rules”. What is this…Islam? These NeoCal comp guys are idiots! Law enforcement was outraged. They demanded to know, “What kind of church do you go to that teaches this?” And that was men law enforcement officers in a special task force that supervises these criminals. The Attorney General’s said same. One of complete outrage. Oh yeah, and there went any kind of witness for The Gospel and for Jesus.

  145. @ Lydia:
    As best I understand it, the wife must submit “voluntarily” to her husband’s will unless he is directing her to sin. But, as you say, someone has to be the “tie-breaker” on the issue of whether or not what he is directing her to do is sinful or not. So, for all practical purposes, the wife’s voice is irrelevant, and her personal agency is nil unless her husband extends his scepter, metaphorically.

  146. Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    Can I ask you a question. What was/is your relationship with your own father?

    I wonder if JS is married. If so, I wonder how his wife reacts to his God-called authority.

    I just wonder if these guys can: a) get a date; b) if they are married if their wives suffer from major depression and other problems. Their kids aren’t normal. I’ve seen the comp doctrine kids. Talk about shut down from being normal.

  147. Daisy wrote:

    But again, with a lot of these complementarian guys, they only care about controlling and suffocating married mothers, not childless and-or never married, adult women. Complementarians are almost always too preoccupied with marriage and motherhood.

    And the comp doctrine extends to a contempt and control of other men in the church. When you are willing to be arrogant and cop an attitude toward an entire group of people – women – the comps are incapable of shutting that off and will do the same to other men. And I have watched their hateful practices toward godly Christian men. Their demands for “submission” know no bounds. They are arrogant.

  148. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I am happy to be your advocate, and it makes me smile to know that you can smile again. I have seen other women restored, too. And I have seen men freed from the burden of believing they need to be Christ to their wives. We need to love and serve one another however we can. By this shall all people know that we are his disciples. If we love (including correct and sharpen and encourage and lift up) one another. We love God (and others) because he first loved us. So should we love one another.

    Thanks Gram3!!!

  149. Velour wrote:

    Their kids aren’t normal. I’ve seen the comp doctrine kids. Talk about shut down from being normal.

    There are some kids who have come out OK. On the other hand, I have known of girls who were denied a college education because it was a waste of time and money. I have observed girls who are not encouraged to study hard, because why bother? I have observed young pre-teen girls made into servants for their family while their brothers play. I’m not talking about pitching in like kids should do. I’m talking about girls who do not feel free to speak and who are surprised when you treat them like a sentient being who has some valuable thoughts. It makes me very sad, but there is little I can do for them. Their parents have decided their future for them. Because it is God’s will.

  150. @ Gram3:
    Well JS keeps using the “loving leader” language that is indicative of Piper so I wonder if the wife gets to decide whether he is loving or not. If not, what options does she have since it is her “calling” by God and by way of physical attributes he is her leader? If we are honest that is what their doctrine adds up to. Being born with the right equipment, so to speak. Are we really that shallow? Were is the Image of God in all this?

    Piper says she can ask nicely IF she asks in a way that maintains his position as leader. Even if he asks her to sin. That is how important this “leader/submitter business is in that world.

    Can you imagine the complications from living like this? Parsing every word and action? Even though I have mainly been around comp lite, I saw the damage even the lighter variation did. Women became manipulators instead of Ezers. HOw often did I hear “Bob is just not being the spiritual leader our family needs. Will you pray for us”? It was ridiculous and treacherous to relationships.

    I cannot even imagine being around what it became in SGM, Mars Hill, TVC, Piper, Mohler and this 9 Marx madness. Of course, I have read the horror stories. It is the most oppressive and degrading unChristlike stance toward a sibling in Christ I have ever seen.

    I am so glad our Father is not like this.

  151. Question regarding ontology and function (rhetorical):

    Has the responsibility and function of women/wives/mothers and the demands on us changed any at all since the time of the Apostle Paul?

  152. Knowing two debts from two Christian businessmen this year didn’t cancel their debt to me when the seventh year kicked in, being that it is the Shemitah, you can’t always base these things on a mere aspect of church authoritarian discipline. So who is confronting all these tithe teachers and addressing their exploitation in a year when tithing is NOT expected at ALL? Now I say this as an example of how authority can’t always be rendered to the elders. It has to be rendered to the Torah governing men’s hearts within the scope of grace and mercy and examined by the congregation as a whole under the scope of that wisdom. Jesus taught from this position in respect to the Torah where the Pharisees were not understanding it and instead exploiting it to their agenda.

  153. Velour wrote:

    I just wonder if these guys can: a) get a date; b) if they are married if their wives suffer from major depression and other problems.

    Well, I know some guys who are patriarchal who could get plenty of dates. And I’ve known some who I doubt were very popular. I don’t know if I can do more than anecdotes. However, the overwhelming desire to be the one exerting power over another is not a healthy nor Christian attitude. I’ve never been a guy, but Gramp3 says that he thinks that some of this is residual 7th grade boy stuff. That is not to say that every guy who believes this is taking some 7th grade revenge, because I know of some guys who genuinely believe this is the way to serve God. The teachers and promoters of it and the ones who make their living from the subjection of others are in another category entirely, IMO. We might say the same kind of thing about the women, too. I’ve seen the competitive submission game played when the women talk about how much they have to submit to their husbands. They think that submission is a sanctification metric of some sort. But it can also be a passive-aggressive way of demeaning their husbands who are so demanding.

  154. Gram3 wrote:

    I have observed young pre-teen girls made into servants for their family while their brothers play

    Gram3, I guess you are right there are those kids raised in comp families that come out normal. But I have seen girls treated like servants. While I was at the home of my former senior pastor [the Gulag NeoCal Church that excommunicated/shunned me for dissent and not for immorality], he asked his college aged daughter to get something and she absolutely *obeyed* him. And there was this look of fear in her face and body and her entire energy. And she did whatever he said quickly. But it was the saddest thing I have seen.

    It wasn’t a relationship of love. I will do this thing because I love you. It was all about obedience.

    And then there’s all of these sick families too in which all kinds of abuses occur, domestic and sexual. I can see that happening too. I really get the stories of the women who just pack up one day and file for divorce because they’ve reached their limit and had it. The man says that he’s *happy* and doesn’t want a divorce. And he can’t see how unhappy she is and that a dog gets treated better than a human woman.

  155. Nancy2 wrote:

    Question regarding ontology and function (rhetorical):
    Has the responsibility and function of women/wives/mothers and the demands on us changed any at all since the time of the Apostle Paul?

    Demands from God have not changed. Unbelievers are called to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Believers are called to conform themselves to the image of Christ and to have the same attitude that he exemplified. Cultural expectations have changed in most of the modern West. Other places not so much.

  156. Gram3 wrote:

    However, the overwhelming desire to be the one exerting power over another is not a healthy nor Christian attitude. I’ve never been a guy, but Gramp3 says that he thinks that some of this is residual 7th grade boy stuff

    Exactly, Gram3. Nice summary. If I had a man/tall 7th grader (Gramp3 is right on this point), tell me this bunk on a date (living the comp lifestyle) I would get up and walk out and cross him off the list. No argument. Deal breaker.

    I’m a conservative Christian, but there is NO WAY that I would put up with such a self-centered attitude.

  157. Gram3 wrote:

    @ js:
    You have not addressed the salient point. The addition is not necessary to Paul’s argument unless the translator already assumes that the text could not possibly mean what it says. That verse makes perfect sense in the context of Paul’s *entire* argument. Once again, a verse is taken out of its context, massaged via the insertion of words, and transformed into the exact opposite of what the text actually says. This is not a clarity issue. This is an ideological issue.
    You say that others have inserted this “clarifying” text, so what is my problem. Those words were added at a time when it was inconceivable to the translator that a woman might have authority over her own self. That is a concept which still escapes too many in conservative churches. Therefore, if you *assume* that a woman must be under a male’s authority, then of course you will also *assume* that the text needs some additions for clarification. The fact is that these additions are *not* necessary for clarity. Unless, of course, clarity means female subordination.
    Is it permissible for liberals to do this to the text to “clarify” the things that they find awkward and in need of clarification? If not, then why not? What is the principle?

    The principle is what the translator deems necessary to render the text in a clear way which reflects the meaning the translator (or team of translators) sees fit. Do you think 1982 when the NKJV was published was a time when people had no idea of these issues? yet they go with symbol in their translation. You are seeing conspiracy to do violence to the text where there is none. Even the NIV lists the alternate reading of symbol.

  158. Lydia wrote:

    Can you imagine the complications from living like this? Parsing every word and action?

    Honestly it reminds me of that Audrey Hepburn movie where she is a nun in the Belgian Congo. The girls/young women who were in the convent would constantly sin-sniff one another and themselves. She had a brilliant mind which was stifled by the church and only recognized by her clearly worldly boss, a doctor in the Congo. She was always suspecting herself of pride when she was, in fact, merely displaying God’s glory in her keen mind and her caring and compassionate spirit.

    I wonder how many other brilliant minds have been stifled and the benefits to humanity which have been forfeited.

  159. js wrote:

    Do you think 1982 when the NKJV was published was a time when people had no idea of these issues?

    Yes. In 1982 this was definitely an issue. IIRC George Knight III penned his Role essay in the mid-late 70’s and Susan Foh was at Westminster Philly at about that same time (which approximate time I recall for a mostly unrelated reason.) So, if a translation committee has a common opinion/ideology, it is OK with you for them to tamper with the actual words of the text and then to cover their tracks by not italicizing the addition/omission? If that is not OK, then why not? If the limiting principle is agreement from like-minded people, then I guess the Jehovah’s Witnesses are good to go with their translation. Or any other cult.

    What you are advocating is inconsistent with a conservative view of inspiration.

  160. GovPappy wrote:

    @ GovPappy:
    Not only that, I’m supposed to gladly submit to “elder rule!”

    You mean the 22-year-old, Ideologically Pure Elders?

  161. Velour wrote:

    I really get the stories of the women who just pack up one day and file for divorce because they’ve reached their limit and had it. The man says that he’s *happy* and doesn’t want a divorce. And he can’t see how unhappy she is and that a dog gets treated better than a human woman.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWpYQjuJ0u0

  162. @ Gram3:
    Don’t forget, all of these translations were based on the 1611 King James Version. That version was not entirely consistent with previous translations.

  163. js wrote:

    You are seeing conspiracy to do violence to the text where there is none.

    I am making observations and inferences from those observations. Grudem has made it his life’s work to subjugate women, and he is willing to subjugate the Eternal Son if that is what it takes to support his ideology. Grudem and the other Gospel Glitterati engaged in an all-out disinformation campaign about the gender-neutral (I would say gender-accurate) NIV translation which was scheduled for publication before Crossway’s ESV. There is no necessity for adding those words to the text for clarity unless female subordination is first assumed. None. Therefore, at the very least, those added words should have been italicized. What reason were they not italicized? Since the NIV was slandered, the ESV had marketing time and had done the necessary battlefield preparation such that there are now ESV-only churches.

    That is not a conspiracy. Those are the facts. I imagine it makes for an interesting life for Don Carson.

  164. Gram3 wrote:

    I wonder how many other brilliant minds have been stifled and the benefits to humanity which have been forfeited.

    Does it really matter, as long as women are being properly submissive? (Loud snort here!)

  165. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Don’t forget, all of these translations were based on the 1611 King James Version. That version was not entirely consistent with previous translations.

    And we all know that King James had no interest whatsoever in upholding social hierarchies, right?

  166. Velour wrote:

    js wrote:
    My view is that it is not a matter of gender but of marriage. When a woman marries she is voluntarily entering into a relationship of the God-given callings of submission and servant leadership for the sake of imaging Christ. The two become one and Jesus is visible in the relationship of husband and wife. Singleness has its own unique ways of imaging Christ and is commendable in its own right. A woman is not called to submit because she is a woman, a wife is called to submit because she is married. Not all women will marry, not all women are Christians. Women who are Christians and marry are called to submit IMO to the loving servant leadership of their husband. This is very different than a black man who was born black and came up in a Jim Crow system.
    Can I ask you a question. What was/is your relationship with your own father?
    All of the people I know who subscribe to this:
    a) had abusive fathers; and
    b) or non-existent fathers.
    It is rare that someone has a loving, decent father who subscribes in any way shape or form to this nonsense. Going back two and three generations, what was your grandfather like and your great-grandfather.
    The people I know who subscribe to this don’t know how to be men in real life and they are grasping at straws. And it shows. They can’t admit that they don’t know how to do it, so they admit a very rigid set of rules to compensate for telling the truth and having to figure out life.

    My father was a fine man. He died three years ago from lymphoma. In my earlier years he was angry. He yelled some but never physically abused or went beyond most parents I have observed. In his last twenty years of life he turned to the Lord and really grew in his walk with God. I didn’t know my grandparents real well but they were loving to me.

    I don’t consider myself to have come up in an abusive or unloving home.

    It is a shame that an assertion like this would even be made. The thought that one can not accept comp doctrine (which has been around for centuries and has been widely accepted in the Church) unless one comes from an abusive background is astounding.

    It is like you are saying, “The only way one would accept this is if he is a hurt little boy inside trying to get power.” We are just living in different universes apparently. I don’t want to exert power over anybody I just want to live faithfully to God and because I see faithfulness differently than many of you I am lumped in with the worst examples of abuse and considered somehow deficient in my understanding. So be it. I have to live by the best understanding of God and His Word that I can have. That’s what I try to do, fallible as I am. But I would never question whether you believe in the egalitarian view because of past abuse. I would and do take you at face value as one who is genuinely seeking truth. I try not to come to others with suspicion but with good will. I think that is a better approach, even if sometimes I get burned.

  167. Velour wrote:

    I can see that happening too. I really get the stories of the women who just pack up one day and file for divorce because they’ve reached their limit and had it.

    In this respect, the Female Subordinationists may have a point. When women have economic options to support themselves and their children, they are less likely to “endure abuse for a season.” The Female Subordinationists reach the wrong conclusion about this, however. They conclude that the problem is women having options. They fail to consider that perhaps the behavior/attitudes of the wives might change if their husbands’ attitudes and actions would change. The Female Subordinationists dare not say that, however. Everything that is wrong must be ascribed to the woman’s freedom. It is sad that they do not have a category for a mutually fulfilling partnership built on love and respect that flows both ways.

  168. Gram3 wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    @ Gram3:
    Don’t forget, all of these translations were based on the 1611 King James Version. That version was not entirely consistent with previous translations.
    And we all know that King James had no interest whatsoever in upholding social hierarchies, right?

    But the KJV does not insert “symbol” at 1 Cor 11:10, so nobody is borrowing from KJV in this case. Further, more modern translations depart from the KJV in significant ways, generally favoring a different set of Greek manuscripts than the ones used in the translation of the KJV and departing stylistically in significant ways.

  169. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:
    You are seeing conspiracy to do violence to the text where there is none.
    I am making observations and inferences from those observations. Grudem has made it his life’s work to subjugate women, and he is willing to subjugate the Eternal Son if that is what it takes to support his ideology. Grudem and the other Gospel Glitterati engaged in an all-out disinformation campaign about the gender-neutral (I would say gender-accurate) NIV translation which was scheduled for publication before Crossway’s ESV. There is no necessity for adding those words to the text for clarity unless female subordination is first assumed. None. Therefore, at the very least, those added words should have been italicized. What reason were they not italicized? Since the NIV was slandered, the ESV had marketing time and had done the necessary battlefield preparation such that there are now ESV-only churches.
    That is not a conspiracy. Those are the facts. I imagine it makes for an interesting life for Don Carson.

    Yet now Don Carson is the General Editor of the soon to be released Zondervan Study Bible. The version? NIV.

    The wave against the NIV was fueled by James Dobson in the late 90’s when the TNIV was released. A trio of Dobson, Grudem and World Magazine came together to accuse the NIV of going gender neutral. This episode produced a book by Don Carson on the issue of inclusive language in Bible translation and a much better book, IMO, by Mark Strauss (the name of the Strauss book eludes me). The thought that the NIV had to be taken down before the ESV could be released is outlandish. The marketing machine behind the ESV coincided with the YRR movement which postdated the original dispute over the NIV by several years. Unless you want to grant that Grudem the continuationist is indeed a prophet you will have a hard time convincing many people outside a few here of your thesis.

  170. js wrote:

    I don’t want to exert power over anybody I just want to live faithfully to God and because I see faithfulness differently than many of you I am lumped in with the worst examples of abuse and considered somehow deficient in my understanding. So be it. I have to live by the best understanding of God and His Word that I can have. That’s what I try to do, fallible as I am.

    I believe you. Ask yourself, however, if it is possible that you are participating in upholding a System, however indirectly, that damages the souls of your sisters in Christ. I do not know if you have daughters or granddaughters. Would you want to teach them that they must obey their husbands no matter what? Or would you rather teach them to listen to the Holy Spirit who indwells them and to pursue Christlikeness in whatever venue or condition they are? Would you want them to marry someone who had been taught these doctrines? Please think very carefully about how *other* men might apply your interpretation WRT your daughters or granddaughters. Would you want to live with the knowledge that you encouraged your daughter (or someone else’s daughter) to enter a marriage when it turns out that she needs to “endure abuse for a season.” Would you feel any responsibility for your support of that way of thinking about women?

  171. js wrote:

    But the KJV does not insert “symbol” at 1 Cor 11:10, so nobody is borrowing from KJV in this case.

    So then it must not be necessary for clarity. Really, the history of translations is interesting but not as important, IMO, as faithfully rendering the text’s meaning. And textual criticism is an important field, IMO. You might consider reading some of Philip Barton Payne’s work. He is conservative, and he changed his mind through studying the texts. His credentials are at least as solid as Grudem’s.

  172. Velour wrote:

    It is rare that someone has a loving, decent father who subscribes in any way shape or form to this nonsense. Going back two and three generations, what was your grandfather like and your great-grandfather.

    I am not exactly sure which nonsense is referred to here. I grew up with what could be called a traditional outlook on this subject and gradually moved away from it. My father and grandfather likely didn’t move that far from their upbringing but my father died when I was still just a dumb kid so I didn’t get a chance to discuss it with him. That said they were very honorable men and I don’t think they were rare at all.

  173. js wrote:

    Yet now Don Carson is the General Editor of the soon to be released Zondervan Study Bible. The version? NIV.

    That is what I was referring to. The irony. The readers who were paying attention to the run-up to the ESV remember the brouhaha. If you are aware of publishing and marketing, it is not as “outlandish” as you think. Crossway and its stable of authors have made a bundle off of the ESV and related products which they market through their TgC “partner” whose bloggers happen to have conflicts of interest if TgC site is just a neutral place to discuss theology.

    The NIV had a chunk of the market that Crossway wanted but which was occupied by the blockbuster NIV Study Bible. I am not naive about the business of “christian” business.

  174. js wrote:

    But I would never question whether you believe in the egalitarian view because of past abuse.

    I forgot to say that I genuinely appreciate this. You might find it interesting, or not, that I was dismissed and my questions regarding these doctrines were dismissed by elders as being due to “emotional baggage” from having observed closeup and experienced to some degree the wreckage caused by these authoritarian doctrines. So that meme is definitely out there. We women get so Hysterical, don’t you know.

  175. js wrote:

    This is a big problem. It doesn’t mean we remove all leadership but leadership in the church at large is in need of a major overhaul, as TWW displays daily.

    Yes we should remove church leadership and this authoritarian, un-Biblical papish nonsense.

  176. Bill M wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    It is rare that someone has a loving, decent father who subscribes in any way shape or form to this nonsense.

    I am not exactly sure which nonsense is referred to here.

    The “nonsense” is this hyper-rigid comp doctrine.
    I have yet to meet a man who espouses this rigid doctrine who had a normal, loving relationship with his father. The comp guys have had either no father in their life or an abusive father.

    Sure there were honorable men, such as those in your family, who were more traditional in their beliefs. But were they insufferable like the current comp advocates? I doubt it.

  177. js wrote:

    I don’t consider myself to have come up in an abusive or unloving home.

    I am sorry to hear about your dad. I am glad you had a good relationship.

    All of the big proponents of comp doctrine that I have seen and known – Mark Driscoll, my former authoritarian NeoCal pastor, Voddie Baucham and scores of others did not have healthy relationships with their fathers. Added on to that troubling bunch are others who have held fast to comp doctrine and preyed upon others sexually: Bill Gothard and Doug Philips.

    I have yet to see a healthy marriage where this is played out. And I went to a comp church. It didn’t work in real time.

  178. GovPappy wrote:

    When we’re older and can make our own decisions, we’re supposed to hand over final decision-making authority to people who may or may not take the time to know us, and then we regress to the level of spiritual children unable to see that we must put on our shoes before heading outside. This makes no sense.

    Spot on! Authoritarian, controlling, demeaning and no respect for the priesthood of all believers. No respect for the Holy Spirit’s leading in believers’ lives.

  179. Gram3 wrote:

    The NIV had a chunk of the market that Crossway wanted but which was occupied by the blockbuster NIV Study Bible. I am not naive about the business of “christian” business.

    I did not know this. Thanks for the info.

  180. Patrice wrote:

    js wrote:
    Am I subjugating them to injustice or am I calling them to obedience to God, even if they can’t fully understand it or fully accept it?
    It’s not either/or, I suspect. You may be subjugating them to the injustice of obedience while God is calling them. Which is probably why many can’t fully understand it. I know I don’t.
    But more to the point, why would someone who doesn’t believe in God pay attention to a religious stranger’s criticism of his/her own sexual identity? It would be extremely rude of you to plunge through someone’s personal boundaries in such a manner. Simply and fully unacceptable. So I hope you never do it.

    Judgment begins in the house of God, which is a wreck. The NeoCals use talking about other peoples’ sins to digress from looking at their own.

  181. js wrote:

    I don’t want to exert power over anybody I just want to live faithfully to God

    And God made men to be benevolent dictators, while He made women to be forever serfs.

  182. @ Daisy:
    Thanks for that link which is very interesting. People have recommended Bushnell before but I never got around to looking for her book, and that sample is very helpful. How bold she was to undertake this topic in her era!

  183. Gram3 wrote:

    In this respect, the Female Subordinationists may have a point. …… They conclude that the problem is women having options. They fail to consider that perhaps the behavior/attitudes of the wives might change if their husbands’ attitudes and actions would change. ……….Everything that is wrong must be ascribed to the woman’s freedom.

    I have no data to support my opinion, but I believe that the opposite is true. Women want/need options and freedom because of everything that is wrong with the “Gawd-given authoritah” of the ruling class (men).

  184. @ Nancy2:
    I agree that women need freedom just like men do. I also think that there would be far fewer divorces among Christians if our marriages were built on the reality of both persons pursuing Christ-likeness instead of trying to fit into Role boxes that deny their personhood. Now that women have options to support themselves and their children, they are less likely to stay in an emotionally or physically abusive marriage. The Female Subordinationists focus on the divorce statistics which correlate with women’s increasing freedom and draw the wrong conclusion about the data. The divorces are not really caused by freedom but rather the divorces which are now more feasible reveal the poor state of marriage in the Christian church. If I were the Protestant Pope, I would get people to ask some serious questions about why our marriages are not displaying God’s unity and his love and his mutual indwelling. That is where I think the answer lies. Unchristlikeness might look like a power play or it might look like manipulative behavior or it might look like selfishness of all kinds. I think if we focused our attention on those character issues rather than all this fake Role nonsense, then our marriages might be a lot better and then the statistics would improve. I hope that was more clear.

  185. Gram3 wrote:

    If I were the Protestant Pope, I would get people to ask some serious questions about why our marriages are not displaying God’s unity and his love and his mutual indwelling. That is where I think the answer lies.

    I agree. But our SBC Vatican can’t do that. Those in control may be smart enough to know that such an investigation would undermine the Conservative Resurgence and article xviii of the BFM2000.

  186. @ js:

    “comp doctrine (which has been around for centuries and has been widely accepted in the Church)”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    can you prove this? where is the evidence of an established doctrine being around for centuries?

  187. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    Wish you would still hang with us Albuquerque. I always enjoy your comments and perspectives. It’s a very human thing to want others to agree with us on what we believe or disbelieve, and I still believe that TWW handles disagreement far better than your run-of-the-mill ixtian blog. Please rejoin our community, I’ve always said it’s like Al-Andalus of old before the inquisition took over.

  188. js wrote:

    comp doctrine (which has been around for centuries and has been widely accepted in the Church)

    Even if it was/is, why was it around? Does that automatically make it good and right for the Church? Or was it around because men held almost all power and rule in and out of the Church and that “cultural norm” was just fine with the male leaders in the Church? Have you investigated some of the early church fathers’ views of women?

  189. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, I get that distinction, and I have also done what you describe. I would say that it is both/and. I don’t think of myself more highly than I ought, but I don’t think of myself as less than I ought, either. I think it is possible to have self-respect while also having a disposition to put the needs of others before my personal preferences in particular situations. It isn’t a rule but rather an attitude.

    And oh, man, did it ever take work to understand this and make it functional in my life! Mounds of false guilt and after than, mounds of anger and crankiness. In anger/crankiness, I sometimes found myself thinking that the whole world was full of id*ots, and I would fall back,abashed.

    For some, it can be a long slog to that still solid place of mercy and clarity towards self and others. I am grateful to have found it. Now/then I get off track, but I usually notice it, and am glad to hop back on, because it’s much more lighter/sweeter than how I’d gone before. Which makes sense since it’s a true path, one we were made to walk.

  190. js wrote:

    It is a shame that an assertion like this would even be made. The thought that one can not accept comp doctrine (which has been around for centuries and has been widely accepted in the Church) unless one comes from an abusive background is astounding.

    But that begs so many questions. Why was infant baptism considered orthodoxy for centuries and believers baptism punished by death? Why was foot binding in China considered fashionable and beautiful for 1000 years?

    The comp men I was around did not come from abusive backgrounds. Most that I knew had Fathers who did not even raise them like that. It became a very popular movement in the 80’s and 90’s that many men got caught up in at church. It was basically a backlash to new economic freedoms for women in the 60’s and 70’s.

    As one older woman who was around and part of the process told me: When the civil rights law was first written, it was written in a way that gave black women more rights than white women. The language was changed and the creep of comp doctrine as part of the Gospel came out of that. And as always it takes time for such things to permeate environments. It became out of control in the SBC in the 90’s.

    Women were actually freer to function in the Body before that. People just did not think about it. Many “Christian” Men became threatened when women’s rights became legal and economic.

  191. @ Gram3:

    Bushnell’s story is interesting, too. Her father was appalled at her career choice but she insisted she was “called” by God to be a doctor. I am most amazed at her indepth scholarship during a time when she insisted her research be critiqued by scholars all over the world… using snail mail.

  192. elastigirl wrote:

    @ js:
    “comp doctrine (which has been around for centuries and has been widely accepted in the Church)”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    can you prove this? where is the evidence of an established doctrine being around for centuries?

    We all know that women were not allowed to vote in the U.S. until 1920.

    Below is a statement made by Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1869 on behalf of married women:

    ****” [T]he position of a married woman … is, in many respects, precisely similar to that of the negro slave. She can make no contract and hold no property; whatever she inherits or earns becomes at that moment the property of her husband…. Though he acquired a fortune through her, or though she earned a fortune through her talents, he is the sole master of it, and she cannot draw a penny….[I]n the English common law a married woman is nothing at all. She passes out of legal existence.”******

    This “comp” doctrine wasn’t just established in churches. It was established in society as a whole, which,we know, was completely controlled by men.

  193. Gram3 wrote:

    I do not know if you have daughters or granddaughters. Would you want to teach them that they must obey their husbands no matter what? Or would you rather teach them to listen to the Holy Spirit who indwells them and to pursue Christlikeness in whatever venue or condition they are? Would you want them to marry someone who had been taught these doctrines? Please think very carefully about how *other* men might apply your interpretation WRT your daughters or granddaughters. Would you want to live with the knowledge that you encouraged your daughter (or someone else’s daughter) to enter a marriage when it turns out that she needs to “endure abuse for a season.” Would you feel any responsibility for your support of that way of thinking about women?

    Speaking of which.
    JS, if he is still on this thread reading, may want to consider some of the points on this blog page:

    “Bible believing” pastors and the enabling of domestic violence
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2015/04/bible-believing-pastors-and-the-enabling-of-domestic-violence/

  194. @ Gram3:

    I’ve never understood why some Christians will so quickly dismiss someone’s change on a doctrine or rejection of it because they experienced personal hurt or pain because of it. I think that’s a valid reason to have doubt or to question something.

    I get a little tired of Christians who act like there is only one grounds upon which a person can have legitimate reasons to doubt a doctrine, the faith, or whatever.

    People have doubts for all sorts of reasons. I don’t think an emotional based doubt is necessarily wrong or invalid.

    Some of my own doubts with various doctrines or aspects of the Christian faith were, yes, based in part, or whole, over emotionally-driven things, but those doubts then led to more intellectual based rationales.

  195. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Bushnell’s story is interesting, too. Her father was appalled at her career choice but she insisted she was “called” by God to be a doctor. I am most amazed at her indepth scholarship during a time when she insisted her research be critiqued by scholars all over the world… using snail mail.

    I cannot imagine taking on her Biblical studies and taking on medical studies as a woman then. I will definitely need to order her book.

  196. Nancy2 wrote:

    Below is a statement made by Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1869 on behalf of married women:

    ****” [T]he position of a married woman … is, in many respects, precisely similar to that of the negro slave. She can make no contract and hold no property; whatever she inherits or earns becomes at that moment the property of her husband…. Though he acquired a fortune through her, or though she earned a fortune through her talents, he is the sole master of it, and she cannot draw a penny….[I]n the English common law a married woman is nothing at all. She passes out of legal existence.”******

    That’s a great quote. For all the talk of “feminism” this and “feminism” that being a slippery slope to perition, not one of these guys, including Grudem who slings “feminism” whenever he can, will say at what point feminism derailed society or to which point we need to roll back women’s rights. They will *not* talk about those issues. Why won’t they do that, since they say feminism is responsible?

  197. Gram3 wrote:

    Thanks for that link which is very interesting. People have recommended Bushnell before but I never got around to looking for her book,

    You’re welcome. There was some other article which mentioned some of her work I wanted to give you the link to, but I can’t remember where I saw it. If I can find it later, I will post it for you.

  198. Nancy2 wrote:

    This “comp” doctrine wasn’t just established in churches. It was established in society as a whole, which,we know, was completely controlled by men.

    Yes, including English Bible translators. We all have our presuppositions, and female inferiority was one of them. It was assumed that females needed a keeper. The fact was that females were, for the most part until fairly recently, not permitted to develop their talents, which is another example of a double-bind.

  199. Gram3 wrote:

    Crossway and its stable of authors have made a bundle off of the ESV

    Crossway is the principle Calvinist publishing house. The ESV is the sword of choice by New Calvinists … the ESV Study Bible is loaded with Calvinist commentary. How do you know you are in a New Calvinist church? Look for (1) elder rule, (2) membership covenants, (3) downcast countenance of women members, (4) no altar calls, and (5) a preponderance of ESV Bibles.

  200. Daisy wrote:

    I’ve never understood why some Christians will so quickly dismiss someone’s change on a doctrine or rejection of it because they experienced personal hurt or pain because of it. I think that’s a valid reason to have doubt or to question something.

    Well, it is another form of ad hominem. I don’t need to listen to the facts you are presenting about being abused because you are so emotional about being abused. I was not abused but I witnessed the abuses of this System, including extreme male entitlement and stalking behavior and pastors pushing people under care because the male was not obeyed. So, I was appalled when that card was played and the coldness or hardness of heart displayed.

  201. @ Gram3:
    And that is where the authoritarian heart of the system is put on display time and time again. The consequences to the souls of people are disregarded while obedience to other humans who have elevated themselves is enforced. It is anti-Christian.

  202. Patrice wrote:

    For some, it can be a long slog to that still solid place of mercy and clarity towards self and others.

    Very true, and another indicator that the Christian faith is a walk over ground that is sometimes uneven and in light that is sometimes dim. The one who helps me to see when I’ve gone off is my husband who knows me so well.

  203. @ Gram3:

    I totally agree with your assessment on that.

    I become annoyed when I see conservative Christians (usually of the gender comp variety) who constantly complain about high divorce rates, that women are usually the instigators of divorce, and then they blame feminism for all this.

    It doesn’t seem to occur to them that women have to leave marriages because the marriage is dead, or the spouse is abusive or an adulterer, and the woman has had it and can’t stand any more.

    I don’t think women (or men for that matter) should have to stay in soul crushing or abusive marriages, just for the sake of keeping a marriage together. So I don’t see it as bad if divorces are easier to obtain for situations like that.

    If divorce rates are going up and women are mostly initiating them (including in Christian households), maybe there is something wrong with how Christians are teaching marriage… or Christian men are getting the wrong idea about marriage.

    I’d say the problem is probably within Christian marriage teachings, not with feminism.

    Another facet I see about this. Women will initiate divorce most often, but based on anecdotal stuff I’ve seen, the women will try so hard to save the marriage.

    The wives will talk to the husband until they are blue in the face, beg to go to marital counseling, etc. But after months or YEARS of this, nothing gets better.

    A lot of married men are content to coast, to sit back and do nothing to work on a relationship.

    A lot of wives I’ve read of will even issue a billion warnings, but the husbands will not heed it.

    Then when the wife finally divorces and leaves with suit cases in hand, the husbands in such marriages have the audacity to complain all over town to anyone who will listen,
    “I never saw it coming. I never thought she’d leave. I can’t believe she left. It took me by surprise.”

    -Even though the woman spent months/ years repeatedly pleading with the husband to help her work on the marriage, that she was unhappy! The guys still act like innocent, ignorant sheep.

    I’ve seen this over and over again, a wife who tries telling the spouse she is unhappy in the marriage and will leave him if he doesn’t work on the marriage with her, but the guy just sits there doing nothing.

    But then he wigs out when the wife does divorce. And they go on those goofy “men’s rights” forums to complain about it.

  204. @ Max:

    The whole translation business is off putting when you see what goes on behind the scenes. So why did the SBC decide to have their own Holman translation? Someone involved at Lifeway told me they showed new employees a film about it. Seems the NIV royalties were increasing and they wanted to see their own bibles. Did not work out well but you get my drift.

    There is a lot of money in getting churches to buy certain translations. People will use the translation their church uses. Just as people will buy the books their pastor mentions. The marketing and propaganda with the ESV basically changed the game forever.

    The fact they called it a “literal” translation is not just amusing but ridiculous.

  205. @ Max:
    Yep, that’s why I call them ESV-only. They are just as adamant, for all practical purposes, as the KJVO crowd ever was.

  206. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    Yet now Don Carson is the General Editor of the soon to be released Zondervan Study Bible. The version? NIV.

    That is what I was referring to. The irony. The readers who were paying attention to the run-up to the ESV remember the brouhaha. If you are aware of publishing and marketing, it is not as “outlandish” as you think. Crossway and its stable of authors have made a bundle off of the ESV and related products which they market through their TgC “partner” whose bloggers happen to have conflicts of interest if TgC site is just a neutral place to discuss theology.

    The NIV had a chunk of the market that Crossway wanted but which was occupied by the blockbuster NIV Study Bible. I am not naive about the business of “christian” business.

    I see the history of this differently than you and it is important because your assumptions color your understanding of what you see the ESV translators doing. There’s no doubt that Crossway has made a bunch of money off the ESV, just as Zondervan did with the NIV 1984. But I still don’t see any underlying strategy of a takedown. It was more the family values crowd that objected to the NIV at first. And the NIV Study Bible was hardly a threat when the ESV began planning their study Bible. Other study Bibles, like the Life Application and MacArthur, were already eating into the NIV Study Bible at that time.

    I’ll tell you what made the difference with the ESV. You’re not going to like my answer but I don’t think it was any plot to take down the NIV. I think there are two words which explain the popularity of the ESV . . . John Piper.

    Piper was an early adopter of the ESV and his desiring God website was hugely influential in the early 2000’s as a repository of free biblical material at the forefront of the YRR movement. Not surprisingly, there is a Crossway connection with Piper as several of his books are published by Crossway. I’m not going to judge Piper’s heart as to whether he really just loves the ESV or whether he was out to make Crossway a bunch of money but I see his ministry as the one which got the ball rolling for the ESV. This would have happened regardless of what the NIV did because Piper was the single greatest influencer in the YRR and those in that movement would be drawn to the version he recommended. Crossway marketed well to tap into this movement and the rest is history.

  207. elastigirl wrote:

    can you prove this? where is the evidence of an established doctrine being around for centuries?

    Gender comp is sexism, and sexism has been around since about Day 1 of the church, so in that regard, he may be correct.

    What is interesting is that gender comps have to change their apologetics every few centuries.

    The arguments that gender complementarians used to employ to keep women down and out hundreds of years ago no longer hold up, so they have to change their arguments to appeal to people today, which is one big clue their position is bogus.

    I think this page might discuss that issue:
    Relfections On a New Defence of Complementarianism
    http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507

    Here is a highly relevant snippet from that page:
    —–
    I reflect, however, that these continually-shifting arguments [by gender complementarians] to defend the same conclusion start to look suspicious:
    by the time someone has offered four different defences of the same position, one has to wonder whether their commitment is fundamentally to the position, not to faithful theology.

    Judging by his essay in this book, Grudem is ready to throw the Nicene faith overboard, if only he can keep his ‘complementarianism’; other writers here are less blunt, but the same challenge may be presented.

    How many particular defences of a position need to be proved false before we may assert that the position itself is obviously false?

  208. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    they italicize the word to show that the word in translation has no exact equivalent in the Greek text but has been supplied for clarity of understanding.

    Which Grudem and the translation team at Crossway decided they did not need to do. That is at best misleading, and there is no reason other than ideology for them to hide the fact that they have inserted words into the text which change its meaning to the precise opposite.

    As I said, Grudem would have a fuschia fit if a “feminist” did this by, for example, omitting some words or adding some other words where it is convenient. God’s word should not be a political or ideological weapon.

    I prefer italicization in translations that aim toward formal equivalence but it is not required and not all formal equivalence translations do so. To assume that somehow they are driven by ideology in not italicizing is uncharitable at best.

    If Grudem has a fit over such practices he would be wrong, just as I believe you are on this. You are assuming far too much in the assertions you are making. The adding words to the Holy Spirit is the worst thing you are saying. But you are also attributing motives in a way that can’t possibly be proven.

  209. @ Nancy2:
    i don’t think she was asking about that, actually… I think what is being asked is “where/when/how did female subordination become accepted by the church *as doctrine?” But I could be wrong there…

  210. Lydia wrote:

    Bushnell’s story is interesting, too. Her father was appalled at her career choice but she insisted she was “called” by God to be a doctor. I am most amazed at her indepth scholarship during a time when she insisted her research be critiqued by scholars all over the world… using snail mail.

    And all this mind you back in a day when you actually had to read and understand hard and obdurate tomes.
    She taught herself Hebrew and Greek this way.
    What a far cry from the present day and the mindless twits on twitter feeds whose attention spans aren’t much better than hamsters.

  211. Daisy wrote:

    I’d say the problem is probably within Christian marriage teachings, not with feminism.

    Yes. The comp crowd has confused their political/social/cultural beliefs with The Gospel. It simply isn’t so. I am a conservative Christian woman and I wouldn’t give one of these men the time of day. Some have tried. I reject them outright. They are hurt that an old-fashioned pretty, nice woman like me won’t have anything to do with them. Do I look crazy?

  212. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    You are seeing conspiracy to do violence to the text where there is none.

    There is no necessity for adding those words to the text for clarity unless female subordination is first assumed. None.
    blockquote>

    Are you actually saying that no fair-minded individual could come to 1 Co 11 and through careful study of the text come to the conclusion that the word “sign” or “symbol” might be implied in verse 10? The only thing that could drive that is ideology? It couldn’t possibly come through study of the text? Only an insidious Grudem-like creature of a blind buffoon carried by the winds of the culture could come to any other conclusion than what you have come to? Men and women translators with a thorough knowledge of the Greek text and years of academic training must arrive at the Gram3 interpretation or they are adding words to the Holy Spirit and doing violence to the text.

    That would be news to the translators of the ASV, the RSV, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible (hardly a comp translation by many accounts), the NKJV, the NET, the ESV or the HCSB. You are saying that all the translators of these versions were either ideologues or idiots. The idea that none of them arrived at their conclusions through careful study but were just victims of ideology is absurd.

  213. numo wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    i don’t think she was asking about that, actually… I think what is being asked is “where/when/how did female subordination become accepted by the church *as doctrine?” But I could be wrong there…

    I don’t know if it even matters. Female subordination predates the church and any and all “doctrine”.

  214. Daisy wrote:

    It doesn’t seem to occur to them that women have to leave marriages because the marriage is dead,….. Even though the woman spent months/ years repeatedly pleading with the husband to help her work on the marriage, that she was unhappy! The guys still act like innocent, ignorant sheep.

    My husband and I almost divorced right before Christmas. It wasn’t due entirely to comp teachings, but that was a factor. When he got out of the army, he lost all direction and became obsessed with finding a purpose for himself through church. I completely ceased to exist to him — except, of course, when it was time to put supper on the table or to be his arm candy at church.
    i drew a line in the sand and said something has to change. He was the one who packed and left. On his trip here to get the last of his things, he caved and agreed to see a marriage counselor.

  215. js wrote:

    I’ll tell you what made the difference with the ESV. You’re not going to like my answer but I don’t think it was any plot to take down the NIV. I think there are two words which explain the popularity of the ESV . . . John Piper.

    I don’t disagree with that, and there is certainly a lot of cross-selling with the Crossway stable, no pun intended. However, I think you are mistaken about what motivated the marketing campaign against the TNIV. It is not just a matter of one thing or another. There was a market-dominating product, the NIV, and Zondervan was going to come out with a gender-accurate version that in no way did any of the things that the accusers said that it did. The accusers have a common ideology. If people have a common ideology, they do not need to be in a formal conspiracy.

    I am just telling you the way marketing is done and PR is done and the way informal relationships are employed to assist in that effort. If you doubt the connections between Piper, Grudem, Rushdoony, and a lot of other people involved in the attack on the TNIV and subsequent manic promotion of the ESV, then Google the Coalition on Revival. You will find some very interesting names there, and some interrelationships will become perhaps more apparent to you along with some common agendas.

    I don’t care for the idolatry of any man, but the idolatry that we have seen lately in the conservative churches is alarming and sickening. We have fractured into parties, and that is exactly what Paul told us not to do. But it is very lucrative for the guys at the top and very attractive for the guys who want to be promoted in the System. Worldliness is what it is.

    You do not know what my “assumptions” are based on, so you might want to think about that.

  216. Daisy wrote:

    I think this page might discuss that issue:
    Relfections On a New Defence of Complementarianism
    http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507

    Another excellent resource that discusses the problems with the shift toward an explicitly ontological ESS. This was somewhat inevitable in that the sham “functional subordination” was an unstable position.

  217. comp doctrine (which has been around for centuries and has been widely accepted in the Church)

    Even if it was/is, why was it around? Does that automatically make it good and right for the Church? Or was it around because men held almost all power and rule in and out of the Church and that “cultural norm” was just fine with the male leaders in the Church? Have you investigated some of the early church fathers’ views of women?

    Bridget, you left out an important part of the original post by Velour which resulted in the response you partially quoted. Here is what Velour said earlier:

    Bridget wrote:

    Can I ask you a question. What was/is your relationship with your own father?
    All of the people I know who subscribe to this:
    a) had abusive fathers; and
    b) or non-existent fathers.
    It is rare that someone has a loving, decent father who subscribes in any way shape or form to this nonsense. Going back two and three generations, what was your grandfather like and your great-grandfather.
    The people I know who subscribe to this don’t know how to be men in real life and they are grasping at straws. And it shows. They can’t admit that they don’t know how to do it, so they admit a very rigid set of rules to compensate for telling the truth and having to figure out life.

    Bridget wrote:

    Those are some pretty strong quotes. The first part says every comp man she has known has come from a bad relationship with his father. Then she backtracks a little and says it is rare to have a someone believe this nonsense who had a loving father. After asking me about my grandparents, she goes on to say that those she knows who hold to comp don’t know how to be real men and are grasping at straws through the rigid rules of complementarianism.

    To be honest, Mark Driscoll couldn’t have done much better with the insults.

    So my reply about the standing of this teaching through history was to say the pattern of life between men and women in home and church is as old as the Bible and has been attested throughout church history so my point was to provoke thinking about this. My whole quote you also left out was making the point that it is wrong to paint every comp as someone from a dysfunctional background because the basic teaching has been widely accepted in the Church through the centuries. IOW I think Velour wildly overstated her point and this is why I pointed to the past, not as a way to say it must be right but as a way to say, because many have believed it in the past, I have trouble painting such a large group of people with the same broad brush.

  218. js wrote:

    The adding words to the Holy Spirit is the worst thing you are saying.

    That is an interesting way of looking at it. Me saying that Grudem added words to the actual texts, which he factually did, is somehow a very bad thing?

    I’m saying exactly what he did. I am saying that he deviated from standard practice, and that he has not provide and you have not provided a plausible reason for either the addition of the words or for the omission of any indication that words were added to the text. It is more than a bit odd that you are not at all troubled by that. Yet it is a terrible thing for me to say what Grudem has done and the hypocrisy surrounding the TNIV which did not market itself as “essentially literal” and tried to remove the male-centric bias in the English translation.

  219. js wrote:

    If Grudem has a fit over such practices he would be wrong

    He had a fit over the gender-accurate TNIV saying things like it would lead to worshipping our Mother in Heaven or some such. Another of Grudem’s slippery slope arguments.

  220. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    I’ll tell you what made the difference with the ESV. You’re not going to like my answer but I don’t think it was any plot to take down the NIV. I think there are two words which explain the popularity of the ESV . . . John Piper.

    I don’t disagree with that, and there is certainly a lot of cross-selling with the Crossway stable, no pun intended. However, I think you are mistaken about what motivated the marketing campaign against the TNIV. It is not just a matter of one thing or another. There was a market-dominating product, the NIV, and Zondervan was going to come out with a gender-accurate version that in no way did any of the things that the accusers said that it did. The accusers have a common ideology. If people have a common ideology, they do not need to be in a formal conspiracy.

    I am just telling you the way marketing is done and PR is done and the way informal relationships are employed to assist in that effort. If you doubt the connections between Piper, Grudem, Rushdoony, and a lot of other people involved in the attack on the TNIV and subsequent manic promotion of the ESV, then Google the Coalition on Revival. You will find some very interesting names there, and some interrelationships will become perhaps more apparent to you along with some common agendas.

    I don’t care for the idolatry of any man, but the idolatry that we have seen lately in the conservative churches is alarming and sickening. We have fractured into parties, and that is exactly what Paul told us not to do. But it is very lucrative for the guys at the top and very attractive for the guys who want to be promoted in the System. Worldliness is what it is.

    You do not know what my “assumptions” are based on, so you might want to think about that.

    I don’t understand your last line, but I would like to understand it.

    Would you agree or disagree that the ESV would have been a blockbuster translation regardless of what happened with the NIV.

  221. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    If Grudem has a fit over such practices he would be wrong

    He had a fit over the gender-accurate TNIV saying things like it would lead to worshipping our Mother in Heaven or some such. Another of Grudem’s slippery slope arguments.

    He is often wrong and often overstates the case or produces thin evidence because he is ideologically-driven. If you think I am coming here to defend Wayne Grudem or Bruce Ware you are mistaken. But not all scholars who believe comp are Wayne Grudems.

  222. js wrote:

    You are saying that all the translators of these versions were either ideologues or idiots. The idea that none of them arrived at their conclusions through careful study but were just victims of ideology is absurd.

    I am saying that they have added words to the text which are not required in order for the text, as it was given (or at least the best evidence of what was given) does not have the words “symbol of” in those texts. You keep accusing me of the terrible crime of pointing out the obvious.

    Please supply your reasoning for the necessity of adding those words which just happen to change the meaning to a meaning which better fits male supremacy. An please do that before you dismiss the facts which I present as being “absurd.”

  223. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    The adding words to the Holy Spirit is the worst thing you are saying.

    That is an interesting way of looking at it. Me saying that Grudem added words to the actual texts, which he factually did, is somehow a very bad thing?

    I’m saying exactly what he did. I am saying that he deviated from standard practice, and that he has not provide and you have not provided a plausible reason for either the addition of the words or for the omission of any indication that words were added to the text. It is more than a bit odd that you are not at all troubled by that. Yet it is a terrible thing for me to say what Grudem has done and the hypocrisy surrounding the TNIV which did not market itself as “essentially literal” and tried to remove the male-centric bias in the English translation.

    You are demonstrating either a fundamental misunderstanding or a purposeful neglect of the basic principles of Bible translation. In translation into the receptor language, words often have to be supplied in the receptor language for the sake of meaning and clarity. If the translators determine through the study of the text that a particular word should be supplied for this purpose, it is supplied. Some translations italicize these words, some don’t. Those that don’t are not trying to hide anything, the translators are just saying, “this is what the text means” so there is no need to italicize. I am not troubled by this because every translation does it, it is a simple principle of all translation and because I do not think to do so is to add words to the Holy Spirit. The only way I would think that is if I held to a view that there was one and only one inspired English translation (a la KJVO).

    By the way, how do you know Grudem was behind the 1 Co 11:10 translation anyway? Is there a direct link to him somewhere because the ESV translation team, like many translations in recent years, is made up of dozens of people. Maybe you are saying he had the last word but I have never seen proof of that.

  224. js wrote:

    I don’t understand your last line, but I would like to understand it.

    Would you agree or disagree that the ESV would have been a blockbuster translation regardless of what happened with the NIV.

    I will not supply biographical details. You are assuming way too much about what I am “assuming.”

    I agree that the ESV would have been a blockbuster due to the Gospel Glitterati muscle behind it. That however, is a retrospective view. Prospectively, a new product launch is much easier if the market whale’s brand is tarnished. And that is exactly the strategy that was employed because that is the way that marketing is done. The reason I recognize PR speak is because I know how to *do* PR speak. It kind of takes away the magic of propaganda for me, however.

  225. @ js:
    But you think his ideology which has been the focus of his entire career had nothing at all to do with his editorial decision to mask the addition of words to the text? What is is signature issue, his hobby-horse, his Grand Unifying Theory, his Rosetta stone for understanding everything? Gender hierarchy.

  226. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    I don’t understand your last line, but I would like to understand it.

    Would you agree or disagree that the ESV would have been a blockbuster translation regardless of what happened with the NIV.

    I will not supply biographical details. You are assuming way too much about what I am “assuming.”

    I agree that the ESV would have been a blockbuster due to the Gospel Glitterati muscle behind it. That however, is a retrospective view. Prospectively, a new product launch is much easier if the market whale’s brand is tarnished. And that is exactly the strategy that was employed because that is the way that marketing is done. The reason I recognize PR speak is because I know how to *do* PR speak. It kind of takes away the magic of propaganda for me, however.

    What am I assuming, exactly, without divulging biographical details?

  227. js wrote:

    You are demonstrating either a fundamental misunderstanding or a purposeful neglect of the basic principles of Bible translation. In translation into the receptor language, words often have to be supplied in the receptor language for the sake of meaning and clarity. If the translators determine through the study of the text that a particular word should be supplied for this purpose, it is supplied. Some translations italicize these words, some don’t. Those that don’t are not trying to hide anything, the translators are just saying, “this is what the text means” so there is no need to italicize

    So far you have not demonstrated a plausible necessity for adding words which *change* the meaning of the words as inspired by the Holy Spirit, according to the best textual evidence.

    But thanks for the tutorial on how translations are done. Now, how about if you show why the additions were necessary.

  228. js wrote:

    What am I assuming, exactly, without divulging biographical details?

    You are assuming that I have no basis for what I am saying about the marketing strategy for the ESV.

  229. Gram3 wrote:

    @ js:
    But you think his ideology which has been the focus of his entire career had nothing at all to do with his editorial decision to mask the addition of words to the text? What is is signature issue, his hobby-horse, his Grand Unifying Theory, his Rosetta stone for understanding everything? Gender hierarchy.

    There was no masking of supplied words. If the ESV italicized everywhere but here I would agree with you but they made the editorial choice (which many translations make) to not italicize words.

    Grudem has been a big proponent of comp teaching, there’s no doubt. But I take everything he writes with a grain of salt. For every sound point he makes, he makes a point that is thin on evidence or weak in argument.

    But I will say he is not exclusively focused on this issue. He has written a popular Systematic Theology (though personally I prefer Millard Erickson though I am looking forward to soon beginning one by Gerald Bray), he has written widely on the continuationist controversy. He has written a lengthy tome on Politics and the Bible, he has been involved in seminary classrooms for decades on a wide variety of topics. I don’t read him much and I always read him cautiously. I am not here to defend Grudem but I think this gives a fuller picture of him.

  230. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    What am I assuming, exactly, without divulging biographical details?

    You are assuming that I have no basis for what I am saying about the marketing strategy for the ESV.

    Thanks, I got it. If you’ve got inside info I will cede to that. We don’t see eye to eye on that but if you know something I couldn’t know that’s fine.

  231. @ js:

    This comment got quite mixed up. I didn’t quote what it looks like I quoted.

    I agree that not all men who are comp come from abusive backgrounds. I do think that many who believe it, believe it because they read books by their favorite teachers and their favorite teachers make the argument.

  232. js wrote:

    So my reply about the standing of this teaching through history was to say the pattern of life between men and women in home and church is as old as the Bible and has been attested throughout church history so my point was to provoke thinking about this.

    Yes, and I have thought about it. I responded with this.

    Bridget wrote:

    Even if it was/is, why was it around? Does that automatically make it good and right for the Church? Or was it around because men held almost all power and rule in and out of the Church and that “cultural norm” was just fine with the male leaders in the Church? Have you investigated some of the early church fathers’ views of women?

    You didn’t respond to these questions about the tradition of men ruling women in culture and Church.

  233. @ js:
    You have still not supplied your plausible explanation for the necessity of adding tot he text. It is not sufficient to wave that away by referring to general translation principles or by saying that the ESV adds/omits/changes words elsewhere in their translation without italicizing it. That in itself is a huge error if they sell it as “essentially literal.” Grudem is way too clever in most everything. I do not trust him because I *did* trust him and got my eyes opened when I investigated what he has been teaching. He has a career riding on the perpetuation of female subordination.

    So, about that necessity thing. We still have your explanation for Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2 pending, as well.

  234. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    You are demonstrating either a fundamental misunderstanding or a purposeful neglect of the basic principles of Bible translation. In translation into the receptor language, words often have to be supplied in the receptor language for the sake of meaning and clarity. If the translators determine through the study of the text that a particular word should be supplied for this purpose, it is supplied. Some translations italicize these words, some don’t. Those that don’t are not trying to hide anything, the translators are just saying, “this is what the text means” so there is no need to italicize

    So far you have not demonstrated a plausible necessity for adding words which *change* the meaning of the words as inspired by the Holy Spirit, according to the best textual evidence.

    But thanks for the tutorial on how translations are done. Now, how about if you show why the additions were necessary.

    How about you go read any number of reputable evangelical commentaries and follow their reasoning through the passage? Wait, I know what will happen. You will disagree with them and dismiss them as ideologues. Therefore their studied and well-reasoned opinions will be laid to the dust by your great intellectual honesty which none of them possess, since they are all beholden to this great mysterious Christian conspiracy to subjugate women. Since I already know what you would do with them, why on earth would I take valuable time to lay out the passage for you when I already know you will dismiss what I say?

    This is where you go into bully mode, Gram. You know there are reputable explanations of the text that don’t fit your narrative but you give them no quarter because to do so would be to acknowledge that someone might actually come to the text and arrive a different conclusion than that required by your narrative. You are just as bad as the hyper-Calvinist or the hyper-Arminian who gives no room to another perspective. By all means contend for what you see in Scripture all you want but don’t besmirch the efforts of others who come to a different place than you. I know you will say, “Just show me the work” or something like that but I just don’t have it in me to subject myself to the endless haranguing that will surely come from you and others over every little nuance of the passage.

  235. Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:

    So my reply about the standing of this teaching through history was to say the pattern of life between men and women in home and church is as old as the Bible and has been attested throughout church history so my point was to provoke thinking about this.

    Yes, and I have thought about it. I responded with this.

    Bridget wrote:

    Even if it was/is, why was it around? Does that automatically make it good and right for the Church? Or was it around because men held almost all power and rule in and out of the Church and that “cultural norm” was just fine with the male leaders in the Church? Have you investigated some of the early church fathers’ views of women?

    You didn’t respond to these questions about the tradition of men ruling women in culture and Church.

    I believe you are conflating male oppression of women in culture with the biblical commands of Christ-honoring fulfilling of our God-given callings in marriage. With Christ comes the new creation. But the new creation is not the obliteration of all structures of society, it is the bringing of those structures under the Lordship of Christ. Paul, who wanted all things done decently and in order, would not have favored a priesthood of believers devoid of any leadership. Certainly he would not have wanted leaders to be lords but he would still want leaders, as we see when he told Titus to appoint elders, and when he acknowledged the elders and apostles throughout the book of Acts. In the same way, he did not see marriage after Christ in terms of mutuality but in terms of complementarity. He saw Christ coming into the existing cultural structure of marriage and remodeling it so that it looked something like the culture, yet brought about an entirely different condition among husbands and wives . . . not oppression but freedom and joy.

  236. @ js:

    @js,

    You are absolutely entitled to your political/social/cultural beliefs about comp doctrine/patriarchy. But don’t sell it as The Gospel. It’s not. It’s your own personal preference.

    There are plenty of other Christians, including conservative men and women, who don’t subscribe to it and it has more in common with radical Islam (quoted from friends in Europe who are men, are conservatives, and who have been elders for more than 40 years in their churches) than with our freedom in Christ.

    I stand by what I said: All of the comp men I know who subscribe to this rigid role playing didn’t have healthy relationships with their fathers.

  237. @ js:
    IIRC, you were the one who made the assertion that the additions to the text were necessary for clarity. Yet you are placing the burden on me for asking for you to produce some support for this. Do you not see the irony? You are implicitly demanding that I accept additions to the text because some translators say it was necessary.

    I’m the bully for asking you to support your claim that adding to the words of the text is necessary. That says a lot. It also says a lot that you so cavalierly dismiss what has been done to women and what continues to be done to women because of ingrained male supremacy.

    You will not engage on the facts. You will not engage on the texts. But we are supposed to just yield to your authority because one group of scholars says it is OK for them to change the text but not for anyone else. When did double standards become acceptable?

    Accept the credit that is due to you for supporting this system the next time it destroys a life. I’ve had to do a bit of that.

  238. Bridget wrote:

    @ js:

    This comment got quite mixed up. I didn’t quote what it looks like I quoted.

    I agree that not all men who are comp come from abusive backgrounds. I do think that many who believe it, believe it because they read books by their favorite teachers and their favorite teachers make the argument.

    That happened to me earlier with your quote too. Sorry about any confusion.

    I agree with you on both points here and think all believers should read the Bible carefully, study it thoroughly and read widely from other resources which help them wrestle with biblical truth. It would be great for an advocate of the comp position to produce a blog post on an egalitarian site with a recommended reading list of resources supporting the comp position and then have an egalitarian do the same on a comp site.

  239. js wrote:

    This is where you go into bully mode, Gram. You know there are reputable explanations of the text that don’t fit your narrative but you give them no quarter because to do so would be to acknowledge that someone might actually come to the text and arrive a different conclusion than that required by your narrative.

    @js,

    Nonsense. Gram3 doesn’t go in to bully mode. She has a keen mind and does a lot of Biblical study. She’s a conservative Christian. She asks for proof.

  240. js wrote:

    I believe you are conflating male oppression of women in culture with the biblical commands of Christ-honoring fulfilling of our God-given callings in marriage

    The comps are demanding that women obey and submit. I came out of a comp church. There is no equality in Christ. It’s the women as idiots and the men lording it over them.

    The comps have NOTHING to tell the world about Jesus Christ. They have no credibility. They have confused their own personal preferences with The Gospel.

    Frankly, the comps have nothing to tell most Christian men and women about The Gospel. They have confused their political/social beliefs with The Gospel.

    When their beliefs have more in common with radical Islam, than Houston…we have a problem!

  241. js wrote:

    You will disagree with them

    That is the real issue, isn’t it? A woman dares to question certain male scholars.

    You referenced Moo. I explained why Moo’s analysis was deficient. What in my analysis of Moo’s reasoning do you find exegetically or logically problematic? ISTM that Moo is the one dismissing cultural context and doing hermeneutical gymnastics in order to get to roles.

    Which reputable scholar, in your opinion, makes the best case for male authority in 1 Corinthians 11 and the “symbol of” addition to the text? The fact is, if I come back and refute that scholar, will you not just write that off to me being a female? So, it is OK for you to dismiss me, but it is bullying or some such for me to refute the arguments made by some males who have substantial interests to protect. Do you not see the entitlement mentality in that?

  242. js wrote:

    not oppression but freedom and joy.

    You cannot be serious. There is no freedom for women in this System, and not amount of “joy” sauce will change that.

  243. Velour wrote:

    @ js:

    @js,

    You are absolutely entitled to your political/social/cultural beliefs about comp doctrine/patriarchy. But don’t sell it as The Gospel. It’s not. It’s your own personal preference.

    There are plenty of other Christians, including conservative men and women, who don’t subscribe to it and it has more in common with radical Islam (quoted from friends in Europe who are men, are conservatives, and who have been elders for more than 40 years in their churches) than with our freedom in Christ.

    I stand by what I said: All of the comp men I know who subscribe to this rigid role playing didn’t have healthy relationships with their fathers.

    If I have sold comp as the gospel I immediately recant. You know we can believe the same gospel and come to different conclusions about the implications of that gospel in life and marriage as we study the Bible. But it is decidedly not a matter of personal preference but a result of reading and thinking about the text.

    Think about baptism for example. Both infant baptism and believers baptism proponents claim that their view significantly images the gospel in some way (this is not the same as saying it IS the gospel, by the way). Some, through study of the text, come to a conclusion that supports infant baptism. Others study the text and come to the support of believer’s baptism. Most of us who have a high view of Scripture would say one view or the other is correct. But both views can marshal significant Scriptural arguments and produce a convincing case. And there are significant implications based on which view we hold in terms of how we conduct life in the church and what we believe.

    But, we should be very hesitant to say that those who believe in infant baptism don’t believe the gospel, or vice versa. And I would be very hesitant, as a believer in believer’s baptism, to say of the believer in infant baptism, that is just your personal preference. I would want to believe the best of them especially if they have shown a propensity to think through issues rather than just accepting a party line.

  244. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    You are demonstrating either a fundamental misunderstanding or a purposeful neglect of the basic principles of Bible translation. In translation into the receptor language, words often have to be supplied in the receptor language for the sake of meaning and clarity. If the translators determine through the study of the text that a particular word should be supplied for this purpose, it is supplied. Some translations italicize these words, some don’t. Those that don’t are not trying to hide anything, the translators are just saying, “this is what the text means” so there is no need to italicize

    So far you have not demonstrated a plausible necessity for adding words which *change* the meaning of the words as inspired by the Holy Spirit, according to the best textual evidence.

    But thanks for the tutorial on how translations are done. Now, how about if you show why the additions were necessary.

    Why do I have to show it when so many obviously non-comp agenda translations have adopted it? The NKJV was headed by Arthur Farstad in consultation with Zane Hodges, some of the very key opponents of John MacArthur in the Lordship Salvation controversy in the early 90’s, yet their translation retains symbol. These translators were obviously not all shills for the complementarian movement. ASV (1901), RSV (1951), NASB (1971), NEB (1971?), NKJV (1982), REB (1990’s), ESV (2001), HCSB and NET. If the combined work of dozens of scholars over decades is not going to convince you, how can I convince you?

  245. js wrote:

    not oppression but freedom and joy.

    Freedom and joy as defined by the CBMW:

    ****Gospel-Centered Husbandship: Changing the Game by Changing our Homes
    By Greg Gibson
    DOMINION-TAKING.
    In the same way Christ took dominion over everything, we are called to take dominion over our marriages and homes.****

    ****Complementarianism as a Movement

    By Grant Castleberry
    Monday, March 9, 2015
    For the last 30-years, complementarianism has been a movement. Where is it headed in the near future, especially as it concerns manhood, womanhood, and marriage?
    —————-
    Complementarianism as a movement found its genesis in the late 1980s when complementarian leaders realized that they needed to clearly articulate and defend what the Bible teaches on biblical manhood, biblical womanhood, and marriage. The movement has been sustained now for almost thirty years.
    That being said, I have recently been thinking about the future of the complementarian movement in twenty, thirty, or even fifty years. I hope and pray that in fifty years there will be a solid core of complementarian leaders, churches, and institutions that are passionate about God’s design for men, women, and marriage. *****

    So, complementarianism is a movement that began in the late 1980s (Conservative Resurgence?). And comps insist that the husbands are called to take dominion in homes and marriages. Joy means that married women are property?

    There are also articles on CMBW saying that single women should be led by church pastors and elders. Men don’t need to be dominated and led, but they are “commanded” to dominate and lead wimmen!

  246. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    not oppression but freedom and joy.

    You cannot be serious. There is no freedom for women in this System, and not amount of “joy” sauce will change that.

    There is no joy in a System. There is joy in walking in God’s ways.

  247. @ Gram3:
    Gram3 wrote:

    Accept the credit that is due to you for supporting this system the next time it destroys a life. I’ve had to do a bit of that.

    Here is something else that floors me. Of course you noticed on the SBC Voices thread there was very little concern for Karen. We heard a lot of “mistakes were made” and “they apologized”, etc. They take such little concern for people whose lives have been damaged. Was there a good outcome for Karen? Yes. But there are reasons for that that don’t fit their system. She had outside support and counsel that did not include her elders. She told her story publicly instead of staying silent. The missionary organization was wise in firing him immediately. She is young and can start over. She has no children.

    But the focus is NEVER on what the victim of the story went through. There would no discussion allowed on what the elders made Karen go through and how they treated her. That is verboten in their world and even considered sin to discuss. They do not want to go there and they don’t even know their hearts are that seared. That person is to be forgotten and all the attention either on the “repentant” perp or the “great leaders” who apologized so we will believe their system still works with a few glitches here and there. Never are the damaged lives to be discussed because that puts leaders in a bad light. They have done it with Driscoll, Mahaney and now Chandler. There is definitely a pattern.

    I like what one commenter said earlier in the thread: “This is not how Jesus wants us to treat people”. Yet, this is the Jesus they claim to represent?

    It really is that basic. But I want to warn people of something that won’t be admitted in many places but I saw first hand. They really despise the victims. They want to keep the victims as quiet as they can. They feign “care”. That is why they focus on the “repentant perp”. They make a glory story out of it instead of focusing on the one hurt because people might actually think about it too much and look too closely at them and ask why.

    None of this works unless there is ingrained thinking BEFORE a horror happens that there are castes of people. There is a pecking order of importance. And what is chilling is that children are often on the bottom rung when it comes to these guys. Then women. They would like to burn me for saying that but time after time the actual victims of these sins/crimes are never mentioned in relation to the horror of what the “repentant perp” did. Then how the leaders handle it is not to be questioned. They made mistakes is all we will hear. That tells me all I need to know about what is in their hearts and minds. The rush to “make it all go away” is indicative they don’t want to change. They are not to be trusted with lives. Nor the “Good News”. Because what they model/teach is not Good News for everyone in their systems.

  248. js wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    js wrote:
    not oppression but freedom and joy.
    You cannot be serious. There is no freedom for women in this System, and not amount of “joy” sauce will change that.
    There is no joy in a System. There is joy in walking in God’s ways.

    JS was starting to sound too much like Piper upthread for me to take seriously but this is classic Piper. It is the echo of the Dabney’s and Boyces that “oppression is freedom”. It is all in your mind to think you are oppressed in that system when you should believe you are free. Cognitive dissonance is a way of life for them.

  249. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    You will disagree with them

    That is the real issue, isn’t it? A woman dares to question certain male scholars.

    You referenced Moo. I explained why Moo’s analysis was deficient. What in my analysis of Moo’s reasoning do you find exegetically or logically problematic? ISTM that Moo is the one dismissing cultural context and doing hermeneutical gymnastics in order to get to roles.

    Which reputable scholar, in your opinion, makes the best case for male authority in 1 Corinthians 11 and the “symbol of” addition to the text? The fact is, if I come back and refute that scholar, will you not just write that off to me being a female? So, it is OK for you to dismiss me, but it is bullying or some such for me to refute the arguments made by some males who have substantial interests to protect. Do you not see the entitlement mentality in that?

    You are too much, Gram! You seriously think having slogged this out with you over two days that I am not willing to listen to females or that I somehow fear that females would dare challenge males? Really? Have I not allowed myself to be challenged repeatedly, to the point of tedium, by all kinds of women here? I would have never come here if I did value the input of women or believe in their right to question. All believers have the right to question.

    I disagree with your conclusions on Moo. I do not believe he makes exegetical leaps. You do. We don’t see it the same way. Disagreement is not the same thing as dismissal. I am content to let those differences be and seek to love those with whom I disagree. That is part of the beauty of the body. I can worship in good conscience with Presbyterians who hold to infant baptism even though I hold to believers baptism and I can appreciate the deep and real Christian faith of someone who disagrees with me on what men and women are called to in the church and home. You are not the enemy. Women are not my enemy. CBE is not my enemy. You are friends. Friends who violently disagree with me but nevertheless we are brothers and sisters in Christ. If you can show me where I have dismissed you because you are a woman I will gladly own it.

    As to scholars protecting their interests, there is certainly some of that going on but seriously, have you seen what these professors make? Most of them are not getting rich. And institutions like TEDS and several other evangelical schools, where Moo and Carson were for years, have managed to allow for some diversity of opinion among those who are committed to the reliability of Scripture. My own seminary experience was a wonderful exposure to a variety of perspectives. We valued evangelical unity and I am afraid in our increasingly tribal culture that is becoming a rare thing. Sadly, some whose beliefs might more closely align with mine have been driving some of that division.

  250. @ js:
    You made the assertion that those words were added to the text out of necessity. An appeal to multiple authorities is not a response to my request that you demonstrate your reasoning for your assertion.

    If, like 1 Timothy, 2 you wish to not provide that proof of necessity, I will conclude that, in principle, you affirm the rightness of adding words to the text (or omitting words) which change the meaning of the texts we have received so long as a group of like-minded scholars agree. If that is the principle, then every cult that can muster an editorial board with the same POV can do exactly that. IMO, that is an extremely low view of inspiration.

    The Female Subordinationists are the ones claiming that Female Subordination is necessary to faithfully transmitting and picturing the Gospel. Necessary. This is not at the level of baptism. They have made it effective a first tier issue.

    I am not using my personal power and influence to take away the personhood of others created in the image of God. So it is ironic that I am the bully. ISTM that fits people with your POV much better. I am advocating for real freedom in Christ, and I intend to stand firm in my freedom in Christ and not be put under bondage to your laws or anyone else’s laws, even if those laws have become unassailable traditions.

    You are obviously offended by a woman who speaks with strength and conviction. I would hope that you have many of those in your life, but I suspect you do not. It is evident that you are not accustomed to being questioned and that you do not appreciate a Berean approach. That is regrettable because it causes so much damage in the church. Your straw man of a leaderless church and home unless we have exclusively Male or Male Clergy Leadership is not convincing and is refuted by, among others, The Village Church, Mark Driscoll, SGM, Gothard, Phillips, and all of their enablers and apologists. You are insisting that we baptize the effects of the Fall and call it the New Creation. No, the New Creation is not less than the original Very Good Creation where God created the male and female as complements who are equal and who have a joint dominion over the rest of creation with neither having dominion over the other. You cannot produce any evidence from Genesis that God ordained/called for Roles. They are not there. Sola scriptura.

  251. Velour wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    I’d say the problem is probably within Christian marriage teachings, not with feminism.
    Yes. The comp crowd has confused their political/social/cultural beliefs with The Gospel.

    It simply isn’t so. I am a conservative Christian woman and I wouldn’t give one of these men the time of day. Some have tried. I reject them outright.

    They are hurt that an old-fashioned pretty, nice woman like me won’t have anything to do with them. Do I look crazy?

    This kills me, for another reason.

    I was, until a few years ago, an old fashioned, sweet, June Cleaver type of woman, the type that these gender comps say Christian men want to marry.

    Well, though I have abandoned gender comp beliefs, I’m basically still the same person, I have most of the same set of (traditional) morals and values, and I try to be considerate of other people (except at times I’m working thru my faith crisis and am a grouchy bear).

    But I’m still single.

    Christian guys are told all the time to look for a Christ-like lady of good morals and character, but none of these guys ever sought me out. How badly do Christian men really, really want to marry a sweet, loving, traditional values kind of woman, and here I am, but I’m still single?

    Don’t mean to sound braggy, but I assume I’m at least somewhat physically attractive (my sister and friends had Christian and Non-Christian male friends of theirs see me at a distance, or in photos at their homes, and ask to be set up on dates with me). So I don’t think these guys find me horrible to look at.

    But for whatever reason, traditional single Christian men didn’t date me or ask me out.

    Yet I see some of them at times on other sites complaining about how they can never find nice, old fashioned, June Cleaver Christian women to date.

    You can be the nice, old fashioned, gender complementarian woman and still remain single. So I’m not sure how much I believe the single Christian men on other sites who are desperate for dates or marriage who complain that all single, Christian women they see at churches or dating sites are bimbos or jerks.

  252. js wrote:

    There is joy in walking in God’s ways.

    You have not demonstrated that this system of “callings” is God’s way as revealed in his written word. You have asserted but not proved it.

  253. @ js:
    The only “non comp” (if we are going with that descriptor) translation I am aware of is the TNIV.

    I think the point is that Grudem is held up as this brilliant theologian who is committed to inerrancy, etc so anything he is involved with will be the real thing. I think Gram is making the point that if this is true he would not go along with the ADDED words to the text. It is not honest no matter how many translators did it. It literally changes the meaning even though it does not fit at all. So you believe that Man is the Glory of God but not women. This sounds like Bruce Ware. And of course, it leaves out Pauls culiminating point other wise in verse:

    11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

    Here is another problem: because of the angels. Paul is harkening back to what he said in chapter 6

    3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

    Yes, even women.

  254. js wrote:

    There is no joy in a System. There is joy in walking in God’s ways.

    But, it appears that a woman’s joy has to limited to walking in man’s ways.

  255. js wrote:

    You are too much, Gram! You seriously think having slogged this out with you over two days that I am not willing to listen to females or that I somehow fear that females would dare challenge males?

    When you start throwing out the bully defense, that is a tell. Where is your proof of that? Where is your own analysis of the issues? You keep throwing out your authority figures. I’m grateful to scholars, but I do not genuflect before their opinions. You are a beneficiary of the system, so why should you take a hard look at it? Why would any of the men who benefit from being on top take a look at the destruction they create in the lives of women. Are you pleased that it was the secular world who recognized the worth of Karen Hinkley when they “holy” church “leaders” trashed her and slandered her. For what? To preserve their god, Authority. You don’t have to pay any price for what you teach and what others do with that. Why should you care?

  256. js wrote:

    You are friends.

    Friends do not assert a privileged authority over friends. Friends have mutual love and respect for one another. Something which you clearly do not think is in God’s plan for relationships between men and women. That is a very sad.

  257. Nancy2 wrote:

    I completely ceased to exist to him — except, of course, when it was time to put supper on the table or to be his arm candy at church.

    I’m glad your husband is considering marriage counseling.

    My ex fiancee was kind of like what you say above. I have a lot of reasons why I broke things off with him, but that was one.

    My ex took no interest in me for me, never asked how my day was. There were times I was nothing but arm candy to him. He would show me off like I was a prized possession whenever we went to visit his family, or they would visit us at his apartment.

    I got the idea early on in our relationship I was the ‘trophy girlfriend’ to him, and I warned him very early on not to do that.

    I told him I wanted him to see me as an individual, a person, and to take an interest in me for me, not my appearance. But he didn’t listen.

    He liked to tell me all the time how “beautiful” I was, but he never took an interest in my career, opinions, or hobbies, which really bothered me.

    I wanted to be valued / loved for me, for my talents, skills, etc, not for what I look like on the outside. It made me feel like an object when he would parade me in front of his aunts, uncles, parents, siblings, etc. I didn’t feel like a person.

  258. @ js:

    js, I think you said, “the pattern of life between men and women in home and church is as old as the Bible and has been attested throughout church history”

    you also described comp as an “established doctrine being around for centuries”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    my parents are 78 and 81, grew up in the church, raised by parents who also grew up in the church. they have never heard of any such doctrine.

    my feeling is that there is, in fact, no such doctrine prior to the ‘Danvers Statement’.

    my concern is that the powerbrokers behind the Danvers Statement offer up almost propagandist assertions which go unchallenged by the masses because they sound good and because of the sheer influence of said powerbrokers (which is in part due to the appearance of their intellectual pedigree).

    what is this doctrine?

    my feeling is that rather than any such doctrine of gender roles, what has really happened is that Christianity (& its forebears) has grown up within culture without questioning it because it was such the norm. there is nothing transcendent or noble about limiting one half of the human race and endowing power to the other half of the human race, all because of the appearance of chromosomes. instead, it reflects the most primal caveman of urges: controlling people through power.

    once again…. I sure would love to know what this doctrine is. what’s it called? when was it articulated? where’s the creed? prior to the Council at the Danvers Holiday Inn of 1988, when was it solemnly decreed?

  259. Nancy2 wrote:

    js wrote:

    There is no joy in a System. There is joy in walking in God’s ways.

    But, it appears that a woman’s joy has to limited to walking in man’s ways.

    For those women who choose to forfeit the freedom Christ paid for with his own blood and for those women who are forced to live under oppressive patriarchal cultures there is little joy, I imagine.

    It would be so amazing if even one of the Female Subordinationists would acknowledge what is going on in Syria or Somalia or Egypt or India or countless other places. They would rather talk about the signs on toy aisles in Target because that offends God or something while the rape and sexual slavery and execution of God’s daughters is…yawn. It betrays the hearts of these men which are hardened and their consciences which are seared when they show what they are truly concerned about.

  260. @ Lydia:
    This is yet another example where they refuse to look at Paul’s argument as a coherent whole rather than a series of prooftexts to be massaged to make Paul sound like he is the incoherent one.

  261. Gram3 wrote:

    Please supply your reasoning for the necessity of adding those words which just happen to change the meaning to a meaning which better fits male supremacy. An please do that before you dismiss the facts which I present as being “absurd.”

    Didn’t some of the earliest Bible versions mistranlate the name of the woman apostle “Junia” to a male form (Junias?) because men way back when refused to believe that a woman could be an apostle?

    JUNIA, A FEMALE APOSTLE: Resolving the Interpretive Issues of Romans 16:7
    godswordtowomen.org/juniapreato.htm

    When the bias of our blinders changes the Bible

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/27/when-the-bias-of-our-blinders-changes-the-bible/

  262. @ js:

    I spent years reading about Bible translation processes, stemming from numerous debates over a period of years with King James Version Only knuckleheads, so I get how Bible translations work, and why some texts have italicized words.

    I know about lower text crit and higher text crit and so on and so forth.

    However. There are times when the underlying Greek text of the NT refers to both men AND women, but some English versions renders such terms to being a male-only term.

    When some companies announced plans to produce gender inclusive translations that would translate Greek phrases such as “men and women” (or other mixed gender terms) to “men and women” (which would not be changing the meaning of the original Greek), the gender complementarians had a cow, pitched a fit over it, and accused such companies of being influenced by, or conceding to “culture” or to “feminism”.

    Gender comps are not terribly interested in having accurate, literal biblical translations.

    No, gender comps prefer translations or translation methods that are male- centered, even when a Bible verse in the underlying original language refers to both men AND women in a passage.

    Comps don’t like using inclusive pronouns or terms such as “they,” “them,” “humanity” or “men and women,” but prefer “men,” “mankind,” or “he,” or “him.”

  263. Daisy wrote:

    Didn’t some of the earliest Bible versions mistranlate the name of the woman apostle “Junia” to a male form (Junias?) because men way back when refused to believe that a woman could be an apostle?

    Yes, and now even Tom Schreiner admits Junia was an apostle. Of sorts. They have shifted the goalposts, and now Junia is not one of the apostle apostles. It is more parsing and straining at gnats to get around the obvious. Like with Deborah, Esther, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, Phoebe, etc., etc., etc. But we are supposed to trust our betters because they are our betters and translated things faithfully.

  264. js wrote:

    I believe you are conflating male oppression of women in culture with the biblical commands of Christ-honoring fulfilling of our God-given callings in marriage.

    The Bible does not grant husbands authority over wives…

    The only passage that speaks of hubby’s authority over wives also says wives have authority over a hubby’s body,

    1 Corinthians 7:4
    The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.
    ——
    Gender complementarianism is oppression of women, even in marriage, even if done with good intentions. Gender comp is also oppressive for women who are un-married, such as myself.

    Gender comp views are also very attractive to men who are already prone to abusing and controlling women.

    When these spouses start beating on their wives, and the wives go to a typical gender comp church begging for help, they will, nine times out of ten, be told to return to the jerk, pray for him, and submit.

    The abused wives will be told that divorce is never an option, that they must just endure the abuse.

    This is Gender Comp, and yes, it is oppressive to women (and to men as well, it can damage men).

  265. Daisy wrote:

    No, gender comps prefer translations or translation methods that are male- centered, even when a Bible verse in the underlying original language refers to both men AND women in a passage.

    Because they place more value on preserving their privileged status than on rendering the text in the most accurate way. They are driven by fear of offending God or fear of losing control or fear of losing their status. Let’s just get the most accurate translation from a variety of viewpoints. The ESV committe that JS lauds did not have a single member who was not a Female Subordinationist. But I’m sure they were not biased at all.

  266. Nancy2 wrote:

    There are also articles on CMBW saying that single women should be led by church pastors and elders. Men don’t need to be dominated and led, but they are “commanded” to dominate and lead wimmen!

    Don’t forget, the fun continues in the afterlife.

    Gender comp site CBMW published an article or two by some gender comp guy who teaches that women (just married ones??) will submit to men in THE AFTERLIFE. (all caps for emphasis, not yelling).

    Even after you die, according to some gender comps, if you are a woman, you must be subservient to a guy.

    Islam teaches that too, doesn’t it, or something like it? I think Mormons have a belief similar to it as well.

  267. @ Lydia:

    All of which is sad, funny, and troubling because Jesus put victims first, and was very concerned about abuse of children.

  268. Daisy wrote:

    I was, until a few years ago, an old fashioned, sweet, June Cleaver type of woman, the type that these gender comps say Christian men want to marry.

    I have married, been widowed, then married again. From your self description, we are opposites, except for having moral values. I was always a tomboy. Growing up (in the pre CR movement), I was farm girl who fought her own fights, with words when possible and fists when necessary. My grandparents babysat 3 rough and tumble boys and myself. My only brother is 9 years younger than me, so I was the one who fed hogs, rode horses, fixed fences, spiked tobacco, and shot snakes. I’m too physically ill to be so tomboyish now, but my mindset is still the same. Sure, sometimes I wear pearls and high heels, but I also pack my own firearms.

    I think the stuff gender comps are pushing is hogwash. I think that who a person marrys begins as matter of personal taste that grows into love. Gender comps say that all men have the same taste.
    I say forget the compartmentalization mentality and let’s just be who we really are. No models to conform to!

    Bimbos or jerks …… Could it be that the men have comp blinders on? Maybe “traditional Christian men” automatically see a woman as being one or the other. Is there anything else in a gender comp environment?
    PS: I didn’t meet either one of my husband’s in church. The church boys I dated were sexist jerks.

  269. Lydia wrote:

    JS was starting to sound too much like Piper upthread for me to take seriously but this is classic Piper. It is the echo of the Dabney’s and Boyces that “oppression is freedom”. It is all in your mind to think you are oppressed in that system when you should believe you are free. Cognitive dissonance is a way of life for them.

    Oh, is this like that blog page I was telling some of you about several threads ago, by one of those gender comp sites by ladies for ladies?

    The one that argued that gender comp puts a fence around you, but having a smaller, fenced in area is more freeing than not having a fence and running where ever you want?

    As I said then, I can see how putting limits on little children is “freeing” to them, because kids need adults watching for their safety, but this was a site that was arguing that putting limits on grown women or older teen girls is supposedly “liberating.”

    They’re saying running around a smaller, fenced in area is freedom, not being in an un-fenced, huge meadow. I don’t see how “fenced in” = freedom, or how “smaller area” = bigger area.
    But you’re supposed to just swallow that this makes sense and is logical.

  270. Daisy wrote:

    Even after you die, according to some gender comps, if you are a woman, you must be subservient to a guy.

    Islam teaches that too, doesn’t it, or something like it? I think Mormons have a belief similar to it as well.

    Yeah, well, MY religion says that all believing women will get 49 virgin men in the hereafter because we had to put up with all this BS all our lives. So there! O_o

  271. Nancy2 wrote:

    Sure, sometimes I wear pearls and high heels, but I also pack my own firearms.

    I’m sure Piper would find you frightening.

  272. Daisy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    JS was starting to sound too much like Piper upthread for me to take seriously but this is classic Piper. It is the echo of the Dabney’s and Boyces that “oppression is freedom”. It is all in your mind to think you are oppressed in that system when you should believe you are free. Cognitive dissonance is a way of life for them.
    Oh, is this like that blog page I was telling some of you about several threads ago, by one of those gender comp sites by ladies for ladies?
    The one that argued that gender comp puts a fence around you, but having a smaller, fenced in area is more freeing than not having a fence and running where ever you want?
    As I said then, I can see how putting limits on little children is “freeing” to them, because kids need adults watching for their safety, but this was a site that was arguing that putting limits on grown women or older teen girls is supposedly “liberating.”
    They’re saying running around a smaller, fenced in area is freedom, not being in an un-fenced, huge meadow. I don’t see how “fenced in” = freedom, or how “smaller area” = bigger area.
    But you’re supposed to just swallow that this makes sense and is logical.

    The sad thing is, Js seems to be very sincere, and seems to believe it implicitly. Fetters=freedom.

    It’s like a conversation I had earlier today, where the other person said submission cannot be imposed, it can only be voluntary.

    It feels as if “either you are a slave of sin or you are a slave of Christ” is being used against women. If we choose not to be submissive, we are automatically choosing to be slaves of sin. Because if you’re not submissive, you’re not choosing Christ…?

    I first heard James Dobson give that fence analogy on his radio show, but he was talking about children in a schoolyard.

  273. @ Nancy2:
    I think that they believe that humanity is normed by the male and that the female is an adjunct. They will not usually admit this, with the exception of Bruce Ware, but it forms the basis or lens through which they view men and women and humanity as a whole. The thought that the Woman was given the creation mandate jointly with the Man is abhorrent, and that is why they spend so much time either ignoring *the plain text* of Genesis 1:26-28 or re-interpreting it backwards via the lens of Genesis 3:16 which is their uber text lens. Once we understand their key, then decrypting their essays is a lot easier.

  274. Daisy wrote:

    They’re saying running around a smaller, fenced in area is freedom, not being in an un-fenced, huge meadow. I don’t see how “fenced in” = freedom, or how “smaller area” = bigger area.
    But you’re supposed to just swallow that this makes sense and is logical.

    Logic is for boys and emotion is for girls. When females use logic and reason, they are bullies and make John Piper uncomfortable. When males claim absolute authority, for all practical purposes, over females because God, they are being loving and nurturing servant-leaders.

  275. refugee wrote:

    I’m sure Piper would find you frightening

    And masculine, too. Given a choice between the protection afforded by a force-equalizer and the protection of John Piper, I’m going for the masculine option.

  276. refugee wrote:

    I’m sure Piper would find you frightening.

    If the day ever comes when my daughter and I have the opportunity to double-team John Piper ……..
    Well, let’s just say that she and I are not the mother-daughter poster couple for feminine submissiveness.

  277. Gram3 wrote:

    js wrote:

    You are too much, Gram! You seriously think having slogged this out with you over two days that I am not willing to listen to females or that I somehow fear that females would dare challenge males?

    When you start throwing out the bully defense, that is a tell. Where is your proof of that? Where is your own analysis of the issues? You keep throwing out your authority figures. I’m grateful to scholars, but I do not genuflect before their opinions. You are a beneficiary of the system, so why should you take a hard look at it? Why would any of the men who benefit from being on top take a look at the destruction they create in the lives of women. Are you pleased that it was the secular world who recognized the worth of Karen Hinkley when they “holy” church “leaders” trashed her and slandered her. For what? To preserve their god, Authority. You don’t have to pay any price for what you teach and what others do with that. Why should you care?

    If you understand Ephesians 5 there is a high price to pay for men.

  278. refugee wrote:

    It’s like a conversation I had earlier today, where the other person said submission cannot be imposed, it can only be voluntary.

    But if I voluntarily refuse, then I may be sinning depending on how my husband evaluates my voluntary decision. The husband/male clergy always retains the option. Always, because God said so. Somewhere.

    It is more wordsmithing to cover what they are really saying. Like “complementarian” which really means “Male Authority-Female Subordinate.” Like Danvers BlahBlah which reduces to The Woman Thou Gavest Me.

  279. I will go point by point through your most recent post, quoting you . . .

    You made the assertion that those words were added to the text out of necessity.

    >>>No, I said the word was inserted for the sake of clarity.

    An appeal to multiple authorities is not a response to my request that you demonstrate your reasoning for your assertion.
    >>>When you can so forthrightly dismiss learned scholars from multiple perspectives there is no reason for me to try to demonstrate my reasoning. Your mind is made up.

    If, like 1 Timothy 2 you wish to not provide that proof of necessity, I will conclude that, in principle, you affirm the rightness of adding words to the text (or omitting words) which change the meaning of the texts we have received so long as a group of like-minded scholars agree.
    >>>I do believe that it is the right and responsibility of translators to be as faithful to the text as possible while also aiming for clarity of meaning. This is Translation 101. This is not about changing meaning, it is about bringing out clearly the meaning that is there. Who decides the meaning of the text that gets brought out in a particular translation? The translators of course. When I can show a broad range of translators affirm a particular translation (as I can with 1 Cor. 11:10) the likelihood that a translation hijacked a particular verse for ideological purposes is greatly diminished.

    If that is the principle, then every cult that can muster an editorial board with the same POV can do exactly that. IMO, that is an extremely low view of inspiration.
    >>>It has nothing to do with inspiration because translations aren’t inspired. And it is true that any and every cult can do exactly what I am saying. Which is why I don’t have a New World Translation in my study. This doesn’t take away from inspiration, it acknowledges that translators always make interpretive decisions. In fact, the multitude of translations in our day is a gift, for it gives even the student with no biblical languages training a way to spot outlier translations. If Grudem really was an evil mastermind in his rendering of 1 Cor. 11:10, we would expect his translation to be highly unusual. But it is right in the mainstream of translations.

    The Female Subordinationists are the ones claiming that Female Subordination is necessary to faithfully transmitting and picturing the Gospel. Necessary. This is not at the level of baptism. They have made it effective a first tier issue.
    >>>But I have not and do not think of God-given callings between male and female as a first tier issue. And there are more people like me than you think. A lot more.

    I am not using my personal power and influence to take away the personhood of others created in the image of God.
    >>>Neither am I.

    So it is ironic that I am the bully.
    >>>You are the bully when you lack respect for those who disagree with you, be they male or female.

    ISTM that fits people with your POV much better.
    >>>Bullies come in all shapes and sizes and theological views. The fact that TWW commenters focus mostly on one kind of bully does not make those bullies necessarily more common or more numerous than other bullies.

    I am advocating for real freedom in Christ,
    >>>So am I, for male and female

    and I intend to stand firm in my freedom in Christ
    >>>So do I

    and not be put under bondage to your laws or anyone else’s laws,
    >>>They are not my laws they are my understanding (and the understanding of many others) of the Word of God. And they are not about bondage.

    even if those laws have become unassailable traditions.
    >>>Not everyone who believes in comp believes because of tradition. Many believe because of their reading of Scripture. And you and I should never follow something just because it is an unassailable tradition (which comp really is not, as evidenced by our discussion)

    You are obviously offended by a woman who speaks with strength and conviction.
    >>>I am offended by anyone who doesn’t allow for Christians to hold to a diversity of views on controversial issues. Whether it is creation, baptism, gender, any secondary issue. Any offense at you that you detect has everything to do with that and nothing to do with your gender.

    I would hope that you have many of those in your life, but I suspect you do not.
    >>>These kinds of assumptions are really unbecoming. I have some, how many do I have to have to meet your quota?

    It is evident that you are not accustomed to being questioned
    >>>Are you accustomed to being questioned in the manner that I have been questioned over the last two days? If so you must live quite a tiring life. I need a nap!

    and that you do not appreciate a Berean approach.
    >>>Yes, my many years of study, changes in many theological positions and willingness to engage here with you reveals a lack of appreciation for a Berean approach. If you say so.

    That is regrettable because it causes so much damage in the church.
    >>>Sinful people cause damage in the church and they come in all forms.

    Your straw man of a leaderless church and home unless we have exclusively Male or Male Clergy Leadership is not convincing
    >>>The commenters here brought that up, not me. I believe in the comp position but I would still think some leadership is biblically warranted in the church even if I were not comp.

    and is refuted by, among others, The Village Church, Mark Driscoll, SGM, Gothard, Phillips, and all of their enablers and apologists.
    >>>Your straw man of non-comp teaching is not convincing and is refuted by, among others, all kinds of Charismatic churches with women in leadership along with men that are fleecing the flock of millions of dollars, living a self-aggrandizing lifestyle and not caring what old ladies they steal Social Security from in Jesus’ name, along with all their enablers and “touch not the Lord’s anointed” apologists.

    You are insisting that we baptize the effects of the Fall and call it the New Creation.
    >>>No, I’m not.

    No, the New Creation is not less than the original Very Good Creation where God created the male and female as complements who are equal and who have a joint dominion over the rest of creation with neither having dominion over the other.
    >>>I am saying the New Creation is founded and rooted in Christ and exists in an already/not yet schema wherein God has ordained to bring His transformation not by obliterating existing human structures but by redeeming them through Christ. So marriage is transformed as husband and wife live together in the God-given callings they have received, imaging Christ. The church lives together as a collection of variously gifted people, each part of the body doing its thing, bringing glory to God. The Christian redeems life in the world by submitting to governing authorities and making disciples of all nations.

    You cannot produce any evidence from Genesis that God ordained/called for Roles. They are not there.
    >>>I don’t need Genesis for God ordained callings in marriage. I have Ephesians 5. I have Colossians 3. I have 1 Peter 3. It is about Christ and the Church not God and Creation. It is fitting in the Lord. And in eternity we will be fellow heirs of the grace of life as we are joined with Christ in heaven, where there is no marriage or giving in marriage.

    Sola scriptura.
    >>>Amen.

    I’m going to close out here and yield the cyber floor to you. I don’t see much hope that we are really going to make much progress convincing each other of anything. But I hope as much as is possible in this format, we can wish each other well in Christ and pray for each other. I believe in all likelihood we are brother and sister in Christ.

  280. Gram3 wrote:

    To preserve their god, Authority. You don’t have to pay any price for what you teach and what others do with that. Why should you care?

    Yep, that right there.

    I think gender comp hurts men, but that it hurts women more, and in a more obvious way.

    If JS (or Ken of the last thread) were in the lowest caste of the Gender Complementarian Gender Caste perview (i.e., a female), he’d likely be singing a different tune.

    (Unless he were one of the Gender Comp Women with a case of “Gender Comp Stockholm Syndrome.” But still, it’s far easier for the males in this to be blind to how horrible and sexist Gender Comp really is.)

  281. @ Gram3:
    Hey, at least I do shave my legs!

    “Fenced in = freedom”. “Smaller area = bigger area. ” Harrrumph …. Excuse me while I go out back and pitch that line to my daughter’s horse, as well as my brother’s cows. My guess is, even those animals are smarter than that. Especially the horse.

  282. js wrote:

    If you understand Ephesians 5 there is a high price to pay for men.

    If you honestly faced the reality of the teaching of the Female Subordinationists, you would understand that there is a high price to pay for women.

    How many Karen Hinkleys and Driscoll female victims, and SGM female victims does it take to prove the concept is wrong? Not faulty implementations. Systemically wrong.

    For both men and women, mutually submitting to one another and loving one another sacrificially is a high price to pay. But I think it is worth it as men and women grow in oneness through growing in Christlikeness instead of reinforcing the Fallen order through fake and contrived Roles which God never ordained.

  283. js wrote:

    ave I not allowed myself to be challenged repeatedly, to the point of tedium, by all kinds of women here?

    I am sorry that my posts are so tedious. 🙁

    I will try to make them more entertaining from here on out but will probably fail.

    As a matter of fact, as I type this post, I am juggling three oranges and one aardvark.*

    *(not really. I’m just trying to make the post more interesting)

  284. elastigirl wrote:

    my parents are 78 and 81, grew up in the church, raised by parents who also grew up in the church. they have never heard of any such doctrine.
    my feeling is that there is, in fact, no such doctrine prior to the ‘Danvers Statement’.

    Spot on! Yes, yes, yes! That’s what conservative Christian men and women around the world have pointed out!

  285. js wrote:

    I don’t see much hope that we are really going to make much progress convincing each other of anything.

    Probably not. I believe in using a consistent and conservative hermeneutic. I believe, with Paul, that cleverness of speech is unbecoming, to use your word. I get that you believe, like Matt Chandler, that strong women “wear men out.” I believe that bondage is not freedom and cannot be twisted into the shape of freedom. I believe that the words of the text should *not* be altered unless it is necessary for clarity–a point which you have yet to demonstrate, among others. If we did not know about Female Subordination until Paul wrote to the Ephesians, then how in the world did the women before that know what they were supposed to do? If Paul makes an “appeal to the Creation Order” in 1 Timothy, we should expect to find some evidence for the purported Creation Order significance in Genesis. However, we find exactly the opposite in Genesis 1:26-28.

    The most laughable point in your non-responsive response was that my mind is made up so there is no use discussing it. Yours is not made up? My mind used to be made up similarly to yours before I studied. Your grasping at male authority and status is not becoming, either. And it does not imitate the attitude which was in Christ as recorded in Philippians.

    WRT to abuses outside of “our” camp, I believe that Jesus taught us to remove the logs from our own eyes. It is easy to see others’ problems. I’m saying that the conservative church has a big problem, and its “leaders” are willfully blind to the root cause of that problem. However, if you are comfortable with being warm and well-fed, them who am I to challenge your comfort to consider the wreckage in our own churches like Karen Hinkley and most recently the children of Josh Duggar? Enjoy your nap. I’ll continue to speak up for the less strong and the less privileged.

  286. js wrote:

    If you understand Ephesians 5 there is a high price to pay for men.

    But of course! Men are held doubly responsible. Dorothy Patterson said, “When it comes to submitting to my husband, even when he’s wrong, I just do it. He is accountable to God.”
    As long as I obey my husband, I have nothing to worry my pretty little empty head about. After all, he is the one who will be held accountable for my behavior.

  287. Nancy2 wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Women are dairy bulls. I guess that blurs the genders
    You forgot about steers.

    Don’t know about steers. I was thinking of the value of a dairy bull being something like the value of a woman in the FS system.

  288. Gram3 wrote:

    Don’t know about steers. I was thinking of the value of a dairy bull being something like the value of a woman in the FS system.

    A steer is ….. well, an eunuch.

  289. Nancy2 wrote:

    A steer is ….. well, an eunuch.

    That part I knew. But I do not know what the relative value of a steer is. I presume they make good steak? Did not mean to derail.

  290. @ Daisy:

    If you are interested in Grudem and Piper’s scholarship on Junia you might want to check this out:

    “John Piper and Wayne Grudem state that Epiphanius (315-403) wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he writes: “Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria.” According to them, Epiphanuis wrote “of whom” as a masculine relative pronoun thereby indicating that he thought Iounias was a man.8 Piper and Grudem also presented the results of their computer search of ancient Greek writings looking for the name “Junia(s).” Based on their findings, they concluded that “no one should claim that Junia was a common woman’s name in the Greek speaking world, since there are only three known examples in all of ancient Greek literature.”9

    a. Discussion. Douglas Moo discusses Epiphanius and calls into question the reliability of this evidence because in the same passage, Epiphanius thought “Prisca” (Priscilla) was a man.”10 This church father also wrote and believed that “the female sex is easily seduced, weak and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women… We wish to apply masculine reasoning and destroy the folly of these women” (Epiphanius, Adversus Collyridianos, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Volume 42, Column 740 f).11

    The computer search by Piper and Grudem is inconclusive regarding their statement that “Junia” was not a common name in ancient writings. Many scholars including Brooten, Lampe, Metzger, Moo, McDonnell and Osburn claim otherwise, and state that “Junia” was a common name. However, the real significance of Piper and Grudem’s search is the fact that they could not cite any example for a male named Junias. James Walters states: “Researchers have been unable to locate a single example of the male name Junias in ancient literature or inscriptions, either Latin or Greek.” 12

    b. Assessment. The observation by Moo and the misogynist statements by Epiphanius about women casts strong doubt to the appropriateness of this person providing any objective evidence in support of a male reading. His beliefs toward women may have certainly colored his thinking and writings. Therefore, we cannot conclude that this church father is an unbiased and credible witness. The computer search performed by Piper and Grudem offers no evidence for a male reading.

    http://godswordtowomen.org/juniapreato.htm

    Years back I went to the trouble to verify both sides and was aghast. Think about it, they were scouring the bottom of the barrell to trot out Epiphanius as proof Junia was a man. This passes for scholarship? But then I also read one of Grudem’s books where he was arguing that submission for women should not be considered subordinate because “God submits to us when He helps us”. And “parents submit to their children when they help with homework” So women are to be like God and submit to their husbands? I mean, think about what he is really saying about HIMSELF.

    The things they will declare to keep the Leader/subordinate system is unbelievable.

  291. Gram3 wrote:

    Because they place more value on preserving their privileged status than on rendering the text in the most accurate way. They are driven by fear of offending God or fear of losing control or fear of losing their status. Let’s just get the most accurate translation from a variety of viewpoints. The ESV committe that JS lauds did not have a single member who was not a Female Subordinationist. But I’m sure they were not biased at all.

    I’m a little surprised JS would deny that the translator’s personal biases would color the work on gender matters, when through history, other translators were biased in how they translated the text not only due to gender matters, but other ones.

    It’s been a long time since I’ve debated KJVO, but from what I recall, there are biases in the KJV translation choices because the translators were ordered to produce a volume that fit King James’ preferences.

    This page describes some of it:
    The Story Behind the KJV
    http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1601-1700/story-behind-king-james-bible-11630052.html

    “Think how ludicrous the translation mandate was. It called for a product commissioned to reinforce a clear-cut royal political agenda, to be done by elite scholarly committees, reviewed by a self-serving bureaucracy, with ultimate approval reserved to an absolutist monarch.
    The final product was intended primarily for public and popular consumption. It was to be read orally — intended more to be heard in public than to be read in private.”

    Gender bias does happen in Bible versions.

    Gender Bias in the NLT
    http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/gender-bias-in-the-nlt/

  292. Lydia wrote:

    The things they will declare to keep the Leader/subordinate system is unbelievable.

    Male Authority is their god. Their god is threatened by honest and open scholarship where *all* the evidence is presented and evaluated. They want to be judge, jury, and prosecution with no defense allowed to be heard. They employ selective evidence, fallacious reasoning, double standards, silencing and censorship, and shaming in order to protect their god. They will even sacrifice the equality of the Eternal Son on that altar. When you are willing to do that and willing to shelter an abuser and willing to guard a man who abused so many and you are willing to support what was done to Karen Hinkley, then I think they are prepared to do just about anything.

  293. Daisy wrote:

    Gender comps are not terribly interested in having accurate, literal biblical translations.
    No, gender comps prefer translations or translation methods that are male- centered, even when a Bible verse in the underlying original language refers to both men AND women in a passage.

    Philip Payne has identified at least twenty seven departures from the original Greek of the New Testament in the ESV, in order to arrive at a translation that supports the publisher’s doctrinal bias (mostly of complementarianism).

    The publisher refers to the ESV as “The trusted version”. When someone finds it necessary to tell me that they should be trusted I instinctively do not trust them.

  294. Nancy2 wrote:

    js wrote:

    If you understand Ephesians 5 there is a high price to pay for men.

    But of course! Men are held doubly responsible. Dorothy Patterson said, “When it comes to submitting to my husband, even when he’s wrong, I just do it. He is accountable to God.”
    As long as I obey my husband, I have nothing to worry my pretty little empty head about. After all, he is the one who will be held accountable for my behavior.

    Patterson’s husband, Paige Patterson President of Southwestern Theological Seminary, permits her to teach men but her terminated Dr. Sheri Klouda, a highly respected professor of Hebrew who had been hired by the trustees.
    Dr. Klouda whose husband was gravely ill was forced into poverty and had to depend on church donations from thoughtful churches concerned about their family’s flight and do things like sell her blood to pay bills.

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2007/01/sheri-klouda-gender-discrimination_17.html

    Paige Patterson has more in common with radical Islam than with our love of Jesus.

  295. Gram3 wrote:

    My mind used to be made up similarly to yours before I studied. Your grasping at male authority and status is not becoming, either. And it does not imitate the attitude which was in Christ as recorded in Philippians.

    This!!! Amen, Gram3!

  296. @ Gram3:
    To go from this is “God’s calling” on your life to this is “not 1st tier” is a bit strange. I don’t know if I got it right but I think JS mentioned he was in an sgm church. So in that system it would be 1st tier and it would matter. There would be no freedom of conscious and no freedom to function in the Body based upon gifting. And, there would be pressure to conform as that system is extreme in the top down structure like TVC. That has been proven over and over in many of the comp/pat churches/denominations.

  297. js wrote:

    If I have sold comp as the gospel I immediately recant.

    I hope you will mature out of this comp thinking. It is authoritarian and destructive. And The Law will not liberate you or those around you.

    Best wishes.

  298. @ JohnD:
    I met him this summer and he sent me his 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 translation with annotations. I have not read his book but it is on my list. As I understand it, it took 30 years to write.

  299. @ Nancy2:

    Just to be clear, I was a tom boy as a kid and am still somewhat tom boyish.

    I did not like playing with Dolls or playing kitchen type games like other girls.

    Some of my hobbies now and as a kid were considered more for guys. I loved Bat Man as a kid, playing with Bat Man toys and pretending to be Bat Man.

    But my temperment was the June Cleaverish type.

    Well, shoot, this gets a bit complicated. I guess my mother was right that in some ways I take more after my father (very opinionated, out spoken, etc).

    But, my mother conditioned me from a young age to be a sweet, passive, June Cleaver type (like she was – but I suspect she was feisty underneath. When she was a kid, she used to beat up boys who were mean to her, for instance, but somewhere along the way, she became very codependent, compliant, sweet, non confrontational).

    So for years and years, until my late 30s, that’s what I did too, because she encouraged me to be that way.

    In some ways, I truly am a nice, sweet person… but my Mother wanted me to be Pathologically Super Sweet, and it always felt so fake to me. Like I was playing a role.

    I had to suppress the “dad” side of my personality that is dying to tell someone to kiss my behind if they are being rude or whatever.

    But during all the years I was little miss Bible sweet compliant girl, the traditional Christian guys didn’t take much of an interest in me.

    Some of the guys who did flirt with me, I’m not sure what all their religious views were. I know for a fact that at least one guy who had the hots for me was Roman Catholic.

  300. @ Daisy:
    This is almost funny. My mom is the submissive type, but I’m more like my dad.
    My first husband was Catholic!

  301. js wrote:

    I believe you are conflating male oppression of women in culture with the biblical commands of Christ-honoring fulfilling of our God-given callings in marriage.

    No that is not what I am doing. I am indeed fulfilling my callings in marriage. It may look nothing like your marriage though and I don’t see where it needs to. Nor does your marriage need to look like mine.

  302. Gram3 wrote:

    Logic is for boys and emotion is for girls. When females use logic and reason, they are bullies and make John Piper uncomfortable. When males claim absolute authority, for all practical purposes, over females because God, they are being loving and nurturing servant-leaders.

    Goodness, you know the last thing I’d ever want to do is make John Piper uncomfortable.

    So excuse me while I go lift some weights, give driving directions to lost men while making eye contact with them, and contemplate becoming a police officer. *wink*

    John Piper to single women: you can be a police officer as long as your police officering is girly, winsome, and unthreatening to a male criminal’s masculinity
    http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-women-be-police-officers

    I guess if you are a lady cop, if you pull a man over for a traffic violation, you must bat your eye lashes a lot at him and giggle when you ask to see his registration and license?

  303. js wrote:

    If you understand Ephesians 5 there is a high price to pay for men.

    No, really, there isn’t.

    Most men don’t lay their lives down for their wives as Christ did the church, and most comps twist that to mean “servant leadership,” so they can exert control over their wives, never no mind I don’t recall the Bible containing the phrase “servant leadership.”

  304. js wrote:

    >>>But I have not and do not think of God-given callings between male and female as a first tier issue. And there are more people like me than you think. A lot more.

    It was just about two weeks about that Deb and Dee did a post here about other gender comps who do make this a first tier issue, by suggesting that abandoning or rejecting gender comp is rejecting the Gospel, IIRC.

    This might have been the post where they discussed it, or else a post a bit older than this one:
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/24/council-of-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-if-you-cant-explain-it-to-me-youve-got-a-problem/

    Even those who promote gender comp and regard this as a secondary issue – it still does harm to women.

  305. js wrote:

    I am not using my personal power and influence to take away the personhood of others created in the image of God.

    But this is one area where your view about this logically leads, one of its implications, even if that is not your intent.

    It’s the same as telling American black people back in the day that they are “separate but equal” to white people, but that they cannot sit in the front in a diner or use the same water fountains and so on.

    At the end of the day, your view is holding to the idea that men are a little more equal than women.

  306. Lydia wrote:

    To go from this is “God’s calling” on your life to this is “not 1st tier” is a bit strange.

    He was all over the map, and maybe that is because, like the young guys I’ve had “conversations” with, he has relied on the authorities above him. Sometimes you have to grapple with the issues and work it out on your own. That is one big reason I do not typically point people to “egalitarian” materials. People need to study to show themselves approved, not rely on the work of others.

    But, if someone cannot understand that changing a bad-sounding word to a good-sounding word does not make a real difference in the meaning, then what can you do. Calling or status or role does not change what is being said. Same with voluntary. Words mean something. Or they should.

  307. @ Nancy2:
    She was trying to make a point about the contemporary invention that is “complementarianism.” I understand what you’re saying, but for those who make claims that there has been some sort of codified doctrine since forever – well, let’s just say that i think the question she askedis both reasonable and understandable.

  308. js wrote:

    Paul, who wanted all things done decently and in order, would not have favored a priesthood of believers devoid of any leadership

    I don’t know what you mean by “leadership.” That could have whole host of meanings. “Order” can happen in many ways. “Order” does not necessarily need heirarchy in church or home.

  309. js wrote:

    Paul would not have favored a priesthood of believers devoid of any leadership.

    How exactly do you know what Paul would have favored?

  310. js wrote:

    In the same way, he did not see marriage after Christ in terms of mutuality but in terms of complementarity.

    You make some very bold statements about what Paul saw in terms of marriage.

    I actually believe that mutuality and the (original) complementary idea of marriage are one and the same. Husbands and wives do complement each other in a marriage. It is the teachings that the Danver’s Statement have perpetuated since the 1980’s about complementary marriage that I disagree with. The current definition of “complementary” that has come out of the Danver’s Statement movement is a redefining of the word to include husbands as leaders and women as followers. I believe each marriage is unique in how the husband and wife complement each other and use their individual gifts to honor the Lord. I don’t believe their is automatic chaos or anarchy if someone is not designated as the “head” within a marriage.

  311. numo wrote:

    for those who make claims that there has been some sort of codified doctrine since forever – well, let’s just say that i think the question she askedis both reasonable and understandable.

    From having lived through it, the doctrines which now go by the name of “complementarianism” were codified with Danvers. But Danvers did not arise out of nothing. Before that was Gothard and Rushdoony back in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Various churches had their own doctrines surrounding the Woman Question, but is was not, as far as I remember, codified generally for all “conservatives” like it has been since Danvers.

    For a lot of traditional people, it was just the way things had always been, and I recall a rather pragmatic approach in marriages and families. For all the talk of the 50’s, there was not this obsession with gender roles being enforced formally. Informally, there were residues of patriarchal ideas, certainly. Some women worked, and some did not. I don’t know how it was outside the South/Midwest or in less conservative denominations.

  312. Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:

    Paul would not have favored a priesthood of believers devoid of any leadership.

    How exactly do you know what Paul would have favored?

    Precisely.

  313. Gram3 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    The things they will declare to keep the Leader/subordinate system is unbelievable.
    Male Authority is their god. Their god is threatened by honest and open scholarship where *all* the evidence is presented and evaluated. They want to be judge, jury, and prosecution with no defense allowed to be heard. They employ selective evidence, fallacious reasoning, double standards, silencing and censorship, and shaming in order to protect their god. They will even sacrifice the equality of the Eternal Son on that altar. When you are willing to do that and willing to shelter an abuser and willing to guard a man who abused so many and you are willing to support what was done to Karen Hinkley, then I think they are prepared to do just about anything.

    It sure seems that way…. Young Earthers respond that way as well… The speed at which an initial rational discussion goes hard core emotional/attaching is a clear indicator to me of someone insecure in their position..

  314. Bridget wrote:

    I actually believe that mutuality and the (original) complementary idea of marriage are one and the same. Husbands and wives do complement each other in a marriage….The current definition of “complementary” that has come out of the Danver’s Statement movement is a redefining of the word to include husbands as leaders and women as followers.

    Yah, the word these guys chose had a common meaning (completing; offsetting mutual deficiencies or enhancing mutual strengths) but they gave it another definition and then let it slide along as if it still retained the common meaning.

    This is all anyone really needs to know. If they will be underhanded about their label, one can assume they will also be unreliable throughout their stance, and save oneself the bother of reading through it all and finding one’s assumptions correct.

    They even squiggle over the word patriarchy rather than honestly owning what they believe. IMO “female subordinationism” is more precise than derogatory, but if they’d prefer a label like “female submissionism”, I’d be ok with that.

    So they ruined the word complementarity. We now have mutuality, which is in the definition of complementarity. We also have egalitarian, which delivers the “meeting as peers” part. Maybe we could somehow combine the two to get back what they took away. ?

  315. Bridget wrote:

    I don’t believe their is automatic chaos or anarchy if someone is not designated as the “head” within a marriage.

    Funny, but Gramp3 have been married for a really, really long time without a designated boss, and we can’t remember seeing the chaos that should have descended upon our marriage and our family. How ever did we manage to keep it in the center of the road? We blasphemed the Headship god many times in encounters with Gothardites and Rushdoonyites and all manner of their disciples. Reasoned from the scriptures with them, and all to no avail. I have lost count of the various iterations of Headship and Discipleship and Godly Parentship that have been marketed over the years. I wonder what it will take to drive a stake through this legalism?

  316. @ Patrice:
    Danvers is another logical fallacy and eisegesis tutorial. The first time I read it, i thought it was a poorly drafted propaganda piece that is basically a political manifesto. Generally subtlety is more effective, and the basic reasoning errors need to be disguised better.

  317. Gram3 wrote:

    Gramp3 have been married

    Naturally, Gramp3 has not been married to himself. He and I have been married to each other and only each other for a very long time. So far, Gramp3 is holding his own with me, but he’s not a hothouse snowflake, either.

  318. Bridget wrote:

    The current definition of “complementary” that has come out of the Danver’s Statement movement is a redefining of the word

    Speaking of the Danver’s statement… This is totally off the wall, but I just watched Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rebecca” and it had a Mrs. Danvers in it.
    This Mrs. Danvers is given over to an illusion of a situation, kind of like the Danver’s statement guys.
    And Mrs. Danver’s eventually goes mad, kind of like Piper and some of the insane arguments of those who defend the Danver’s Statement.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Danvers

    Kinda weird.

  319. Patrice wrote:

    So they ruined the word complementarity. We now have mutuality, which is in the definition of complementarity.

    Given our recent interaction with JS, I don’t think there is much danger of them co-opting “mutualism” since they think that it is rebellion against God’s calling/order/design/will. It is the word I prefer since “egalitarian” can be construed as 50/50 down the line forever and ever, amen. Real relationships don’t work that way, or at least I’ve not seen one that did.

  320. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    Young Earthers respond that way as well… The speed at which an initial rational discussion goes hard core emotional/attaching is a clear indicator to me of someone insecure in their position..

    When did the Young Earthers come about? At my former Gulag NeoCal Church they subscribed to comp doctrine, Young Earth (despite being amongst a heady bunch of Ivy-League trained scientists and engineers), elder-rule (not congregational polity), authoritarianism, etc. Does it usually all arrive in the same package?

  321. @ Mara:

    Twilight zonish – kinda like I feel when trying to discuss complementarianism (and how I feel when I type it out) 😉

  322. The Danvers redefinition of a complementary relationship: When a couple is in agreement, it’s a 50/50 relationship. When there is disagreement, it’s a 100/0 relationship.
    The husband is gonna do what he’s gonna do. If the wife agrees, great; if she does not agree, oh well. The wife doesn’t really matter. If the husband decides to make life altering changes, the wife is forced to mutate into whatever the situation, chosen by the husband, demands.

    Not for me!

  323. Not mentioned would be the SGM practice of notifying subsequent churches that the departing member is “divisive” if they are leaving disgruntled with leader abuse. So, not only are they wrongly disciplined by their own church, but they are slandered to all churches they visit. So, disagreeing with leadership at SGM can essentially leave the member excommunicated from the entire Body of Christ. Unless you want to never go to any church in your town, don’t challenge leaders. Better to slip out quietly and whatever you do, don’t go to an exit interview where they twist your arm behind your back for one last threat to control you before you go.

  324. Lydia wrote:

    This passes for scholarship? But then I also read one of Grudem’s books where he was arguing that submission for women should not be considered subordinate because “God submits to us when He helps us”. And “parents submit to their children when they help with homework” So women are to be like God and submit to their husbands? I mean, think about what he is really saying about HIMSELF.
    The things they will declare to keep the Leader/subordinate system is unbelievable.

    I know it. They will go to any lengths.

    Thank you for the other info in your post – interesting stuff.

    It’s gotten so out of hand even less kooky, strident gender comps are scratching their heads. A few gender comps recently wrote pages questioning John Piper’s lunacy about women being police officers. Even they’re astounded by how far other gender comps are going.

    And I’d say yes, if a guy already has preconceived notions about women, and assumes from the start that women should be under men, no kidding it’s going to impact how he chooses to translate the text or interpret it!

    The bit above I quoted from you, about these comp guys arguing that parents submit to their kids when they help their kids do the homework to argue that helping someone is not an insulting thing. Such tortured reasoning.

    For one thing, the help they are offering is temporary, and either the mom or the dad can help the kid. But what repeatedly flies above the heads of some gender comps (like some of the ones in this thread and past ones) is that women are permanently under men in gender comp; it is not temporary.

    There is nothing a woman can do to work her way up the ladder – no amount of education, talent, developing skills – nothing. She is forever in the bottom caste in the gender caste system of comps and on basis only of having been born a certain way (i.e., a female).

    This is the same exact garbage that some white Americans used to justify whites holding black people as slaves. But the slaves were supposed to be oakey-doakey with being second class citizens in this reasoning, or living under Jim Crow, separate but equal laws.

    I’m forever astounded at how gender complementarians cannot see how insulting, condescending, and detrimental gender comp is.

    Surely they can see how bogus and unjust “separate but equal” philosophy was in regards to black Americans? It’s the same thing they are doing to women now, but they appear oblivious to this fact.

    I think because some of them are too laser focused on one or two NT passages about, “I forbid a woman to teach” and, “ladies, submit to your husband.” They really have tunnel vision.

    All they see is that verse or two, and they block out all the other examples of women leading and teaching men in the OT and NT, and even the “all submit to all” verse in Eph 5: 21, or some just explain those away as not being applicable to men.

    Amazing. Just utterly amazing how they read the Bible with these filters on.

  325. Nancy2 wrote:

    The Danvers redefinition of a complementary relationship: When a couple is in agreement, it’s a 50/50 relationship. When there is disagreement, it’s a 100/0 relationship.
    The husband is gonna do what he’s gonna do. If the wife agrees, great; if she does not agree, oh well. The wife doesn’t really matter. If the husband decides to make life altering changes, the wife is forced to mutate into whatever the situation, chosen by the husband, demands.

    Not for me!

    And the comps also expand their territory into the church where they order grown women to forfeit all decision making, autonomy, opinions, dissent, autonomy, etc. You don’t even have to be married to them – I wasn’t! – to be subjected to their incredible arrogance and invasions of autonomy, Christian liberty, and Christian conscience, and just basic respect for other human beings.

  326. Daisy wrote:

    There is nothing a woman can do to work her way up the ladder – no amount of education, talent, developing skills – nothing. She is forever in the bottom caste in the gender caste system of comps and on basis only of having been born a certain way (i.e., a female).

    There’s a saying, “What you permit, you promote.” There is nothing like bringing a comp man to his knees than by rejecting him as a woman. I have had any number of Christian comp men want to date me. I have rejected them quite clearly. Deal breaker..the comp doctrine. They are truly stunned. I don’t think they’ve ever had a nice woman reject them so openly, kindly, and honestly as the way I’ve done it.

    One comp man and his heartbroken mother had to deal with my rejection. She thought I would make the perfect daughter-in-law. I think that when good women won’t give the comp men a date…those men will change their tune.

  327. Daisy wrote:

    Amazing. Just utterly amazing how they read the Bible with these filters on.

    If your position and paycheck are tied to believing something, it is easy to convince yourself of what is “true” and what cannot be “true.” Cognitive dissonance will be resolved one way or the other. For guys who derive their paycheck and their identity from groups who demand Female Subordination, the cost to them and their families of switching publicly, even if they are privately convinced, is huge. In the conservative churches, women who switch will be labeled as divisive Jezebels (or tiresome bullies) and men will be labeled in other really unattractive ways. It takes a person of courage and conviction to swim up that stream.

  328. JohnD wrote:

    The publisher refers to the ESV as “The trusted version”. When someone finds it necessary to tell me that they should be trusted I instinctively do not trust them.

    P.S.
    The part left unsaid: “The trusted version… trusted to keep girl cooties out of places of leadership in life and church” 🙂

  329. Velour wrote:

    And the comps also expand their territory into the church where they order grown women to forfeit all decision making, autonomy, opinions, dissent, autonomy, etc. You don’t even have to be married to them – I wasn’t! – to be subjected to their incredible arrogance and invasions of autonomy, Christian liberty, and Christian conscience, and just basic respect for other human beings.

    Yep. But, just put your tithe money in the plate and stay out of our way, sweetie.

  330. JohnD wrote:

    Philip Payne has identified at least twenty seven departures from the original Greek of the New Testament in the ESV, in order to arrive at a translation that supports the publisher’s doctrinal bias (mostly of complementarianism).

    Thanks to you, I found pbpayne.com. My head hurts too much to explore the site right now, but it is definitely worth checking out!

  331. Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    And the comps also expand their territory into the church where they order grown women to forfeit all decision making, autonomy, opinions, dissent, autonomy, etc. You don’t even have to be married to them – I wasn’t! – to be subjected to their incredible arrogance and invasions of autonomy, Christian liberty, and Christian conscience, and just basic respect for other human beings.

    Yep. But, just put your tithe money in the plate and stay out of our way, sweetie.

    That’s right. Hey, at least at the movies I get a better chair and snacks! And it costs less too.

  332. Nancy2 wrote:

    My first husband was Catholic!

    The Catholic guy who had the hots for me, I dated him twice – someone fixed me up with him, he wanted to meet me. He was super cute but quite arrogant and rude to me at times during the first date, so that was a huge turn off.

  333. @ Velour:

    It’s interesting you’re being approached by so many.

    As I said before, despite being pretty much the ideal that these gender comp men claim to want to date, I didn’t really get approached by any.

    Non-Christian men seemed to like me, Roman Catholic guys. I’m not sure of the religious beliefs of every single guy to approach me.
    My ex fiancee claimed to be a Christian, but I never specifically asked him where he stood on gender comp.

    Anyhow. That I couldn’t get dates or married, not even when hanging out among Christians, or using dating sites, makes me wonder how badly these guys really really want to date sweet, morally upstanding ladies with good values.

    They say they do, but it sounds like hog wash to me since I didn’t get married or dates.

    Had another lady tell me at another site she noticed the same thing, or similar. She was new at a church, and had only recently converted to Christianity when she joined this church.
    She was new and didn’t understand how to properly act like a Christian or be a proper gender comp lady.

    She suspects she got more date offers from the dudes at that church (which promoted gender comp, IIRC) because they other women were dowdy, quiet, unassertive, too passive.

    The men at the church seemed to prefer her precisely because she was out-going, assertive, wore make-up, dressed up. She was the opposite in many ways of how gender comps tell women to act and dress.

    She suspects she got more dates (and later married a guy from there, I think she said) because gender comp men actually prefer “worldly” women (or Christian women who act and dress worldly), though they claim to prefer meek, mild, submissive, unassuming, plain Jane types.

    Her theory was that Christian women being gender comp women and all that entails makes it harder for them to get dates/ married.

    Your experience sounds different from hers and mine though. These men say they want sweet women, I was one for year, but they never approached me. Of course another issue is that most churches lack single men ages 25 – 55.

  334. @ Gram3:

    I know I’ve told this story before, but I had a gender comp friend who stubbornly clung to gender comp. He was not affiliated with CBMW or any other groups, and he made no money off this stuff at all.

    But he was very beholden to gender comp. He was always wanting to argue gender comp with me, baptism, and age of the earth. I was not interested in debating him. So I instead sent him a copy of a book about gender comp by Groothius.

    He told me he read the book, but I could tell from his e-mails to me that he had not read a dang word of it.

    When I pressed him about it, he admitted he had only skimmed the back cover of it only and assumed it was just a book with no biblical support and was influenced by secular feminism.

    This was a guy who was not getting a pay check for adhering to this view, but he clung to it tenaciously.

    This about drove me nuts, too, because for a long, long while he was dependent on his grandmother and later his wife (he married).

    These ladies financially supported him and did his laundry, cooking, and stuff, but he’d go on and on in e-mails to me arguing about male headship and how men are to lead and support (support, as in spiritually and financially) women.

    I don’t see how a guy can be so beholden to that male headship / male leader concept but all the while, the females in his life are supporting him.

  335. Nancy2 wrote:

    Thanks to you, I found pbpayne.com. My head hurts too much to explore the site right now, but it is definitely worth checking out!

    His photo looks so familiar. I think I read an interview he did on some other site, where he was refuting the views of another guy (a gender complementarian)?

    It was a site by a guy who does podcasts too, and he says he’s rethinking the gender comp position but is currently undecided. So he has pro and anti gender comp guests on from time to time to debate the topic. I wish I could remember what site that was on.

  336. @ Daisy:
    My first husband was Catholic, but did not attend church regularly. His mother was quite arrogant. We butted heads often.
    My second husband was “not churched” when we met.

    I did date some church guys …. two before my first marriage and two in between marriages. Those guys were either two-timers or very possessive, or both. One possessive guy asked me out after I got a severe Charlie horse in my leg in a spontaneous basketball game after church. Another guy asked me to marry him on our third …. and last … date —- This was just 3 or 4 months after I almost died in a car wreck. Severe head injury … My hair had grown out to about 1/2 inch long and the 5″ scar across my head was still clearly visible.
    And, I’m not what you’d call pretty … just average.
    When you, Velour, and I all compare notes, nothing makes any sense. Does it?

  337. Daisy wrote:

    As a matter of fact, as I type this post, I am juggling three oranges and one aardvark.*

    That prompted a bit of theatre of the mind.

    If you are adept at juggling an aardvark then juggling Piper will be a cinch. However, please do it in such a way that he does not feel that his “mature masculinity” is being compromised or that “God’s created order” is being controverted.

    Incidentally I have, over time, spent years in the wild places of Africa and never seen an aardvark. They are now becoming something of an obsession.

  338. Velour wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:

    Paul would not have favored a priesthood of believers devoid of any leadership.

    How exactly do you know what Paul would have favored?

    Precisely.

    By reading what Paul wrote you can get a sense of what Paul favored, you get a sense of what he thought. 100 percent accurate? No. But read the whole Pauline corpus and you can get a good idea about what he thought about a variety of issues.

  339. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    To go from this is “God’s calling” on your life to this is “not 1st tier” is a bit strange. I don’t know if I got it right but I think JS mentioned he was in an sgm church. So in that system it would be 1st tier and it would matter. There would be no freedom of conscious and no freedom to function in the Body based upon gifting. And, there would be pressure to conform as that system is extreme in the top down structure like TVC. That has been proven over and over in many of the comp/pat churches/denominations.

    For the record, I am not SGM.

  340. Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:

    Paul, who wanted all things done decently and in order, would not have favored a priesthood of believers devoid of any leadership

    I don’t know what you mean by “leadership.” That could have whole host of meanings. “Order” can happen in many ways. “Order” does not necessarily need heirarchy in church or home.

    Some here earlier were advocating the idea that Christians need no leaders at all, having the Holy Spirit and then the 1 John passage about needing no one to teach you. When this is squared with the rest of the Bible, though, I don’t think a good argument can be made for no leadership. The priesthood of believers does not automatically lead to no leaders.

  341. js wrote:

    read the whole Pauline corpus and you can get a good idea about what he thought about a variety of issues.

    Also by reading some of what the theologians are saying who have joined in the new perspective on Paul one can get some insight. I think you mentioned Tom Wright. He has done some work in this area also.

    I think that if one only approaches scripture from the position of sola scriptura and only reads those theologians who signed off on the Chicago statement on inerrancy it is easy to come away with a limited understand of what the issues are, much less an understanding of how the issues have been addressed by a large segment of christianity.

    I said ‘approaches’ to scripture and ‘understanding’ of issues. I did not say that one cannot settle on a certain belief system for themselves. Certainly we all do that. But to do so with only limited acquaintance with the questions/issues would be premature and likely inadequate.

  342. Daisy wrote:

    @ js:

    I spent years reading about Bible translation processes, stemming from numerous debates over a period of years with King James Version Only knuckleheads, so I get how Bible translations work, and why some texts have italicized words.

    I know about lower text crit and higher text crit and so on and so forth.

    However. There are times when the underlying Greek text of the NT refers to both men AND women, but some English versions renders such terms to being a male-only term.

    When some companies announced plans to produce gender inclusive translations that would translate Greek phrases such as “men and women” (or other mixed gender terms) to “men and women” (which would not be changing the meaning of the original Greek), the gender complementarians had a cow, pitched a fit over it, and accused such companies of being influenced by, or conceding to “culture” or to “feminism”.

    Gender comps are not terribly interested in having accurate, literal biblical translations.

    No, gender comps prefer translations or translation methods that are male- centered, even when a Bible verse in the underlying original language refers to both men AND women in a passage.

    Comps don’t like using inclusive pronouns or terms such as “they,” “them,” “humanity” or “men and women,” but prefer “men,” “mankind,” or “he,” or “him.”

    First of all, we need to remember that we can’t expect translations from before the mid-80’s to adopt gender inclusive language because inclusive language was not an issue in our culture when these translations were made.

    Dee said she was converted watching an episode of Star Trek, IIRC. Well, remember the intro to that show? “To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life forms and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.” But when Star Trek: the Next Generation came out in 1987, the last line was changed, “to boldly go where no one has gone before.” The intervening 20 years between the series had seen changes in our language which tend toward the diminishing use of masculine pronouns to refer to all people.

    Of course, we are always as a culture in transition, so some still retain the masculine generic pronouns in their speech today.

    The ESV is probably the chief translation you are talking about here but while they translate the Greek word adelphos in its plural form with “brothers” they do always footnote it as “or brothers and sisters.”

    I think adelphos and anthropos (traditionally translated “men” but often translated today as “people” are best rendered either in the text or in a footnote in an inclusive way.

    Interestingly, in the case of anthropos, the ESV often translates it as people. A good example is 1 Timothy 2:1-4. I will put an asterisk beside their rendering of anthropos here. It is quite interesting . . .

    “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people*, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people* to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men*, the man* Jesus Christ.”

    Their footnote here says, “men and man render the dame Greek word that is translated people in verses 1 and 4.”

    So I don’t see any big attempt there to go with a translation that doesn’t use inclusive terms. The last men and man there seems to me to obviously be because in talking about the singular man Jesus Christ, the use of the masculine generic gives more of a sense of the wordplay in Greek and since the words above have been translated in an inclusive way it is unlikely that readers would understand the plural men in verse 4 as only referring to males.

    I go back and forth a bit on how we handle pronouns, especially when it involves a shift from singular to plural.

  343. js wrote:

    Some here earlier were advocating the idea that Christians need no leaders at all, having the Holy Spirit and then the 1 John passage about needing no one to teach you. When this is squared with the rest of the Bible, though, I don’t think a good argument can be made for no leadership. The priesthood of believers does not automatically lead to no leaders

    I don’t know who advocated that there should be no leaders in the assembly. The question is who are those leaders, why are they leaders, and what do leaders do. The Bible teaches hat New Covenant believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit *and* that some are given teaching gifts. This is not controversial, I don’t think. But the NT leadership is *not* a special clergy class that is defined by male gender and seminary graduation.

    The NT leaders are either appointed by apostles or identified in other ways which are not disclosed. Like Phoebe. Like Priscilla. Like a whole bunch of others. They are leaders because they are gifted, not because they have certain credentials including but not limited to a Y chromosome with accessories.

    If a church is functional and healthy, natural leadership will arise and be recognized by the body. Those leaders are not lords and mediators of the New Covenant or of the Bible itself. They are merely facilitators. We now have a clergy class that is cossetted, pampered, sabbaticaled, vacationed, conferenced, expense-accounted, etc. That was not the case in the NT and during the persecutions when there was a great cost to be paid for being a leader. That is now inverted, and the leaders who were supposed to be servants have become lords with servants. And hence, TWW.

  344. @ js:
    Then why the big hysteria over a gender-accurate translation? Why didn’t the ESV translate gender neutrally and use translation rules consistently? They have an agenda, as JohnD pointed out, of being the “trusworthy” version in contrast, presumably to all other translations. Their use of trustworthy supports my position that they went nuclear on TNIV and totally misrepresented what TNIV was about. That was battlefield prep so that the other brand was tarnished and they would emerge as the trustworthy one. Which actually did not turn out to be the case. Because every one on the committee is a confirmed Female Subordinationist.

  345. js wrote:

    I go back and forth a bit on how we handle pronouns, especially when it involves a shift from singular to plural.

    Singular to plural is a step too far for me. But I just want to say this. Indeed there are those who feel a need for as much gender inclusive language as possible. Well, bless them, except when it all gets too awkward and complicated. They can do whatever they want, and certainly some steps in that direction have been needed. However, it would not be correct to think that people do not understand the use of the masculine pronoun as sometimes generic and sometimes not because if folks went to high school they get it. Even as we speak young daughter and her buddies are setting forth on yet another school year in the english department of a large public high school and a quick glance of what the kids will be reading includes mostly stuff from back before he/she/it became the cause du jour. What? They can understand it at school but fail to understand it at church? Nah. It is not about understanding.

    You said “Of course, we are always as a culture in transition, so some still retain the masculine generic pronouns in their speech today.” I am saying not just the ‘some’ in their speech, the schools in their curricula. Personally, I hate to see the church act as a cat’s paw for cultural change. If changes need to be made for specificity and clarity, then they need to be made. If it is just an attempt to manipulate the group think for some sociopolitical reason, that is where I start having problems with it.

  346. okrapod wrote:

    js wrote:

    I go back and forth a bit on how we handle pronouns, especially when it involves a shift from singular to plural.

    Singular to plural is a step too far for me. But I just want to say this. Indeed there are those who feel a need for as much gender inclusive language as possible. Well, bless them, except when it all gets too awkward and complicated. They can do whatever they want, and certainly some steps in that direction have been needed. However, it would not be correct to think that people do not understand the use of the masculine pronoun as sometimes generic and sometimes not because if folks went to high school they get it. Even as we speak young daughter and her buddies are setting forth on yet another school year in the english department of a large public high school and a quick glance of what the kids will be reading includes mostly stuff from back before he/she/it became the cause du jour. What? They can understand it at school but fail to understand it at church? Nah. It is not about understanding.

    You said “Of course, we are always as a culture in transition, so some still retain the masculine generic pronouns in their speech today.” I am saying not just the ‘some’ in their speech, the schools in their curricula. Personally, I hate to see the church act as a cat’s paw for cultural change. If changes need to be made for specificity and clarity, then they need to be made. If it is just an attempt to manipulate the group think for some sociopolitical reason, that is where I start having problems with it.

    I agree with you. I think accuracy and clarity should be the standards, not an agenda in any direction.

  347. js wrote:

    there is one mediator between God and men*, the man* Jesus Christ.”

    Bingo. One mediator. My mediator is Jesus, not my pastor, my Sunday school teacher, or my husband.
    js wrote:

    though, I don’t think a good argument can be made for no leadership. The priesthood of believers does not automatically lead to no leaders.

    Yes, we do need order when we assemble. At my church, males are in control of everything. A 9-year-old boy can preach from the pulpit and lead prayer, but a women aren’t even allowed to participate in discussions in mixed gender Sunday school class. I am a 51-year-old woman. I have a college education. I have taught in both public and private high schools. I have been in church my whole life. And, I have taken 2 seminary courses. Yet, at church, I am outranked and overruled by boys in their late teens and 20s just because, if you will excuse my bluntness, they have a pair and I don’t.

  348. Daisy wrote:

    The men at the church seemed to prefer her precisely because she was out-going, assertive, wore make-up, dressed up. She was the opposite in many ways of how gender comps tell women to act and dress.

    I am all of these things too: outgoing, assertive, dress up, wear make-up. And I went to a smaller church in my area that has a lot of unmarried men. In my geographic area there are more men than women. (I didn’t realize at the time, silly me, that I was in a comp, NeoCal church.) But the men do subscribe to the male headship rule, the pastors/elders teach it, preach it, tell people about it in meetings, pre-marital counseling, etc.

    I just said “no thanks” to it all.

  349. js wrote:

    First of all, we need to remember that we can’t expect translations from before the mid-80’s to adopt gender inclusive language because inclusive language was not an issue in our culture when these translations were made.

    This is irrelevant. There is no reason we cannot have GI versions now, but the gender comps raise a fuss anytime a company tries to release a GI version.

    The last time a GI version was going to be released was a handful of years ago, and the gender comps pitched a fit. I believe that the company then called off printing / releasing that version as a result.

    There is no need now, in 2015, to keep producing male-centered versions.

  350. Nancy2 wrote:

    Yet, at church, I am outranked and overruled by boys in their late teens and 20s just because, if you will excuse my bluntness, they have a pair and I don’t

    This. And as conservative, Christian men I know in Europe (who have been long-time elders in their churches for 40+ years) have observed that there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG with American Christianity because it has more in common with radical Islam than our freedom in Christ. Spot on!!!

  351. js wrote:

    By reading what Paul wrote you can get a sense of what Paul favored, you get a sense of what he thought. 100 percent accurate? No. But read the whole Pauline corpus and you can get a good idea about what he thought about a variety of issues.

    How about what Jesus said about His church?

    The model that you espouse hasn’t always been around. And frankly this authoritarian stuff is toxic and not at all healthy, the lording it over that you seem to favor (be it over a church or a woman).

  352. js wrote:

    By reading what Paul wrote you can get a sense of what Paul favored, you get a sense of what he thought. 100 percent accurate? No. But read the whole Pauline corpus and you can get a good idea about what he thought about a variety of issues.

    That doesn’t sound very sola scriptura-ish.

    I would assume (I could be wrong of course) that you are a supporter of sola scriptura?

  353. js wrote:

    I agree with you. I think accuracy and clarity should be the standards, not an agenda in any direction.

    But many Bibles now and thru out history had an agenda: intentionally translating verses to support a male-centered view.

    Some translators intentionally changed the female name “Junia” to the male “Junias” because they either refused to believe there were female apostles in the early church, and/or they didn’t want their readership to know there were female apostles.

    I linked to the following earlier.
    This has a few examples from a Bible version whose translators have an agenda to elevate men at the expense of women:

    Gender Bias in Bible Versions
    http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/gender-bias-in-the-nlt/

  354. Velour wrote:

    Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
    Young Earthers respond that way as well… The speed at which an initial rational discussion goes hard core emotional/attaching is a clear indicator to me of someone insecure in their position..
    When did the Young Earthers come about? At my former Gulag NeoCal Church they subscribed to comp doctrine, Young Earth (despite being amongst a heady bunch of Ivy-League trained scientists and engineers), elder-rule (not congregational polity), authoritarianism, etc. Does it usually all arrive in the same package?

    While each of the “issues/styles” you list (i.e. NeoCal, comp, young earth, etc), while they are distinct “issues” they do seem to be, quite often, lumped together. I am 55, and grew up part of life in a fundamentalist baptist, before these “new” classifications were used; except for Young Earth. I was taught, in general, most of the NeoCal and comp concepts, they were just labeled and packaged differently… none- of this is new, they are just using new names, and trying to use a new argument… Women were definitely second class, but they would never have tried to redefine the trinity to justify it.. in fact, in fundamentalist background, they would probably have run these guys out for messing with the Trinity the way they are now!!!

  355. Velour wrote:

    But the men do subscribe to the male headship rule, the pastors/elders teach it, preach it, tell people about it in meetings, pre-marital counseling, etc.
    I just said “no thanks” to it all.

    I’m now open to dating Non-Christian guys.

    I might – might – consider gender comp Christian men. But if so, I will not be the “submissive” little GF or wife, not in the way gender comps teach submissiveness (being a slave to a man and always caving in to what the guy wants no matter what).

    Wanting something doesn’t mean you will always get it.

    These guys may want a little doormat of a wife, but I won’t be one.

    There are a lot of gender comps who proclaim being gender comp, but their marriages are more egalitarian in nature.

    They believe in the theory of GC but don’t live it out in reality. I could probably deal being married to a guy like that, who only pays GC lip service. I’d prefer a guy who is not into GC, however.

  356. Nancy2 wrote:

    A 9-year-old boy can preach from the pulpit and lead prayer, but a women aren’t even allowed to participate in discussions in mixed gender Sunday school class.

    I have wondered whether the shift away from single gender SS classes to mixed gender classes was not in order to silence the women. How long will people put up with this stuff before they take their checkbooks and exit the door?

  357. Nancy2 wrote:

    At my church, males are in control of everything. A 9-year-old boy can preach from the pulpit and lead prayer, but a women aren’t even allowed to participate in discussions in mixed gender Sunday school class. I am a 51-year-old woman. I have a college education. I have taught in both public and private high schools. I have been in church my whole life. And, I have taken 2 seminary courses. Yet, at church, I am outranked and overruled by boys in their late teens and 20s just because, if you will excuse my bluntness, they have a pair and I don’t.

    Another huge gaping hole in how GC is carried out, which is glaring and displays their hypocrisy, is that they won’t allow American Christian adult women to teach of lead in American churches-

    BUT, gender complementarians will gladly send Christian adult women to preach and lead MEN in other nations; they send adult women as Missionaries overseas, who often, from what I have read, preach and teach MEN in other nations.

    Suddenly all the rationales for keeping women out of preaching and leader roles in American churches flies out the window when these same women go to Africa or other nations.

    GCs cannot even be consistent in when and how they enforce their own gender politics. It’s a total sham.

  358. okrapod wrote:

    I have wondered whether the shift away from single gender SS classes to mixed gender classes was not in order to silence the women.

    I had not thought of it like that but in defense of gender mixed: how else are you, a single woman, to meet a single man?

    I was brought up if you want marriage to a Christian man, get your behind to a church, because that is where you get a mate.

    Most churches do nothing, nada, to fix singles up who want marriage. There are no parties or mixers where adult singles can meet and flirt with other singles.

    You’re not going to get a Christian boyfriend if you’re a woman stuck in a woman’s only Bible study/ Sunday school class.

    Not that most churches have an abundance of single men anyhow. Most lack unmarried men.

    I don’t usually like women’s only classes at churches anyhow, because they are usually of little substance, fluffy, revolve around touchy feely shallow Bible studies for women, with lots of girly examples and girly talk about women talking about stereotypical girly junk I can’t relate to.

    I do see some drawbacks to having segregated gender classes.

  359. Nancy2 wrote:

    Yes, we do need order when we assemble. At my church, males are in control of everything. A 9-year-old boy can preach from the pulpit and lead prayer, but a women aren’t even allowed to participate in discussions in mixed gender Sunday school class.

    Mayhap it’s time to say adios then? Think of Paul Simon’s song 50 Ways to Leave your Lover and it will get clearer.

  360. Daisy wrote:

    I might – might – consider gender comp Christian men. But if so, I will not be the “submissive” little GF or wife, not in the way gender comps teach submissiveness (being a slave to a man and always caving in to what the guy wants no matter what).

    Yeah buddy! Here ya go, sir! Robo-girl at your beck and call! Mrs. Stepford Wife at the ready!

  361. Daisy wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    At my church, males are in control of everything. A 9-year-old boy can preach from the pulpit and lead prayer, but a women aren’t even allowed to participate in discussions in mixed gender Sunday school class. I am a 51-year-old woman. I have a college education. I have taught in both public and private high schools. I have been in church my whole life. And, I have taken 2 seminary courses. Yet, at church, I am outranked and overruled by boys in their late teens and 20s just because, if you will excuse my bluntness, they have a pair and I don’t.
    Another huge gaping hole in how GC is carried out, which is glaring and displays their hypocrisy, is that they won’t allow American Christian adult women to teach of lead in American churches-
    BUT, gender complementarians will gladly send Christian adult women to preach and lead MEN in other nations; they send adult women as Missionaries overseas, who often, from what I have read, preach and teach MEN in other nations.
    Suddenly all the rationales for keeping women out of preaching and leader roles in American churches flies out the window when these same women go to Africa or other nations.
    GCs cannot even be consistent in when and how they enforce their own gender politics. It’s a total sham.

    This lack of consistency is very common in all of these conservative/fundamentalist circles… While they will scream “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”, they only follow selectively what G&d said… that is the key, EVERY one is selective when they read and interpret the Bible… it is a manner of whether they admit it or not, and where and how much…..

  362. refugee wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Sure, sometimes I wear pearls and high heels, but I also pack my own firearms.

    I’m sure Piper would find you frightening.

    I on the other hand would deputize her!

  363. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t usually like women’s only classes at churches anyhow, because they are usually of little substance, fluffy, revolve around touchy feely shallow Bible studies for women, with lots of girly examples and girly talk about women talking about stereotypical girly junk I can’t relate to.

    I was there last Sunday. Let us sit on a marshmallow cloud and tell Bible stories. Even when we talk about damnation, let us do with lipstick-clad smiles on our faces, and then talk about how everything is going to be okay. **My, my poor Jezebel ….. how awful it must have been for all 70 of her sons to be slain in the name of God! **
    Hello! Those 70 sons were not all Jezebel’s. I do believe Ahab had more than one wife!
    Irks me to no END!!!

  364. Daisy wrote:

    Another huge gaping hole in how GC is carried out, which is glaring and displays their hypocrisy, is that they won’t allow American Christian adult women to teach of lead in American churches-
    BUT, gender complementarians will gladly send Christian adult women to preach and lead MEN in other nations; they send adult women as Missionaries overseas, who often, from what I have read, preach and teach MEN in other nations.
    Suddenly all the rationales for keeping women out of preaching and leader roles in American churches flies out the window when these same women go to Africa or other nations.
    GCs cannot even be consistent in when and how they enforce their own gender politics. It’s a total sham.

    Grudem has spoken so it must be ‘biblical’. Under the heading “Teaching activities that should be restricted to men” point 9: ‘Bible teaching at a home Bible study (both men and women members).’ Under the heading “Teaching activities that should be open to both men and women” point 22: ‘Working as an evangelistic missionary in other cultures.’ Discrimination based on gender and on culture (race?).

  365. js wrote:

    By reading what Paul wrote you can get a sense of what Paul favored, you get a sense of what he thought. 100 percent accurate? No. But read the whole Pauline corpus and you can get a good idea about what he thought about a variety of issues.

    My thought is that if you read the Pauline corpus through, and only his corpus, you will come away quite confused and befuddled. My suggestion would be to read the Gospels through many times and then read the Pauline corpus through as a one sided response letter to which we do not have or know the other side of the conversation. Most churches spend much too much time in the Pauline corpus and not near enough in the life of Jesus Christ – God in the flesh. Paul should be interpreted through the life and words of Christ. We should not be interpreting the life and words of Christ through Paul.

  366. @ Bridget:

    PS – I think the Pauline corpus is the most difficult to understand (as Peter said himself) and is very misunderstood, misapplied, and used in the most atrocious ways by many teachers in the Church today.

  367. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Wow, I can’t speak to the validity any of the current disagreement, but kudos to js for at least trying to stay and engage though having a different viewpoint from the groupthink. I’ve been awol for a while from here because I felt that there was a change in the community here not welcoming any differing views (not the Deebs, they remain the welcoming blog owners who allow different povs) and wow, it looks like I was right. Reading this comment stream and the way js is castigated and consistently interpreted in the worst possible light, and what they say restated in the worst way, comments have become mean and unwelcoming for any who disagree. Those who fight monsters should ensure they don’t become monsters themselves. I see a mirror image here of what happened to Serving Kids in Japan and Mirele on the SBC Voices articles comments, just different people doing the swarming. My view as an atheist outsider, feel free to ignore it. Js, props for trying to explain and stay calm without reverting to the same treatment you’re receiving.
    It was fun TWW. I wish all of you all the best. Deb and Dee, you do awesome work for the hurting and oppressed. It’s inspiring to see fellow humans taking care of others when they don’t have to. Learned a lot about confronting those in power and helping the powerless, I’ll treasure the lessons.
    Peace.

    Albuquerque Blue, if you are still reading, I appreciate you speaking up. I agree.

    I also am a relative outsider to this blog. I have only recently started commenting.

    I lurked here quite a long time because of what Blue is describing.

    I was afraid to post– because I was badly damaged and didn’t want to risk more.

    I still self-censor if I have a different point of view (maybe even just a different nuance in point of view) because I am not in a stage of healing to take mobbing in stride, even on the internet. This will be my first disagreement with the majority. I hope the response is such that it is not my last.

    My background: I am a victim of horrific psychological and spiritual abuse by a YRR in a stealth takeover, and am still processing that abuse. Prior to the takeover, unity included people in the church being encouraged to focus on the core of what we believed in common and to be respectful of other beliefs on a wide variety of secondary issues. After the YRR takeover, you can already guess that type of unity was swept out for an ethos of “Disagreement = disunity.” A change in viewpoint on a particular issue was not the main damage that was done in the church. The main damage occurred with *the way* things were changed. People had to be “taken out” to effect the changes the YRR wanted. The interpersonal carnage was awful. To “see” was to be an enemy; to disagree was to be an enemy; and an enemy had to be attacked until disabled or exiled.

    There has been much on this blog has been very helpful to me in healing. One thing that has been helpful has been seeing that the pattern of takeover at our former church has been repeated all over the country. Hearing story after identical story helps penetrate the confusion and pain and the little voice that says, “Maybe it was me. Maybe I was crazy.” It helps to find that deceit, for instance, appears to be more widespread in the YRR movement than random chance of a few bad apples would predict. Insights here about narcissistic personality disorder have been very helpful as well. All this has helped me to understand what I went through, and helps undo the effects of the “gospel mobbing” that I experienced. Being mobbed is an awful, awful experience. Being mobbed in the name of Jesus is worse. Despite what was done to me, I can tell you that most or all of those people believed they were doing the righteous thing. Many had been lied to and didn’t know it. They were blind. As Christians, they were involved in creating absolute carnage BECAUSE they thought they were doing right. Many others saw and looked away.

    On the other hand, it’s my perception that that mobbing happens here at times. No, it is not as bad as in person. It is a phenomena of blogs, message boards, etc. that certain posters get to know each other and tend to stick up for each other, which creates a “piling on” effect if a poster from a different pov comes on and posts. That’s the “normal” way things happen on most blogs and message boards. Some are more civil than others in the way the piling on happens.

    My definition of mobbing: multiple people on one “side” line up against someone perceived to be on the other “side.” Just the dynamic of “everyone against one” has the seeds of mobbing. But as soon as one of the in-group includes things such as snark, calls out a the supposed motive of the poster, badgers (ie repeated questioning like an attorney to a hostile witness, not being able to agree to disagree at least for now) etc.then the ante is raised quite a bit. In my church experience, I was attacked for my motives as if my motives were fact. (I won’t bother saying what was said. If I asked this group, you could list what was said with 80% accuracy or more.) When there is only one person on the other side, any of the above by one poster is magnified by the number of people on that “side.” Js doesn’t seem particularly bothered by the dynamics, but A. Blue, a long time poster here said it bothers him, and looks like groupthink, and the very first response to him is to argue with his assessment.

    It is not the *content* of the debate that is the issue. A. Blue describes that quite clearly because he says that as an atheist, he doesn’t “get” the content of the debate. He is addressing the pattern of interaction in the debate.

    Someone asked A.Blue if something was triggering. I cannot answer for him, but for me, though it isn’t strictly triggering (i.e. I don’t get flashbacks) to me to see that *pattern of interpersonal behavior* in action, it does signal “unsafe place.” Victims of church abuse have likely experienced being cut off from support so that it seems that they are the one person to hold a viewpoint. Then, the mobbing begins, perhaps even well-intentioned mobbing. So the pattern of interpersonal interactions here can indeed create an unsafe place, ironically especially to someone who has gone through any experience of being “the one” on the other side of the “inner circle” at their church.

    Whether or not I agree with the beliefs of the “one” on the “other side of the inner circle” here doesn’t matter as much; it doesn’t keep me from empathy with the “one.” (And any real abusers will almost always come with a posse– because they are cowards. Then it’s a fair fight because it’s not one against many. Trolls are their own thing. They apparently like being “the one.” But even then on other boards I have seen people jump to the “troll” conclusion and mob a new poster who it turns out wasn’t a troll after all.)

    (Disclaimer: I am not saying that my reactions are the same as all who went through similar experiences. We are each different. We each process things differently. We are at different points in our process. I am not disrespecting the experience of other victims by stating my own. I am saying that it is personally anti-healing for me and I am guessing there are others out there like me who are lurking or who just go silent when these things heat up. Maybe I need to find another blog. Problem is that there is great information here. It would be nice to be able to get what is good without the other.)

    I assume Blue has left and won’t be back to answer your questions, but I think what the norms of interaction are is an important part of an internet community, so I am answering from my point of view. I am also answering because in my situation, only one person stood up for me. It wasn’t enough to stem the tide, but I appreciated that one person deeply.

    I think it is a matter of the regular posters here evaluating whether you are hitting your own target on what kind of community is desired. A.Blue is an atheist. I am a Christian who is a survivor of church abuse YRR style. We are both relative outsiders. We see the same thing. Take it for what it’s worth.

    I am guessing that A. Blue is actually gone for a while. Some people asked him specific questions. I have tried to give some specifics (snark, assigning evil motive, badgering) without naming specific people but if people want more specifics and this can proceed in a helpful, healing way, I will contribute.

    It was my intention to be entirely respectful of everyone in presenting this perspective. I hope I succeeded. I have gained a lot here and we are all human after all.

  368. okrapod wrote:

    How long will people put up with this stuff before they take their checkbooks and exit the door?

    I posted this on a different thread a few weeks ago, but for anyone who missed it…

    I hope that someday, all Christian women will react to John Piper the same way that the mice react to the Pied Piper in this vid:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wljPHtQ3dXM

    Enjoy! Hope it makes you smile!

  369. Bridget wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    PS – I think the Pauline corpus is the most difficult to understand (as Peter said himself) and is very misunderstood, misapplied, and used in the most atrocious ways by many teachers in the Church today.

    I don’t disagree with that, in large part because Paul has the biggest swath of material among the epistles. Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:
    By reading what Paul wrote you can get a sense of what Paul favored, you get a sense of what he thought. 100 percent accurate? No. But read the whole Pauline corpus and you can get a good idea about what he thought about a variety of issues.
    My thought is that if you read the Pauline corpus through, and only his corpus, you will come away quite confused and befuddled. My suggestion would be to read the Gospels through many times and then read the Pauline corpus through as a one sided response letter to which we do not have or know the other side of the conversation. Most churches spend much too much time in the Pauline corpus and not near enough in the life of Jesus Christ – God in the flesh. Paul should be interpreted through the life and words of Christ. We should not be interpreting the life and words of Christ through Paul.

    Where did I say that we should read the Pauline corpus alone and draw all our conclusions from there? In this thread we were talking about Pauline texts, that’s why I referenced Paul.

    However, if all Scripture is God-breathed, than a canon within the canon, pitting the gospels against Paul, for example, is unfounded. The Gospels are not the life and words of Christ but are records of His life and words. Paul’s epistles also record episodes from the life of Jesus and with all of it being inspired by God, Scripture is all equally inspired and all is profitable.

  370. Daisy wrote:

    js wrote:
    By reading what Paul wrote you can get a sense of what Paul favored, you get a sense of what he thought. 100 percent accurate? No. But read the whole Pauline corpus and you can get a good idea about what he thought about a variety of issues.
    That doesn’t sound very sola scriptura-ish.
    I would assume (I could be wrong of course) that you are a supporter of sola scriptura?

    Why does it not sound like sola scriptura? You are not assuming that I am saying read only Paul or give more weight to Paul, are you? Help me understand what you mean.

  371. @ okrapod:
    The only problem happens when the use of one gendered pronoun or one gendered noun introduces confusion or excludes the other gender from the group. That is the issue that TNIV sought to address. I agree about the use of the plural, but maybe we need a non-gendered singular third-person pronoun that is not impersonal as “it” seems to me to be.

  372. js wrote:

    I think accuracy and clarity should be the standards, not an agenda in any direction.

    You have not demonstrated why “symbol of” is necessary for clarity and why changing the meaning by adding words “for clarity” is acceptable practice. If Grudem was motivated by an agenda, how would he have done differently what he/the committee did with that verse? Absent an agenda, there is no clarity missing from the words as we have them in the Greek texts. The fact that they added the words *and did not disclose the addition* adds further evidence to the bias explanation.

  373. Daisy wrote:

    js wrote:
    First of all, we need to remember that we can’t expect translations from before the mid-80’s to adopt gender inclusive language because inclusive language was not an issue in our culture when these translations were made.
    This is irrelevant. There is no reason we cannot have GI versions now, but the gender comps raise a fuss anytime a company tries to release a GI version.
    The last time a GI version was going to be released was a handful of years ago, and the gender comps pitched a fit. I believe that the company then called off printing / releasing that version as a result.
    There is no need now, in 2015, to keep producing male-centered versions.

    Not entirely true, IMO. First of all, translations are on a continuum as regards gender inclusive language and even the ones who use it sparingly still use it some as I showed earlier when I discussed the ESV translation of 1 Timothy 2:1-4. Again, the Dave Brunn book “One Bible, Many Translations” is very helpful here.

    There are several versions I would consider strongly favorable toward gender inclusive readings. Among them are the NIV 2011, the REB, and the NRSV.

    Finally, the biggest ruckus over gender inclusive translations was almost 20 years ago, when the TNIV was in production. The NIV 2011 aroused some controversy, but if you read the response to the NIV 2011, you find that there were some within the YRR who did not jump up and down over the NIV but defended it. Both Douglas Moo and Bill Mounce defended the translation when it came out and Moo was on the translation team. Now DA Carson is editing the new Zondervan NIV Study Bible. So I think the views on that particular translation among many associated with the YRR have evolved over the years.

  374. Bridget wrote:

    My suggestion would be to read the Gospels through many times and then read the Pauline corpus through as a one sided response letter to which we do not have or know the other side of the conversation. Most churches spend much too much time in the Pauline corpus and not near enough in the life of Jesus Christ – God in the flesh. Paul should be interpreted through the life and words of Christ. We should not be interpreting the life and words of Christ through Paul.

    Excellent point. Our Bible should be interpreted canonically and not in isolation. I agree with JS to the extent that we can understand Paul better by reading his entire corpus. I just don’t think that stopping with his corpus is sufficient to come to the best interpretation. Paul and others frequently allude to the Hebrew scriptures, for example, and we need to take those into account when understanding what Paul or Luke or Peter or John, for example, are saying.

  375. IMHO, some things we need to keep in mind when we read the Pauline letters, is that, in fact they were LETTERS to the early churches. These churches were located in places where idolatry and abhorrent behavior abounded. In most places, women were the property of men. In most places, women were ranked right in there with breeding donkeys and sheep dogs. Very few women had any education.
    Paul wrote these letters to establish order in the early churches so that people (generally males) could learn in a peaceful, orderly fashion.

  376. One more piece of evidence to show that it is not necessary to have an agenda when using the word “symbol” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 . . .

    The Revised English Bible, a 1989 revision of the New English Bible, renders most texts in an inclusive way and is known as not being an exclusively evangelical translation. The translation team for the REB was as follows . . .

    The Director of Revision was W.D. McHardy. The revisers were: The Rev. Professor G. W. Anderson; The Very Rev. Professor R. S. Barbour; The Rev. Fr. I. P. M. Brayley, SJ; Dr. S. P. Brock; The Rev. Professor G. B. Caird; The Rev. Dr. P. Ellingworth; Dr. R. P. Gordon; Professor M. D. Hooker; The Rev. A. A. Macintosh; The Rev. Professor W. McKane; The Rev. Professor I. H. Marshall; The Rev. Dr. R. A. Mason; The Rev. Dr. I. Moir; The Rev. Fr. R. Murray, SJ; The Rev. Professor E. W. Nicholson; Dr. C. H. Roberts; Dr. R. B. Salters; Dr. P. C. H. Wernberg-Moller; The Rev. Professor M. F. Wiles. Literary advisers were: M. H. Black, Mrs. M.Caird, J. K. Cordy, Baroness de Ward, The Rev. Dr. I. Gray, Dr. P. Larkin, Miss Doris Martin, Dr. C. H. Roberts, Sir Richard Southern, P. J. Spicer, Dr. J. I. M. Stewart, Mary (Lady) Stewart.

    Now I will admit I don’t recognize many of those names. I have heard of several of them but I know that I. Howard Marshall affirms women in ministry from his essay in Kevin Vanhoozer’s book “Theological Interpretation of the New Testament.” Yet among this group of non-evangelical scholars (several of them are women by the way) the majority of whom are almost certainly egalitarians and the sum total of whom among the NT translators have a far greater grasp of Greek than any of us, we have a consensus among them that the supplied word “symbol” was entirely appropriate. The charge of adding words for the sake of upholding ideology falls away when we consider that the REB uses a supplied word in 1 Corinthians 11:10 as well.

  377. js wrote:

    So I think the views on that particular translation among many associated with the YRR have evolved over the years.

    I think that is right. Change does not happen overnight for lots of reasons, including rightful caution. Looking back, I believe that most of the objections were made for reasons, at the time, which seemed urgent. If I think things are spinning out of control and people are departing from the faith and from the authority of the Bible, then I would be inclined personally to want to be very, very careful that there is not an agenda in the *other* direction, namely what I would call radical feminism. Humans make decisions the way humans make decisions.

    It may be that scholars are more able, for whatever reason, to step back from the urgency and heat and, I would argue panic, over social disruption and take a fresh look at the texts in the way that Philip Barton Payne has done, for example. In my own experience, it was very threatening to me to consider changing any “conservative” interpretation because it felt like abandoning the Bible.

  378. @ Gram3:
    And I should add that this dynamic of resisting change because interests are put at risk goes in all directions. If you are an academic at a “liberal” institution, you will have enormous pressure to go with that flow. Your paycheck will be put in jeopardy, and your papers may not get published in the “liberal” journals. That’s the way we are as people, but I think that we need to fight against that.

  379. @ js:
    The point is that some render that verse without the addition. So there must be some reason why that decision was made, in whichever direction the decision went. To me, the default, certainly for a literal translation, should be the words as we have them. It there is a compelling need to add to the text for clarity, then that reason needs to be noted, and the words added/omitted need to be indicated in the translation. The fact that this is not done by some versions and is done by other versions is beside the point.

    Do we know why this list of editors made the decision that they made? Most everyone agrees this is a difficult chapter, but since some have departed from the fundamental principal of not making dogma out of unclear texts, it is important to determine why translational or notational decisions were made for these difficult texts. I am arguing for transparency so that all can trust the decisions that were made or can come to their own conclusions.

  380. @ js:

    When I was reading bible translation blogs it did not escape me that they are not immune to groupthink or group dynamics. They have deadlines, etc, like everyone else. Would they hold up publishing because one person on the team insisted they not add the words that had been added in so many other translations? There is a lot of compromising for unity over truth out there and it is a huge problem.

    I also came to the conclusion I would rather see a ancient scholar linguist doing translations than a theologian for many reasons.

  381. @ Gram3:

    Yes. JS, I wish you would demonstrate how adding “symbol of” to the text in 1 Corin 11 brings clarity to the entire passage.

  382. Abi Miah wrote:

    in my situation, only one person stood up for me. It wasn’t enough to stem the tide, but I appreciated that one person deeply.

    I wish that someone else had stood up for you, and your story is very familiar. I think that people have different perspectives, different styles, different filters, and probably different cultures which all affect what we write/say and what we read/hear. This topic is one that will only get hotter, so we might as well accustom ourselves to it. For my part, I apologize for the hurt that anything I have written has caused you. Or Albuquerque Blue. Or anyone else who is reading. JS came here with an accusation about motives of the Deebs which I believe was unfounded and inappropriate. However, I also realize that online “manners” are different, apparently. In the business world, vigorous debate is (or probably used to be) the norm. In any case, if someone advocates that some people are lesser than other people, then they are going to get a lot of pushback from me. JS may not think that is what his position is, but that is what these doctrines teach.

    I believe that your experiences come through in your posts which are insightful, and I think that great pain can produce insights that we might otherwise not have had. So I hope that both you and Albuquerque will continue to contribute.

    Regarding groupthink, my understanding is that groupthink demands conformity which does not mean to me the same thing as all or most people in a given place having the same POV. Obviously, I’m conservative, so I’m a bit of an outlier here. No one is saying that JS or anyone else should not contribute whatever they have, subject to the Deebs’ policies. But if someone like JS or Gram3 makes a charge or makes an assertion, then we should expect to encounter some responses. Sometimes those are positive, and sometimes not.

    I own up to the prosecuting charge. That is because JS makes categorical statements that affect real people and does so without adequate evidence or support. I lived through Jim Crow, and I remember all of the things that were said and done to people simply because of their circumstances of birth. For many younger people, Jim Crow is an abstraction or something they have read about in history class. I’m willing to bet that the type and degree of reactions to any notion of “separate but equal” would be different depending on whether that was an experienced reality or an abstraction of sorts.

    Challenging someone’s assertions is not the same as attacking them personally, IMO, but it is also true that those lines are subject to personal interpretation. And it is difficult to make those interpretations when all we have are letters on a screen without any other context or clues. No tone of voice, no facial expressions, and certainly little personal historical context.

  383. Lydia wrote:

    None of this works unless there is ingrained thinking BEFORE a horror happens that there are castes of people. There is a pecking order of importance. And what is chilling is that children are often on the bottom rung when it comes to these guys. Then women. They would like to burn me for saying that but time after time the actual victims of these sins/crimes are never mentioned in relation to the horror of what the “repentant perp” did. Then how the leaders handle it is not to be questioned. They made mistakes is all we will hear. That tells me all I need to know about what is in their hearts and minds. The rush to “make it all go away” is indicative they don’t want to change. They are not to be trusted with lives. Nor the “Good News”. Because what they model/teach is not Good News for everyone in their systems

    This! Your whole post was spot on!

    They are blind guides who seek to shackle people, not free them. They have done so much damage to the name of Christ, the cause of Christ, to His people, and to The Gospel, and our witness before a watching world of unbelievers who can do better than this.

  384. js wrote:

    Where did I say that we should read the Pauline corpus alone and draw all our conclusions from there?

    (I didn’t say that.)

    In this thread we were talking about Pauline texts, that’s why I referenced Paul.
    However, if all Scripture is God-breathed, than a canon within the canon, pitting the gospels against Paul, for example, is unfounded.

    (I an not doing tbat).

    The Gospels are not the life and words of Christ but are records of His life and words.

    (True.)

    Paul’s epistles also record episodes from the life of Jesus

    (Paul did not walk and talk with Jesus during his life.)

    and with all of it being inspired by God, Scripture is all equally inspired and all is profitable.

    (Equally inspired and profitable does not mean equal in all things. I give more weight to the words of Christ than to the words of Apostles, Mary, Judas, etc. I know this is not a popular view in many churches, but is quite logical and God honoring in my mind.)

  385. Gram3 wrote:

    I own up to the prosecuting charge. That is because JS makes categorical statements that affect real people and does so without adequate evidence or support. I lived through Jim Crow, and I remember all of the things that were said and done to people simply because of their circumstances of birth. For many younger people, Jim Crow is an abstraction or something they have read about in history class. I’m willing to bet that the type and degree of reactions to any notion of “separate but equal” would be different depending on whether that was an experienced reality or an abstraction of sorts.
    Challenging someone’s assertions is not the same as attacking them personally,

    Thank you, Gram3. Yes, real lives are being damaged by these dangerous doctrines. I appreciate the fact you are a conservative Christian who has carefully studied the Bible and knows that the texts don’t support the subordination of women (and plenty of conservative Christian men have studied The Bible and arrived at the same conclusion).

  386. Gram3 wrote:

    I lived through Jim Crow, and I remember all of the things that were said and done to people simply because of their circumstances of birth. For many younger people, Jim Crow is an abstraction or something they have read about in history class. I’m willing to bet that the type and degree of reactions to any notion of “separate but equal” would be different depending on whether that was an experienced reality or an abstraction of sorts.

    I identify with Gram3’s experience having lived through the height of apartheid in South Africa and, mercifully, witnessing its demise. For me there are at least two driving forces firstly, ‘never again in my lifetime’ and, secondly, the conviction that I did not do enough to end apartheid. It is not that I did nothing, but opposition was more passive than active, such as playing in mixed race sports teams in defiance of the law, supporting the opposition press and voting for the anti-apartheid party.

    When the realisation dawned on me that the newly installed lead pastor, who had previously been the youth pastor and had recently returned from nearly two years of re-education in Seattle, was imposing New Calvinism on the church,

  387. Velour wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    I own up to the prosecuting charge. That is because JS makes categorical statements that affect real people and does so without adequate evidence or support. I lived through Jim Crow, and I remember all of the things that were said and done to people simply because of their circumstances of birth. For many younger people, Jim Crow is an abstraction or something they have read about in history class. I’m willing to bet that the type and degree of reactions to any notion of “separate but equal” would be different depending on whether that was an experienced reality or an abstraction of sorts.
    Challenging someone’s assertions is not the same as attacking them personally,

    Thank you, Gram3. Yes, real lives are being damaged by these dangerous doctrines. I appreciate the fact you are a conservative Christian who has carefully studied the Bible and knows that the texts don’t support the subordination of women (and plenty of conservative Christian men have studied The Bible and arrived at the same conclusion).

    And many others have studied the text carefully and arrived at a different conclusion and they, some godly men and women who really want to honor God, get charged with subordinating women, calling women less than, changing the text of scripture, having father issues, and being domineering. It is unfair. This is a secondary issue yet some on both sides are at absolute war over it, not yielding to even the possibility that Christmas may hold different views on secondary issues. I freely admit that I may be wrong and I openly say that if you have studied this and arrive at a different conclusion I respect you and your right to discuss, promote, and stand for your beliefs. What I do not support is false associations of everyone who believes comp with the worst twisting of the belief. I do not support disparaging the character of others by innuendo, as if every comp has to be some weak minded raging man who wants to lord over others. I do not support the demonstrably false charges against Bible translators that they are taking the place of the holy spirit by supplying English words in translation.

  388. @ JohnD:
    Finger trouble, inadvertantly posted the above comment before finishing it.

    When I realised that he was imposing what I call ‘salvation apartheid’ and Female Subordinationism – ‘gender apartheid’ – on the church, my ‘never again in my lifetime’ response kicked in. It is a very powerful driver. I understand the intensity with which others are prepared to oppose the injustice.

  389. JohnD wrote:

    I understand the intensity with which others are prepared to oppose the injustice.

    My responsibility is greater. I unthinkingly supported what I thought was the “right” thing and abdicated my responsibility to be a Berean. I was loved and cherished as a daughter and wife, so why rock the boat and buy myself some trouble. Then I saw people I cared deeply about being abused and their souls crushed by this System that presents such a benign and even benevolent face. I deeply regret the part I played in that, and I wonder what would have happened if I had spoken up even 30 or 20 years ago. Mostly I am ashamed that I did not question what I was taught or my teachers.

  390. Js wrote:

    I freely admit that I may be wrong and I openly say that if you have studied this and arrive at a different conclusion I respect you and your right to discuss, promote, and stand for your beliefs. What I do not support is false associations of everyone who believes comp with the worst twisting of the belief.

    But the real problem is not how JS feels or about how JS treats women. Even though you may not feel like you are putting women in a subordinate place, you are, in fact doing that. My hope is that you will think about this carefully. And, as Jeff S has said several times, see if you could or would say what you say about women and substitute “black man.” It is the same kind of thing, and I trust that you are not a man who would say such things about black men.

    A person who is a benevolent boss or a benevolent slaveholder is still a boss and still a slaveholder. The employee or the slave is still an employee or a slave who must obey. That is the very big point which you cannot see for some reason. Telling slaves to obey their masters is *not* a ratification of the institution of slavery. Similarly, an instruction to wives at Ephesus and Colossae to be submissive/submit to their own husbands is *not* a ratification of Female Subordination as existed under Greek culture. Please think through the logic of this, because you are really missing the point.

    You cannot demonstrate that I have made a false charge about the addition of words to the text. You have asserted but have not demonstrated that those additions to the words of the Holy Spirit are necessary for clarity. The text as given makes perfect sense. It does not support Female Subordinationism in the original words of the text, but those words make perfect sense. You argument that some others have inserted the words and your testimony of their good motives for doing so does not address the question at hand. Should words be added to the texts as given or taken away from the texts as given unless it is necessary to do so to render a sensible meaning in the target language. If your criterion is that it is permissible as long as a group of people say it is permissible, then I say that is a very loose principle which can then be legitimately exploited by cults. We have rules of interpretation, and I think we should apply them consistently, regardless of our POV.

  391. Js wrote:

    This is a secondary issue yet some on both sides are at absolute war over it, not yielding to even the possibility that Christmas may hold different views on secondary issues.

    The Female Subordinationists, as I have said repeatedly, have made this a Gospel issue. I did not pick this fight, believe me. I would have done almost anything to avoid it, but real people–not cardboard women and men–are damaged by these doctrines and some have walked away from the faith because they believe that God has created them as “less than” and that there is no way that they can ever be “as good as” and all the words in the world will not change that reality.

    I am a done because I was disfellowshipped for having a different opinion. In YRR churches, you are not permitted to deviate from the approved doctrines in any way. RBMW and Grudem’s ST is right there alongside the Bible, and one dare not question Grudem or Piper or Mahaney or some others who have been mentioned here. Those are the facts on the ground. If I heard someone teach these doctrines in a class, I and other women were not free to say a word that contradicted the gurus, even if we pointed to eisegesis, as in RBMW, or the historical context into which Paul spoke. That is and was forbidden. You have no idea what we went through with our elders. That is not what conservatives used to be about. We used to be about defending the Gospel and not adding to it. We used to be about upholding the authority of the Bible and not famous men with clever words. What we have now in “conservative” Christianity is pure reactionary non-thinking. You may not do that in your church, but that is what is happening whether you choose to believe it or not.

    I have asked you for evidence from the text where God ordained this hierarchy. You have not produced that ordination, and I will not be silent when someone asserts that women are created as lesser/subordinate Submitters while men have no corresponding “call” to submit as well.

  392. js wrote:

    I think Paul teaches that women are saved through childbearing too, because that is what the text says. I admit freely that I don’t know what it means,…

    …. I was simply saying I believe thst verse because that is what the text says…. There was no motivation to put anybody down for not having children.

    Sometimes gender comps have good intentions, but your good intentions still hurt people.

    Gender comp really is nothing but old fashioned sexism with Bible verses sprinkled on top.

    You may not see it that way, but that is exactly what it comes down to.

    Gender comp is papered over with so many pretty sounding words and pious intents, it’s hard for you to see it for what it really is.

    I used to be one, I was brought up in it. The blinders finally fell off, though.

    At the end of the day, gender comp really is about keeping women subordinate.

    Gender comp is not about equality, mutuality, and helping women to pursue and practice their talents to the fullest.

    About the verse about women being saved in child birth.

    I have never married, nor have I ever had children. The vast majority of gender comp, however, is obsessed with motherhood and marriage (wives).

    Gender comp has next to nothing to offer, or say to or about, never-married, child free, or childless women (or divorced or widowed women).

    And that should be one big clue to you that gender comp is not biblical: it does not and cannot apply across the board to all women in all Life circumstances.

    American Gender Comp also excludes women who are in poverty, who live in third world nations, etc, such as discussed here:

    On Being a Woman After God’s Own Heart
    Biblical womanhood, or cultural womanhood?

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/being-woman-after-gods-own-heart

    American gender complementarianism (and I dislike using a term favored by liberals, but here it does seem to fit) is a position of middle class (and possibly American / white) privilege.

    You really have to fit a narrow set of traits for gender comp to be applicable to you.

    I may be a woman, but gender comp does not really apply to me, since I am single and childless.

    Gender Comp does not speak to me or for me, since I don’t fit the Gender Comp ideal of “married with kids” demographic.

  393. Js wrote:

    And many others have studied the text carefully and arrived at a different conclusion and they, some godly men and women who really want to honor God, get charged with subordinating women, calling women less than, changing the text of scripture, having father issues, and being domineering. It is unfair.

    As to these specific points:

    “get charged with subordinating women, calling women less than, changing the text of scripture”

    That is all true.

    Gender comp does subordinate women. What would you say if you came to me for a job, and I told you that you were qualified for it but I would not hire you because I don’t think a MAN should hold it?

    That I am barring you only due to your GENDER? That is keeping someone subordinate. It’s what gender comps do every day of the week to Christian women, in the church and sometimes outside of the church.

    (Some gender comps don’t think women should attend college, move out from mom and dad’s house, etc.)

    Male translators have in fact intentionally tampered with the biblical text to hide the fact that the Bible does mention women as being apostles or leaders in churches (I’ve given links on previous posts and examples). That is true.

    Gender comp does in fact send the message that women are less than men. Sometimes this is less obvious than at other times…

    There are some gender comp authors (Gram 3 would probably recall who) that teach women are not as fully in God’s image as males because women are only “indirectly” made by God.

  394. Gram3 wrote:

    Js wrote:
    This is a secondary issue yet some on both sides are at absolute war over it, not yielding to even the possibility that Christmas may hold different views on secondary issues.
    The Female Subordinationists, as I have said repeatedly, have made this a Gospel issue. I did not pick this fight, believe me. I would have done almost anything to avoid it, but real people–not cardboard women and men–are damaged by these doctrines and some have walked away from the faith because they believe that God has created them as “less than” and that there is no way that they can ever be “as good as” and all the words in the world will not change that reality.
    I am a done because I was disfellowshipped for having a different opinion. In YRR churches, you are not permitted to deviate from the approved doctrines in any way. RBMW and Grudem’s ST is right there alongside the Bible, and one dare not question Grudem or Piper or Mahaney or some others who have been mentioned here. Those are the facts on the ground. If I heard someone teach these doctrines in a class, I and other women were not free to say a word that contradicted the gurus, even if we pointed to eisegesis, as in RBMW, or the historical context into which Paul spoke. That is and was forbidden. You have no idea what we went through with our elders. That is not what conservatives used to be about. We used to be about defending the Gospel and not adding to it. We used to be about upholding the authority of the Bible and not famous men with clever words. What we have now in “conservative” Christianity is pure reactionary non-thinking. You may not do that in your church, but that is what is happening whether you choose to believe it or not.
    I have asked you for evidence from the text where God ordained this hierarchy. You have not produced that ordination, and I will not be silent when someone asserts that women are created as lesser/subordinate Submitters while men have no corresponding “call” to submit as well.

    Gram3,
    I agree with most of what you have said, except “conservative christianity”, as I have experienced it, has always had it’s “pet secondary issues” that become primary issues, to die on….. As I have described in previous posts, I am practicing scientist/engineer/professor at a major US University, with a specialty in Biotechnology/medicine. I also grew up (part of my youth) in a fundamentalist baptist background. I experienced (and still do) similar “abuse” as you and other women have, for my scientific views… (i.e. I try to be honest with the scientific data) and this happened long before YRR, Neo-con, etc.. In another words, this behavior is not new….

  395. Gram3 wrote:

    Mostly I am ashamed that I did not question what I was taught or my teachers.

    I appreciate your study and your input on this topic (and others) and hope you don’t feel bad anymore.

  396. Gram3 wrote:

    The Female Subordinationists, as I have said repeatedly, have made this a Gospel issue. I did not pick this fight, believe me.

    I have to say that even if gender complementarians had not taken the gender issue to the level of Gospel importance (though some have done so), it still hurt me as a kid and young adult, (and I’m dealing with some of the aftermath of it into my early middle age).

    As a kid, teen, and college aged person, I kept getting the message in the gender comp teaching I got from my Christian parents, church sermons, Christian TV shows, and Christian magazines I read, that I am lesser than men.

    And/or I am flawed someway, was born inherently, deeply flawed, and God thinks I’m not as good or competent as men, just because I was born a girl.

    No matter how often the preachers or Christian books said, “But hey, lady, you are loved JUST AS MUCH by God as men are,” that is not how the teaching made me feel. I could sense something off about it.

    I could see that it really was making women lower than men and unfairly limiting them.

    I just hate how gender comps think they can keep repeating the “you’re equal in worth, but not in role, but that’s okay,” as though that is some magic mantra that makes it okay to discriminate against women.

    I can see through it now. I tried to believe it when I was younger, but I am not blind to it anymore.

  397. @ JohnD:
    There are significant similarities between the apartheid system and New Calvinism. One of the official euphemisms for apartheid was ‘Plural Development’. The euphemism for Female Subordinationism is ‘Complementarianism’. Apartheid had its ‘separate but equal’ and Female Subordinationism has its ‘fundamental spiritual and moral equality of male and female and men as responsible servant-leaders in the home and church’.

    The relentless cogent criticism of the theory of apartheid produced increasingly contorted arguments in response. The deja vu when observing the Female Subordinationists defend their position is remarkable. There is one thing that can be said for the proponents of apartheid – they did not mess around with the Trinity in trying to defend their position, even if they did rely on their particular Calvinistic interpretation of scripture to justify their policy.

    As Gram3 says Jim Crow is an abstraction to most Americans now. Apartheid is similarly an abstraction to younger South Africans. There is no spontaneous aversion to discrimination and authoritarianism in the church. Thus unfettered elder power and Female Subordination are accepted. I believe however that just as apartheid became unsustainable so will Female Subordinationism.

  398. Daisy wrote:

    There are some gender comp authors (Gram 3 would probably recall who) that teach women are not as fully in God’s image as males because women are only “indirectly” made by God.

    That’s Bruce Ware. If you search “bruce ware derivative image god” you should find the quotes. Owen, his son-in-law, also teaches that. They also teach that man is the glory of God while woman is only the glory of man. Notice the equivocation from the actual text along with the assumed meaning of “glory.”

  399. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    I agree with most of what you have said, except “conservative christianity”, as I have experienced it, has always had it’s “pet secondary issues” that become primary issues, to die on

    Yes, I see your point, and I should have been more specific about what I meant by that. When I was younger, it used to be common knowledge that you avoid the IFBs and the 1689ers because they are so dogmatic. The SBC, back then, was a place where we could talk about things.

    When I say conservative, I’m really talking about the authority and textual reliablity of the texts we have, inerrancy of the original manuscripts (an axiom for me, not something I can prove or press on anyone else), and the principle of sola scriptura. I have been in a variety of conservative churches defined by these criteria, and the secondary issues have been all over the board. It is absolutely true that various “conservative” churches are die-hard over issues we cannot prove and about which there can be no discussion. Even within churches, there are people whose bobbins are wound way too tightly about certain secondary or even tertiary issues.

  400. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    I am practicing scientist/engineer/professor at a major US University, with a specialty in Biotechnology/medicine

    When the New Creation arrives in its fullness, I hope to be able to understand the things that you and OldJohnJ and Nick and Muff talk about. My brain will be renewed and updated with new functionalities, I trust.

  401. Gram3 wrote:

    Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
    I agree with most of what you have said, except “conservative christianity”, as I have experienced it, has always had it’s “pet secondary issues” that become primary issues, to die on
    Yes, I see your point, and I should have been more specific about what I meant by that. When I was younger, it used to be common knowledge that you avoid the IFBs and the 1689ers because they are so dogmatic. The SBC, back then, was a place where we could talk about things.
    When I say conservative, I’m really talking about the authority and textual reliablity of the texts we have, inerrancy of the original manuscripts (an axiom for me, not something I can prove or press on anyone else), and the principle of sola scriptura. I have been in a variety of conservative churches defined by these criteria, and the secondary issues have been all over the board. It is absolutely true that various “conservative” churches are die-hard over issues we cannot prove and about which there can be no discussion. Even within churches, there are people whose bobbins are wound way too tightly about certain secondary or even tertiary issues.

    It is human nature… One of my “revelations” when I became a Professor was that being worldly was as much about thinking you have the superior argument, or superior “sub-culture”, approach etc, and not what you do not due (drink, smoke, or go with girls that do!) In another words, the behavior of some of my fundy friends behavior was not much different than some academic colleagues, just that the subject/topic that they think they are correct/superior on is different!!

  402. JohnD wrote:

    I believe however that just as apartheid became unsustainable so will Female Subordinationism.

    I think the latest book that came out where they are moving toward ontological subordination in the immanent Trinity is a significant indicator. I’m blanking on the name of the book, but Daisy linked awhile ago or maybe upthread to a Steve Holmes (IIRC) post about how the goalposts keep shifting. Daisy also linked to another post that recaps the shifting rationales for Female Subordinationism. For me, the clincher is that they maintain that subordination is part of Creation, but it is nowhere in the Creation narrative. Their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 depends upon there being some reference to that in Genesis, but there we find mutuality and complementarity without hierarchy explicitly revealed. Their success depends on suppressing information and thought, and that is becoming increasingly more difficult.

  403. Gram3 wrote:

    When the New Creation arrives in its fullness, I hope to be able to understand the things that you and OldJohnJ and Nick and Muff talk about. My brain will be renewed and updated with new functionalities, I trust.

    Jolly good. So: cricket…

  404. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    One of my “revelations” when I became a Professor was that being worldly was as much about thinking you have the superior argument, or superior “sub-culture”, approach etc, and not [whether you smoke etc]

    How true… it’s embarrassing to look back on the way I knew absolutely everything within about 6 months of discovering that The_Bible_Is_The_Word_Of_God™.

  405. @ JohnD:
    Thank your for that comparison, John D. Was it original dutch Calvinism that deepened apartheid in the beginning? Is it the same kind of thing that the neo-cals are bringing back now?

  406. Js wrote:

    And many others have studied the text carefully and arrived at a different conclusion and they, some godly men and women who really want to honor God, get charged with subordinating women, calling women less than, changing the text of scripture, having father issues, and being domineering. It is unfair

    Let us be clear: The subordinates already had their political/religious/traditions in place and they went proof-texting to try to back up their argument. Worse yet, they have wanted to impose it on others as part of The Gospel and of The Bible and *what God really wants/demands*. That is an arrogant and outrageous claim.

    It’s one thing if you prefer to live your life that way. Fine, go ahead. It’s fine if you find a spouse who agrees with that as well.

    But and the other comps make a serious mistake when you say that Christians aren’t somehow Christian-enough, obeying God enough, and the rest of the stuff that group espouses.

  407. Gram3 wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    There are some gender comp authors (Gram 3 would probably recall who) that teach women are not as fully in God’s image as males because women are only “indirectly” made by God.

    That’s Bruce Ware. If you search “bruce ware derivative image god” you should find the quotes. Owen, his son-in-law, also teaches that. They also teach that man is the glory of God while woman is only the glory of man. Notice the equivocation from the actual text along with the assumed meaning of “glory.”

    And my question is…what woman in her right mind ever agreed to date them, let alone marry them? I’m a conservative Christian and I would never put up with that. I wouldn’t even finish a cup of coffee with a man or a dinner date. I would get up and walk out. Deal breaker. Waste of my time. Immature. Arrogant.

  408. Gram3 wrote:

    That’s Bruce Ware. If you search “bruce ware derivative image god” you should find the quotes. Owen, his son-in-law, also teaches that. They also teach that man is the glory of God while woman is only the glory of man. Notice the equivocation from the actual text along with the assumed meaning of “glory.”

    Okay, thank you.

  409. Gram3 wrote:

    JohnD wrote:

    I understand the intensity with which others are prepared to oppose the injustice.

    My responsibility is greater. I unthinkingly supported what I thought was the “right” thing and abdicated my responsibility to be a Berean. I was loved and cherished as a daughter and wife, so why rock the boat and buy myself some trouble. Then I saw people I cared deeply about being abused and their souls crushed by this System that presents such a benign and even benevolent face. I deeply regret the part I played in that, and I wonder what would have happened if I had spoken up even 30 or 20 years ago. Mostly I am ashamed that I did not question what I was taught or my teachers.

    But when you did become a Berean, when you did study it, you helped save my soul and spirit from that authoritarian, abusive Gulag NeoCal Church! You gave me a smile again. From the bottom of my heart, thanks for figuring it out…and then teaching me to do the same!

  410. Gram3 wrote:

    I think the latest book that came out where they are moving toward ontological subordination in the immanent Trinity is a significant indicator. I’m blanking on the name of the book, but Daisy linked awhile ago or maybe upthread to a Steve Holmes (IIRC) post about how the goalposts keep shifting. Daisy also linked to another post that recaps the shifting rationales for Female Subordinationism.

    I think this is it:
    Reflections of a New Defence of Complementarianism
    http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507

  411. Velour wrote:

    And my question is…what woman in her right mind ever agreed to date them, let alone marry them? I’m a conservative Christian and I would never put up with that. I wouldn’t even finish a cup of coffee with a man or a dinner date. I would get up and walk out. Deal breaker.

    One thing you have to be careful of. I’ve seen this a time or two on other forums, and I think it was HUG (or someone) who was telling me a long time ago either here on the Internet Monk site that he knew a Christian woman who no longer believed in female subordination (gender comp). She started dating this Christian guy who insisted he did not either.

    So, they later marry. After they marry, the guy then admits to this woman he had been lying and is totally into gender comp and thinks it’s her duty to serve him and all the other gender comp malarky. If I remember correctly, I think this guy became increasingly rude, selfish, and/or abusive. I think the person telling me this said she divorce the guy after about a year.

    I’ve seen similar, and domestic abuse books warn about this: Some guys will be respectful to the woman while dating, but once they marry, POW, the guy becomes abusive, controlling, acts like a wife is supposed to be a doormat to the husband.

    But some guys will intentionally lie while dating about believing in women’s equality, but once they have you on the hook (usually marriage), they take off their mask and the rules change.

  412. @ Velour:
    That’s super. The people I knew who were crushed by this can smile again, too. And as a result of what they went through, others have seen behind the curtain and are free as well.

  413. Daisy wrote:

    So, they later marry. After they marry, the guy then admits to this woman he had been lying and is totally into gender comp and thinks it’s her duty to serve him and all the other gender comp malarky. If I remember correctly, I think this guy became increasingly rude, selfish, and/or abusive. I think the person telling me this said she divorce the guy after about a year.
    I’ve seen similar, and domestic abuse books warn about this: Some guys will be respectful to the woman while dating, but once they marry, POW, the guy becomes abusive, controlling, acts like a wife is supposed to be a doormat to the husband.
    But some guys will intentionally lie while dating about believing in women’s equality, but once they have you on the hook (usually marriage), they take off their mask and the rules change

    Yes, women do have to be careful. There are men who will deceive women. But usually the bad attitudes can’t be hidden forever.

  414. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Velour:
    That’s super. The people I knew who were crushed by this can smile again, too. And as a result of what they went through, others have seen behind the curtain and are free as well.

    You will never understand how much you mean to me, what you did for me at a conservative Christian woman! I am FREE!!!!

  415. A fictional open letter to complementarian lurkers from the commenters of TWW,

    Dear (not really, you are not dear, I can’t even consider you a friend because . . . Subordinationism!) but I digress . . .

    Complementarian lurker . . .

    First of all, let me say, if you are a complementarian you are not only a sexist, you are to be lumped in with the Jim Crow south and apartheid.

    Complementarians, take note. You are ALL, every last one of you, no matter what you say to the contrary, no matter what you believe, involved directly in all kinds of sin because you believe that the Bible teaches that there are God-given roles in marriage of servant-leadership and submission. You are the reason there are pedophiles in the church. They are all in the YRR, you see. No, I can’t prove that and I’m not going to bother to research what is going on elsewhere, but it just has to be that way because complementarianism is such a soul-crushing existence and because . . . CJ Mahaney!

    The reason men slap women is you, demanding that wives submit to husbands. Slapping your wife has nothing to do with Ephesians 5 servant-leadership, you say? I say that’s where the System(TM) has to lead. Wait, you say, the complementarian couples in my church whose marriages are flourishing disagree? No way. They’re just lucky, my friend, you don’t know what goes on behind closed doors after all, and if they are ok, they would have been ok anyway (not that we can acknowledge that any complementarian couples might be happy and holy, no ground can be given in this battle). It just can’t be that people could genuinely believe such drivel, you see. There just has to be an agenda.

    And all those Bible translators from the 1901 ASV who supplied the word “symbol” to 1 Co. 11:10? Just a product of their male-dominated culture. And all those egalitarians who translated the Revised English Bible the same way in 1989? Well, we don’t know their motivations, after all, there were only a bunch of women and a preponderance of egalitarians in the group. Who really knows? But we know about that rascally Wayne Grudem. We know the real motivation of his heart. He is out to destroy women’s lives in the name of Jesus, don’t you see. It’s all part of his diabolical plot to chain women in the bonds of law so he hijacked a translation to make it male dominated. What, you say? He used the translation used by the majority of versions in supplying that word? It doesn’t matter because he is evil, comrade. Keep down the women! Cause if we keep them down we’ll have half as many students possible to enroll in our seminaries. It makes perfect sense, right? Plus Grudem knows we complementarians can feel real powerful because as short people with fluttery hands it just really comes down to trying to make up for our deficiencies.

    Always remember, my complementarian lurkers out there, this has nothing to do with our convictions based on careful study, it is always and forever about tradition and the status quo and protecting our jobs and it is never, ever because you came to this honestly through study. Because there is, of course, only one possible interpretation of these verses . . . mine. And if you can’t show your work for how you get to my interpretation then you are just . . . spineless.

    And yes, remember complementarians, even those of us who don’t believe in ESS are all to be treated as if we do. Remember that. You have to hold to ESS even if you don’t believe it, because that’s what comps do. We are all so very monolithic you see.

    No, there’s no way that the design of marriage could actually be a part of the new creation, as God takes existing structures and redeems them. I know He does that with the church and with parenting and with government but it can’t possibly happen in marriage because . . . oppression.

    And don’t forget that in all that we’re saying that this is a secondary issue. Can’t you tell it is secondary by how very accommodating we are to diversity of beliefs?

    I hope this letter will show you the error of your ways. But if it doesn’t, just think about how bad your relationship with your dad was, because that is why you are a complementarian. Just think about all those poor women out there who are shackled by this oppressive System (TM) the next time you even think about coming to any conclusion other than egalitarianism. Think about how you are contributing to those terrible circumstances when you insist that husbands give themselves up for their wives.

    I hope all complementarian lurkers will heed these words and turn away from this secondary issue that is destroying the Church.

  416. Velour wrote:

    And my question is…what woman in her right mind ever agreed to date them, let alone marry them?

    Well, I can think of several situations, but I’ll describe a couple. Young lady meets a young guy who checks all the boxes. Fine Christian man from all appearances. Great family. She falls in love, and he does, too. They are members of a close and caring and serious church. It wasn’t until after the relationship moved toward engagement that she paid attention to warning flags that she had dismissed as “loving concern.” However, when she allowed herself to question one thing, other things started coming into focus. The guys church friends give him a hard time about her unsubmissiveness. The pastor rebukes her and the women of the church put the pressure on. Stalking ensues followed by very stern warnings from her family and the law for guy to stay away from her. Let’s say the young lady did not have friends and family who were able to help her to see her self-deception? What if she did not have a strong personality who could stand up against the social pressure? After all, this was her church, too, and the pastor was a man she trusted who totally did a 180. Without those support systems and her personal resolve *and her belief in her own worth as a person* she might well have found herself in a situation like Anna Duggar or Karen Hinkley. Then what?

    Or another young lady who was engaged and the guy cheated on her. She trusted him. He was a great Christian guy who also checked all the boxes. Because she had a supportive family and supportive friends who loved her more than the System, she got out. But she was nearly destroyed by his infidelity, and her self-esteem, proper self-esteem, had to be re-built, and I was privileged to help her do that. She subsequently met another guy who was raised in this but who also had a very strong and educated mother. When he got a little flaky, his mother told him to wake up and shape up or he was going to lose the best thing that ever happened to him. Her dad also had some input into the lad’s thinking along with Gramp3 working alongside the young man. He was wise and looked beyond the System, and they are happily married today in a mutually loving and respectful marriage.

    People misjudge people’s character, motives, maturity, and all kinds of things. The System provides no safeguards for the woman. Not any that I’ve seen except for men and women who are not captive to the System but can see the real people. As an elder, Gramp3 has gone to bat for many a single woman who was ignored, and in some cases mistreated, by the church because they were not as important as the men or there was an ideological issue which trumped love and service.

    There are many good, single men out there, but they are smitten with these doctrines which puff them up. I know a few who have come out of the fog, but they face a lot of pressure, too.

  417. Gram3 wrote:

    When the New Creation arrives in its fullness, I hope to be able to understand the things that you and OldJohnJ and Nick and Muff talk about.

    Perhaps those of us privileged to look a little deeper in some areas of science understand better the depth of questions that we will someday see answered. I speak only for my self but there doesn’t seem to be any end to such questioning.

    And also, thank you for your clarity in addressing theological topics.

  418. Velour wrote:

    Yes, women do have to be careful. There are men who will deceive women. But usually the bad attitudes can’t be hidden forever.

    FWIW, I also know of a case where a great guy married a young lady who also seemed like a great match. After the wedding, however, she started demanding that he be as self-sacrificing as Christ and as perfect as Christ. It is the flip side of what we usually talk about here. The marriage did not last, unfortunately, because he could not bear up under the unrelenting pressure, and she left him because “he failed her.” He recently remarried, and friends report they are very happy in a mutual relationship.

  419. js wrote:

    I hope all complementarian lurkers will heed these words and turn away from this secondary issue that is destroying the Church.

    Finally, something we can agree upon!

  420. @ js:
    You totally miss the points that have been made. No one opposing “Complementarianism” is insisting that people only have Biblical marriages if they are Female Subordinationists. We say that husbands and wives have freedom in Christ, which is freedom from man-made laws and systems and the people who impose them. So, we are not the ones imposing this on other people. We are not kicking people out of churches who disagree or silencing them.

    You have assumed the structures of the New Creation without demonstrating that said structures were part of the original Very Good Creation. Therefore, you have begged the question. That is why your position is unpersuasive.

    You have made numerous appeals to authority, which is a somewhat circular approach since we are disagreeing about the extent and the nature of authority in the home and the church.

    You have accused the Deebs of wrong motives, but you complain about people who question your motives. Why the double standard?

    You are the one asserting an authoritative position over all females in your church and over your wife in the home. Without showing a warrant for that. But somehow people who comment on a blog are bullies because they vehemently refuse to be pushed under your care.

    Jesus and Paul both gave all people, male and female, the warrant to free themselves of extra-biblical rules and gave all who are in Christ the Holy Spirit who is our indwelling Authority. He has gifted *people* in his body to minister to *one another* and those giftings are not assigned or apportioned according to gender, according to the Bible, tradition notwithstanding. If indeed the Holy Spirit has gifted women for all kinds of service in the church, then those who hinder them using those gifts for the benefit of the body are hindering the work of the Holy Spirit.

    All of this has nothing to do with motivation or intent. It has to do with what the Bible actually teaches versus what tradition teaches, and it has to do with the effects that these doctrines have on the souls and bodies of real people. I am very sorry that you are so flip about this, because it is real.

    Paul told us to stand firm in our freedom in Christ and not to be bound any longer by traditions and laws of human beings. The law has been fulfilled in Christ, the Promised Seed. He has freed us from the results of sin in Genesis 3. He has made a way for all kinds of people to be reconciled, yet some wish to re-partition the body of Christ. He has made us all Priests of the New Covenant, yet some wish to perpetuate the Temple System in a different form.

    Those are a few things to consider. You started with an accusation, and it appears you have ended with an accusation and a mis-characterization of the points that we have tried to get you to see. We have asked for your Biblical evidence and reasoning, so we have not dismissed you. We have asked for evidence for our obligation to stay within the bounds of a Role which God has supposedly ordained, whether we are male or female. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for a warrant for this teaching beyond appealing to those who have what, in other fields, would be considered a conflict of interest.

  421. Gram3 wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    Yes, women do have to be careful. There are men who will deceive women. But usually the bad attitudes can’t be hidden forever.

    FWIW, I also know of a case where a great guy married a young lady who also seemed like a great match. After the wedding, however, she started demanding that he be as self-sacrificing as Christ and as perfect as Christ. It is the flip side of what we usually talk about here. The marriage did not last, unfortunately, because he could not bear up under the unrelenting pressure, and she left him because “he failed her.” He recently remarried, and friends report they are very happy in a mutual relationship.

    Yes, women are capable of doing despicable things to good men.

  422. Gram3, Daisy, Bridget, Jeff, and others:

    You have mentioned various books you are reading, links etc. Would you be so kind as to post them at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, Books, etc.

    It would be helpful to me, and others, who would like to read the things you all have mentioned, for instance undoing the comp doctrines.

    Thank you.

  423. I have tried to be honest and kind throughout my time here. My original criticism was made carefully and without disparaging the good work that is often done here.

    You are amazingly adept at turning everything around to make yourself the guardian and defender of truth, always on the side of the downtrodden but you can’t accept an alternative point of view on a secondary issue and quite honestly I think you have a tough time admitting when you’re wrong (and you are just factually wrong about your assertion that translations which supply a word 1 Co. 11:10 are gender-biased, adding to the Holy Spirit).

    I’ll let the things I’ve said here and the spirit in which I’ve said them stand as they are. Readers can reach their own conclusions about what they think, as it should be when there is exchange of ideas in a public forum.

  424. js wrote:

    I have tried to be honest and kind throughout my time here. My original criticism was made carefully and without disparaging the good work that is often done here.

    You are amazingly adept at turning everything around to make yourself the guardian and defender of truth, always on the side of the downtrodden but you can’t accept an alternative point of view on a secondary issue and quite honestly I think you have a tough time admitting when you’re wrong (and you are just factually wrong about your assertion that translations which supply a word 1 Co. 11:10 are gender-biased, adding to the Holy Spirit).

    I’ll let the things I’ve said here and the spirit in which I’ve said them stand as they are. Readers can reach their own conclusions about what they think, as it should be when there is exchange of ideas in a public forum.

    js,

    How old are you? Are you single or married?

    Gram3 and Gramp3 are conservative Christians who have been married for decades. They have lived through the church’s changes, know that it wasn’t always *this way*, been faithful Christians, been active in church, and studied The Bible.
    They also have a strong and loving marriage, one of equality. It is healthy.

    What may work for you would not work for others, including them. I have yet to see you admit, “You know, other Christians have perfectly fine marriages and they don’t believe what I do about men’s and women’s roles.”

  425. In closing out my involvement here for now, let me say I encourage you all to study these things from both perspectives, even if you feel pretty locked in to your position. I encourage you to carefully study the most relevant Scriptures (1 Co. 11, 1 Tim. 2, Eph. 5, Col. 3. 1 Pet. 3) and even read commentaries from both sides of the issues.

    Read at cbeinternational.org for many interesting articles from an egalitarian/mutualist perspective. Get their reading lists and follow the trails that interest you. Take advantage of any local seminary libraries near you. I have found on a popular level as strange as this may sound that Barnes and Noble has better Christian material than the Christian bookstore, and of course there are tons of online resources.

    Of course, the Gospel Coalition has a great variety of resources on this topic and I personally benefit from much that is written at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

    For every two articles you read in support of your view, read one in support of the other view.

    God bless each of you. Your friend in Christ, js

  426. js wrote:

    can’t accept an alternative point of view on a secondary issue and quite honestly

    For me, JS, the entire problem is bound up in the “secondary issue” statements that are made. How is complementariansim a secondary issue when it is taught in women’s Bible Studies, included in “what we believe” statements, tied to the Gospel and the Trinity? There are virtually no places of worship where I can go and agree with a great part of the doctrines taught and not also be ostracized because I don’t believe in the complementarian teachings of the church. It is very difficult. Husbands don’t want their wives to build relationship with me because I might polute their thinking. The church is a black hole to me at the moment.

  427. I saw this after my closing post a moment ago so I will briefly answer . . .
    Velour wrote:

    js wrote:

    How old are you? Are you single or married?
    Gram3 and Gramp3 are conservative Christians who have been married for decades. They have lived through the church’s changes, know that it wasn’t always *this way*, been faithful Christians, been active in church, and studied The Bible.
    They also have a strong and loving marriage, one of equality. It is healthy.
    What may work for you would not work for others, including them. I have yet to see you admit, “You know, other Christians have perfectly fine marriages and they don’t believe what I do about men’s and women’s roles.”

    You know, other Christians have perfectly fine marriages and they don’t believe what I do about men’s and women’s roles. I can say that with no problem because I believe this is a secondary issue where difference of opinion can exist. I wonder if some of the more vociferous people on TWW could say what I just said if the situation were reversed?

    I’m not a gramp yet but I’ve been married for over 20 years and am firmly in the middle age category.

  428. Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:
    can’t accept an alternative point of view on a secondary issue and quite honestly
    For me, JS, the entire problem is bound up in the “secondary issue” statements that are made. How is complementariansim a secondary issue when it is taught in women’s Bible Studies, included in “what we believe” statements, tied to the Gospel and the Trinity? There are virtually no places of worship where I can go and agree with a great part of the doctrines taught and not also be ostracized because I don’t believe in the complementarian teachings of the church. It is very difficult. Husbands don’t want their wives to build relationship with me because I might polute their thinking. The church is a black hole to me at the moment.

    I would encourage you to go to cbeinternational.org and check their church search feature. There may be something near you that you don’t know about.

  429. @ OldJohnJ:
    Thank you for your kind words. I agree with what you said about learning leading to more questions and what a great gift curiosity is. It will take eternity to explore and understand the things God has made and to get to know him face to face.

  430. js wrote:

    In closing out my involvement here for now, let me say I encourage you all to study these things from both perspectives, even if you feel pretty locked in to your position

    It’s kind of funny that you think we have not done this.

    I’ve been a believer for 34 years, and I was of the complementarian persuasion for all but the last four years. I am no longer a complementarian. It has been an interesting journey to be sure. Thank’s for the conversation.

  431. js wrote:

    In closing out my involvement here for now, let me say I encourage you all to study these things from both perspectives, even if you feel pretty locked in to your position. I encourage you to carefully study the most relevant Scriptures (1 Co. 11, 1 Tim. 2, Eph. 5, Col. 3. 1 Pet. 3) and even read commentaries from both sides of the issues.

    We agree on that, for sure. We should be Bereans and study carefully.

  432. Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:
    In closing out my involvement here for now, let me say I encourage you all to study these things from both perspectives, even if you feel pretty locked in to your position
    It’s kind of funny that you think we have not done this.
    I’ve been a believer for 34 years, and I was of the complementarian persuasion for all but the last four years. I am no longer a complementarian. It has been an interesting journey to be sure. Thank’s for the conversation.

    I am sure many of you have, I also believe there are lurkers here who haven’t explored the issues at all and are just taking what we say at face value. I also think theology, because it involves an infinite God, is a never-ending joy of exploring and learning and modifying and changing. Being transformed by the renewing of our minds may have a good bit more to do with this kind of approach than we often think.

  433. js wrote:

    You know, other Christians have perfectly fine marriages and they don’t believe what I do about men’s and women’s roles. I can say that with no problem because I believe this is a secondary issue where difference of opinion can exist. I wonder if some of the more vociferous people on TWW could say what I just said if the situation were reversed?
    I’m not a gramp yet but I’ve been married for over 20 years and am firmly in the middle age category.

    Thank you for your prompt reply.

    I found that the comp doctrine has become a primary doctrine in the NeoCal churches and they are foisting their insufferable, un-Biblical rules and *authority* on the rest of us, and we’re not even married to them! Those men have no boundaries! The comp men’s entitlement to authority over others resulted in terrible abuse of good and godly men and women at my former NeoCal Church.
    Sick theology. Sick power games. Sick and destructive people.

    If you are the milder sort, that’s nice. But that’s not what is being foisted on everybody else in so many of these 9Marx/Acts29/NeoCal “gulag churches” as I refer to them.

  434. js wrote:

    I also think theology, because it involves an infinite God, is a never-ending joy of exploring and learning and modifying and changing. Being transformed by the renewing of our minds may have a good bit more to do with this kind of approach than we often think.

    I call it growing. And, when we stop growing, we die in some form or fashion.

  435. js wrote:

    A fictional open letter to complementarian lurkers from the commenters of TWW,

    JS, I know I haven’t been much a part of this conversation (due to time difference and demands of work). But I feel I have to tell you…

    The covert-aggressive approach? Definitely unbecoming.

  436. I thought this was very timely:

    Equal But
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/equal

    By Susan Howell

    …Is it possible to truly believe statements that promise equality, but offer limitations and qualifications to that statement? Of course not. And as a woman, I don’t buy this “equal but” statement, either.

    …”So, saying we are “equal, but…” is to say we are not equal. Period.”

  437. @ Nancy2:
    Certainly. I hope when you read it a song of joy and thankfulness rises in your heart to the Lord for the freedom he has bought for us all. And I hope your husband thinks through the issues carefully, though I think that will be difficult. Obviously he was attracted to a strong and confident woman, but I suspect that his hangup is going to be the issue of obedience to what he has come to believe God demands and possibly a concern about the “who’s in command” question arising from the military culture.

  438. js wrote:

    First of all, let me say, if you are a complementarian you are not only a sexist, you are to be lumped in with the Jim Crow south and apartheid.

    Haven’t had the opportunity to go through the rest of your post but this part smacks of insensitivity and how blind you are regarding this topic.

    The arguments Christians are using today to suppress women (ie, gender complementarianism) are identical to the ones Christians in the 19th century used to insist it was biblical, godly, and acceptable for white Americans to own black Americans as slaves. Please think that over for awhile.

    You are participating in a belief system that devalues women while lying and claiming it glorifies women and God.

    I was raised gender comp and it hurt me. Gender comp taught me that God does not love me (not as much as God loves men). It taught me other negative things.

    Gender complementarianism is sexism.

    Gender comp is also, as taught to women in particular, codependency.

    That is, gender comp (ie, codependency) encourages girls and women (among other harmful traits), to be passive, naive, accept abuse and mistreatment, put other people before themselves even if this puts their safety at risk, to be afraid of people, to be unassertive.

    All of that in turn can and does make girls and women vulnerable to attracting con artists, controlling persons, users, and abusive men.

  439. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    js wrote:
    A fictional open letter to complementarian lurkers from the commenters of TWW,
    JS, I know I haven’t been much a part of this conversation (due to time difference and demands of work). But I feel I have to tell you…
    The covert-aggressive approach? Definitely unbecoming.

    That did seem weird to me, too. Only a few commentors were even involved in this conversation, and all of us didn’t even make the same assertions.

  440. Daisy wrote:

    That is, gender comp (ie, codependency) encourages girls and women (among other harmful traits), to be passive, naive, accept abuse and mistreatment, put other people before themselves even if this puts their safety at risk, to be afraid of people, to be unassertive.
    All of that in turn can and does make girls and women vulnerable to attracting con artists, controlling persons, users, and abusive men.

    And in the NeoCal churches we have seen the comp-believing men not only shamefully abuse women, but also other men. Yes, they do *lord it over* others…entitlement, demands for obedience. They think they’re something *special* and it hurts their feelings that the rest of us don’t see them that way.

  441. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    js wrote:

    A fictional open letter to complementarian lurkers from the commenters of TWW,

    JS, I know I haven’t been much a part of this conversation (due to time difference and demands of work). But I feel I have to tell you…

    The covert-aggressive approach? Definitely unbecoming.

    Yes, for someone who claimed he was married for 20-years, I thought it smacked of immaturity too. I never heard him mention real life. Who knows what is true or not with his posts.

  442. Velour wrote:

    You have mentioned various books you are reading, links etc. Would you be so kind as to post them at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, Books, etc.

    If I have time and can remember, I’ll try to get around to it. 🙂

  443. Daisy wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    You have mentioned various books you are reading, links etc. Would you be so kind as to post them at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, Books, etc.

    If I have time and can remember, I’ll try to get around to it.

    Thanks!

    Gram3, you too! Your reading list.

  444. @ js:

    My impression is that you are not really listening to anything anyone else has said or taken it to heart or seriously (except maybe for the points with Gram3 about a specific Bible verse and how it’s rendered in some version or another).

    I don’t think you appreciate how harmful gender comp has been to me and to others who have been wounded by it or held back in life by it.

  445. @ js:

    I was raised as a gender complementarian and read and listened to a lot of their stuff for years. Even now on occasion I read some of their stuff.

    So thank you for the suggestion to read both sides of the debate, but I’ve been doing that for years anyhow.

  446. One other thought occurred to me. Pause for rolled eyes. OK. John Piper asks the question of what do you tell your daughter when she asks you, “Mommy, what does it mean to be a woman?” Or your son asks you, “Daddy, what does it mean to be a man?”

    The fundamental mistake I think he makes is that our kids don’t ask those kinds of quesitons, or at least my kids and grandkids have not done so to date. From the perspective of a Christian parent, however, if a child *did* ask that question, the correct answer is that God wants us to to be like Jesus and to follow his example. Piper’s question is an unlikely question, and his answer is inadequate.

    True biblical womanhood is not following a formula or a Role, it is being a woman who is conforming herself to Christ’s example. Period. A Biblical man is a man who is conforming himself to Christ’s example. Period. If both husband and wife are indwelt by the same Holy Spirit, is the Holy Spirit so weak that he cannot bring unity to a couple who are both in Christ? Is John Piper’s and Wayne Grudem’s formula more powerful to produce Christlikeness than the Holy Spirit himself? I do not think it is.

    Good parents want their children to learn by imitating them. I think our Father desires us to imitate him, as well, given the many times we are exhorted to do that. And the way we do that is by listening to the Holy Spirit and asking him to help us to be more like Christ who is the exact image of the Father.

    I do not think that the Father wants us to follow the example of John Piper or Wayne Grudem or any other human, and I don’t think he wants any other human being to usurp the rightful place of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. I think that principle applies in all of our relationships, whether it is in the home, the church, or in the world.

  447. Gram3 wrote:

    the correct answer is that God wants us to to be like Jesus and to follow his example

    Amen!

    I do not think that the Father wants us to follow the example of John Piper or Wayne Grudem or any other human, and I don’t think he wants any other human being to usurp the rightful place of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. I think that principle applies in all of our relationships, whether it is in the home, the church, or in the world.

    Exactly!

  448. @ Gram3:

    Permit me to chime in with OldJohnJ. The questions never end and they always generate even more questions. It’s in our nature to want to know: Why? How can I make sense of this, that, and the other? Are they related? And if so, how? …

  449. @ Gram3:
    Thank you, Gram3. I’m a printin’!
    The Lord bought freedom and so much more for us.

    My husband isn’t just retired military, he’s also the oldest of 6 kids. I am also an oldest child, by 9 years, and an oldest grandchild by 8 years, on both sides! So, my husband and I are both “alpha” types. We didn’t have any problems until he retired. Having an alpha type wife can be an advantage to a Special Forces man who’s away a lot! (BTW, Special Forces are not a typical military culture! Those guys are a different species!)

    I think my illness factors into the mix, too. I was bedridden with severe mono for 8 weeks and had a mild stroke while I was down. After that, I tested positive for lupus (not full blown lupus), and was diagnosed with Chronic fatigue syndrome. I went from being outgoing and athletic to struggling to get through a day in a matter of weeks (some better now, but not “normal”). I think our situation was the perfect storm. He retired and began searching for a new purpose — found it through church. Shortly thereafter, I got sick and had to struggle not only with the illness and the medical community (3 years to get proper tests and diagnosis) but also with the resulting depression. My illness had me so down physically and mentally …… Let’s just say that my recognition of and reaction time to my husband’s behavior was not what it would have been if I had been healthy.

    I still have hopes of having a healthy body again. Even if that doesn’t happen, I have more than I deserve! And I’m still going to buck the Female Subordinationalist system! I wasn’t raised that way. This nonsense didn’t start creeping into my life until I was between the ages of 45 and 47. Our first visit with a marriage counselor was a real wake up call for my husband. It didn’t go like he had expected. I don’t think he had even realized what he was doing until then.

    A couple of weeks ago, our marriage counselor told us to take a hike. She said that we don’t need her anymore. She told us that we are a rare and spirit-lifting success story. Of course I still have doubts, but I have no qualms about calling my husband out on anything that doesn’t sit well with me. We have had a very recent talk about ” who is in command”. He didn’t drink that much koolaid.

  450. @ Nancy2:
    First, I’m thankful there are Type A folks in the military. ISTM that Special Forces would be even more “mission” focused than the rest of the military. So, when he retired, all the “who am I” and “What am I worth, now.” I think he saw your strength and that resonated with him.

    I am so sorry for all the health issues which totally change personal dynamics when they just go on and on. Been there, still there, will always be there until I am There with the Lord. I imagine, as a strong person, this has been very tough for you as well, perhaps in some respects the same way that retirement has been for your husband.

    I am so happy that you have been able to work through those issues, or at least start working on the, and that you have some hope. Truly I believe that once the spell is broken and people see how great it is to just appreciate the other person as a person and not as a set of functions, there is no going back.

  451. Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:
    In closing out my involvement here for now, let me say I encourage you all to study these things from both perspectives, even if you feel pretty locked in to your position
    It’s kind of funny that you think we have not done this.

    After this entire thread, I would call it a “bang your head on a brick wall” moment. Sigh.

  452. Lydia wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    js wrote:
    In closing out my involvement here for now, let me say I encourage you all to study these things from both perspectives, even if you feel pretty locked in to your position
    It’s kind of funny that you think we have not done this.

    After this entire thread, I would call it a “bang your head on a brick wall” moment. Sigh.

    Forced study of comp doctrine at my former Gulag NeoCal Church for eight years in *captivity*. No thanks. No more.

    js says he’s been married for 20-years and is middle-aged. His writing doesn’t strike me that way. Nor does the lack of life experience, the problems the comp doctrine has created in his marriage, what his wife says about it all, children etc. It’s just missing an awful lot of real time explanations…his posts.

    On the other hand, Gram3 has posted not only the Biblical study, but the real life applications: her long-time marriage to Gramp3.

  453. @ Nancy2:

    Something that I have found interesting is how many military/ex-mil men seem to gravitate toward the comp churches.

  454. @ Gram3:
    On the lighter side:
    On a trip to see our counselor back in February there was ice and snow everywhere. There were snow banks in the medians 5 ft. high and some places were inaccessible. I’m the better driver in those conditions (he admits that to everyone, weird, huh?), so I drove. We had a few other stops to make. My husband started telling me where to turn …. blah, blah … even though I know the town we were in much better than he does. For once, I just kept my mouth shut and obeyed his directions. We didn’t wreck, but it wasn’t pretty. He finally put his head in his hands, laid his head on the dashboard, and said, “Don’t listen to me!” We laughed.

  455. Bridget wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    Something that I have found interesting is how many military/ex-mil men seem to gravitate toward the comp churches.

    You mean the few of them who go to church? I’m not that familiar with anything but Special Forces, army. Very few of those guys go to church except on special occasions. A lot of them are a bit domineering towards their wives. Some are abusive. Those traits are more prevalent in the military than in the civilian arena.
    The guys whom I knew were that way didn’t like me. Their wives didn’t either. Oh, well.

  456. Did js ever reveal whether he/she is a man or a woman??? I don’t recall. I just assume that js is a man, but what if …….?
    Scary thought!

  457. Nancy2 wrote:

    Did js ever reveal whether he/she is a man or a woman??? I don’t recall. I just assume that js is a man, but what if …….?
    Scary thought!

    I asked. Said he was a man. Said he had been married for 20 years. Mid-40s.
    I am not seeing maturity of life in those posts. Not at all.

  458. Velour wrote:

    I asked. Said he was a man. Said he had been married for 20 years. Mid-40s.
    I am not seeing maturity of life in those posts. Not at all.

    YRR??? I don’t recall him ever mentioning his wife in any of the posts.
    Ken from before mentioned his wife several times.

  459. Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    I asked. Said he was a man. Said he had been married for 20 years. Mid-40s.
    I am not seeing maturity of life in those posts. Not at all.

    YRR??? I don’t recall him ever mentioning his wife in any of the posts.
    Ken from before mentioned his wife several times.

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    I asked. Said he was a man. Said he had been married for 20 years. Mid-40s.
    I am not seeing maturity of life in those posts. Not at all.

    YRR??? I don’t recall him ever mentioning his wife in any of the posts.
    Ken from before mentioned his wife several times.

    I asked js these questions. The response was posted at 8:14 p.m. tonight on the thread.

    I saw this after my closing post a moment ago so I will briefly answer . . .
    Velour wrote:

    js wrote:

    How old are you? Are you single or married?
    Gram3 and Gramp3 are conservative Christians who have been married for decades. They have lived through the church’s changes, know that it wasn’t always *this way*, been faithful Christians, been active in church, and studied The Bible.
    They also have a strong and loving marriage, one of equality. It is healthy.
    What may work for you would not work for others, including them. I have yet to see you admit, “You know, other Christians have perfectly fine marriages and they don’t believe what I do about men’s and women’s roles.”

    You know, other Christians have perfectly fine marriages and they don’t believe what I do about men’s and women’s roles. I can say that with no problem because I believe this is a secondary issue where difference of opinion can exist. I wonder if some of the more vociferous people on TWW could say what I just said if the situation were reversed?

    I’m not a gramp yet but I’ve been married for over 20 years and am firmly in the middle age category.”

  460. @ Nancy2:
    Ok, found the post. “Gramp” I assume is for “grampa “.
    Well, he can live his life the way he believes is right, and we can live our lives the way we believe is right.

  461. Patrice wrote:

    @ JohnD:
    Thank your for that comparison, John D. Was it original dutch Calvinism that deepened apartheid in the beginning? Is it the same kind of thing that the neo-cals are bringing back now?

    The Afrikaners are descended from the original Calvinist Dutch settlers. For the most part they were, until recently, strongly Calvinist. Based on their understanding of Calvinist election they believed that they were a covenant people specially chosen by God. That meant that they were to remain racially pure. Apartheid was predominantly born out of that belief. There were other factors in play as well, such as economic pressures on the Afrikaner group, that contributed to apartheid’s rise.

    The form of Dutch Calvinism that dominated Afrikaner thinking was that of Abraham Kuyper, known as Neo Calvinism. That arose around the beginning of the 20th century. The “NeoCals” referred to here on TWW are different from the Neo Calvinists. The “NeoCals”, generally known as New Calvinists, are heavily criticised by the Neo Calvinists (and other traditional Calvinists) for picking out only aspects of the soteriology and sovereignty of God doctrines of Calvinism (as they understand them) and ignoring other doctrines that are essential to traditional Calvinism, such as baptism replacing circumcision as a sign of being part of God’s covenant people.

    Calvinism has been in rapid decline in the Afrikaner community since the end of apartheid. It is ironic that New Calvinism is rising in the English speaking community that was generally opposed to apartheid. The churches into which it is being introduced have no connection with Afrikaner Calvinist churches but are closely linked to Acts 29 and The Gospel Coalition.

    New Calvinism has no political influence at all. It is present in almost exclusively “white” churches in affluent areas. The only apartheid they promote is the “salvation apartheid” that God allegedly instituted in eternity past.

  462. JohnD wrote:

    ased on their understanding of Calvinist election they believed that they were a covenant people specially chosen by God. That meant that they were to remain racially pure. Apartheid was predominantly born out of that belief. There were other factors in play as well, such as economic pressures on the Afrikaner group, that contributed to apartheid’s rise.

    This makes me think of what was going on here before the Civil War and chattel slavery. The SBC was founded over the issue of taking slaves on the mission field when they split from Northern Baptists.

    The Calvinists really did believe that God sent the slaves here for them to disciple as Christians. They saw it as a good thing the “heathen” were brought here in chains, and kept as slaves so they could be “disciplined” in the Gospel. To them, it was the hand of “Providence”

    We have a seminary here that named its college, Boyce. Boyce was one of founders of SBTS and a proponent of chattel slavery. He was a chaplain in the Confederate Army. In his bio of Boyce, Broaddus, talks about his duty to slaves to disciple them and in general what wonderful godly man he was. It boggles the mind.

    After the Civil War when the determinist god did not allow them to win, the SBC evolved away from the focus on Calvinism.

  463. Nancy2 wrote:

    YRR??? I don’t recall him ever mentioning his wife in any of the posts.

    On other threads he has been very concerned about TWW covering the Kingsway story at what he expressed was at the expense of other bad groups. There was concern about focusing on the Neo Calvinists and not others.

    I had the impression he is affiliated with SGM. (Or whatever it is called these days). SGM was/is very much into shepherding cult methods and have been extremely patriarchal in the recent past. Most of the YRR totally embraced Mahaney and many were mentored by him including Driscoll. The SBC embraced Mahaney methods at SGM. So you get the picture.

    However, I have had some convos with up and coming SGM pastors in the past on other blogs and they present as being open concerning comp doctrine but practice differently even to the point of extreme patriarchy. After all that has happened around the SGM brand and my experiences, It is hard not to project that on to those in and from the SGM world. His concerns about TWW covering the Kingsway story and Neo Calvinism was a red flag to me.

    It seems to me over the years TWW is concerned about the individual stories more so than what movement they come from.

  464. JohnD wrote:

    The form of Dutch Calvinism that dominated Afrikaner thinking was that of Abraham Kuyper, known as Neo Calvinism.

    To make things more interesting, we have our own Neo-Kuyperian VanTilian Reconstructionists who are one flavor of authoritarianism that is also into full-quiver patriarchy. Some of them celebrate the Old South and believe in maintaining social order through hierarchies. Rushdoony is the father of them, though they have split and gone into various directions. They share much of the POV of the Gothardites.

  465. Lydia wrote:

    On other threads he has been very concerned about TWW covering the Kingsway story at what he expressed was at the expense of other bad groups. There was concern about focusing on the Neo Calvinists and not others.
    I had the impression he is affiliated with SGM. (Or whatever it is called these days

    Thanks for filling us in. He seemed pretty intractable and very immature. He never acknowledged that plenty of Christians – including conservative Christians (example: our own Gram3 and her husband Gramp3) – have had decades of long, happy marriages as equals.

  466. JohnD wrote:

    Patrice wrote:
    @ JohnD:
    Thank your for that comparison, John D. Was it original dutch Calvinism that deepened apartheid in the beginning? Is it the same kind of thing that the neo-cals are bringing back now?
    The Afrikaners are descended from the original Calvinist Dutch settlers. For the most part they were, until recently, strongly Calvinist. Based on their understanding of Calvinist election they believed that they were a covenant people specially chosen by God. That meant that they were to remain racially pure. Apartheid was predominantly born out of that belief. There were other factors in play as well, such as economic pressures on the Afrikaner group, that contributed to apartheid’s rise.
    The form of Dutch Calvinism that dominated Afrikaner thinking was that of Abraham Kuyper, known as Neo Calvinism. That arose around the beginning of the 20th century. The “NeoCals” referred to here on TWW are different from the Neo Calvinists. The “NeoCals”, generally known as New Calvinists, are heavily criticised by the Neo Calvinists (and other traditional Calvinists) for picking out only aspects of the soteriology and sovereignty of God doctrines of Calvinism (as they understand them) and ignoring other doctrines that are essential to traditional Calvinism, such as baptism replacing circumcision as a sign of being part of God’s covenant people.
    Calvinism has been in rapid decline in the Afrikaner community since the end of apartheid. It is ironic that New Calvinism is rising in the English speaking community that was generally opposed to apartheid. The churches into which it is being introduced have no connection with Afrikaner Calvinist churches but are closely linked to Acts 29 and The Gospel Coalition.
    New Calvinism has no political influence at all. It is present in almost exclusively “white” churches in affluent areas. The only apartheid they promote is the “salvation apartheid” that God allegedly instituted in eternity past.

  467. oops, hit post too soon.
    @JohnD:
    John, are you familiar with PJ Smyth, the South African pastor who is apparently poised to take over my former home church (and former SGM flagship) Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD, USA?
    Is it possible he is connected in some way with these Afrikaner Calvinists you mention?

  468. Bridget wrote:

    I’ve been a believer for 34 years, and I was of the complementarian persuasion for all but the last four years.

    I’ve been a believer for 43 years, and I was of the complementarian persuasion for all but the last four years.
    I credit John Piper with helping to deconvert me.

  469. JohnD wrote:

    The form of Dutch Calvinism that dominated Afrikaner thinking was that of Abraham Kuyper, known as Neo Calvinism.

    JohnD wrote:

    Calvinism has been in rapid decline in the Afrikaner community since the end of apartheid. It is ironic that New Calvinism is rising in the English speaking community that was generally opposed to apartheid. The churches into which it is being introduced have no connection with Afrikaner Calvinist churches but are closely linked to Acts 29 and The Gospel Coalition.

    New Calvinism has no political influence at all. It is present in almost exclusively “white” churches in affluent areas.

    I was raised in US/Canada in a Christian Reformed parsonage with a Kuyperian emphasis. I’ve been gone from it a very long time, and had never done reading into the Boer war, etc. It wasn’t mentioned in my childhood circles haha. It’s fascinating to me, so thanks. Do you know a good book to read?

    Yes, those of my family members who still attend CRC are disturbed by what has been picked up and emphasized from their doctrinal set. (ISTM that “neo-puritan” would be a more precise label for them——their thinking seems thoroughly USian to me.) On the other hand, I have a number of very conservative relatives (Orthodox CRC, Netherlands CRC, OP) who are annoyed at the neo-puritans because they feel trumped. lol

    So neo-puritanism in S Africa is appearing only via Acts 29 and TGC. Does 9Marks do international, I wonder? And it’s the same type of person as here, too—white and more affluent. Their US church planters choose those areas.

    Our neo-puritans have quite a bit to say about politics. Possibly yours are neophytes, yet, so haven’t gotten that far. May it never be more than niche in your country.

  470. Dave A A wrote:

    I credit John Piper with helping to deconvert me.

    🙂 That’s why my recommendation is not to read “egalitarians” but to study “complementarians” and test what they teach with plain reason and the plain texts.

  471. Gram3 wrote:

    That’s why my recommendation is not to read “egalitarians” but to study “complementarians” and test what they teach with plain r

    Yes. It is not an “us vs them” situation at all where we debate “experts”. It is seeking after truth.

  472. Lydia wrote:

    I had the impression he is affiliated with SGM. (Or whatever it is called these days).

    I’m pretty sure he said in a post up thread he is not in any SGM churches.

  473. Dave A A wrote:

    I credit John Piper with helping to deconvert me.

    It is funny, isn’t it, how some of the very promoters of some view or another can finally be the ones to drive us away from it?

    I have a few reasons why I ditched it, but a couple of them…
    I was finally driven away by gender comp by gender comp itself and not seeing it supported in the Bible.

    But many gender comps will accuse folks of me of rejecting it because of being influenced by secular feminism.

    Which is really laughable in my case, because I’ve disagreed with a lot of secular feminism since my youth.

    Not so much the first wave stuff or whatever it was called, which just wanted to give women the right to vote and stuff like that, but the newer forms of it.

  474. Dave A A wrote:

    I credit John Piper with helping to deconvert me.

    I credit John Piper with introducing me to David Instone Brewer and NT Wright. :o)

  475. @ Gram3:
    At first I thought it was just misplaced emphasis, until I started studying things like in Desiring God, where Piper paraphrases Paul as, “Husbands, LEAD your wives as Christ LED the church…” Or “wives– submit to your husband’s LEADERSHIP” (and I may be paraphrasing Piper a bit here).

  476. @ Dave A A:
    I never bought into the comp/pat doctrine.
    Reading about and and reading works by Piper, MacArthur, Driscoll, Dever, Burk, and their ilk only served to cement my beliefs. I’ve been a member of SBC affiliated churches since 1978. The scary thing for me is the fact that the neocals are in 7 of the 11 leadership positions in the SBC, though neocals are in the minority. I wonder how long it will be before they start blatantly pushing absolute patriarchy and church covenants into all SBC churches?

  477. KMD wrote:

    John, are you familiar with PJ Smyth, the South African pastor who is apparently poised to take over my former home church (and former SGM flagship) Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD, USA?
    Is it possible he is connected in some way with these Afrikaner Calvinists you mention?

    I have met PJ Smyth and am familiar with some of his preaching having visited God First church on the odd occasion. He is a good orator but I understand from those in the know that he does not prepare his own sermons. God First grew rapidly, launched additional sites, and then contracted. It seems to have stabilised now. The growth was largely from gaining members from existing churches as far as I could see.

    I think that doctrinally Smyth is a New Calvinist. I reached that conclusion after listening to a series of sermons by him on Ephesians. Not everyone agrees with that assessment. He does not have the hard-edged crassness about him that characterises many New Calvinists. He does not use much New Calvinist jargon so, for instance, will not use the term “complementarian” but still insists on all-male elderships. He claims to be “gospel-centered”.

    He brought Driscoll out here in about 2008. I suspect that he was offered the leadership of Acts 29 in Southern Africa but turned it down in favour of starting his own organisation, Advance. The last international organisation of churches that originated in our suburb, NCMI, consisted of thousands of churches worldwide at its peak. I can’t see Advance doing that.

    Smyth would be unlikely to have any ties to the Afrikaner Calvinists that I described. They have very little political influence now and seem not to seek it. They eventually played their part in the downfall of apartheid and the moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church, Johan Heyns, lost his life to an assassin’s bullet as a result of the stand he took.

    Smyth was responsible for introducing our church’s youth pastor to New Calvinism. After being trained in Seattle by Driscoll/Acts 29 he returned as lead pastor. Our church’s New Calvinism problems can be attributed indirectly to Smyth.

    I am not aware of any scandal associated with Smyth.

  478. @ Daisy:
    “But many gender comps will accuse folks of me of rejecting it because of being influenced by secular feminism.”
    I’m not even convinced by many of the interpretations of evangelical feminists, let alone secular ones. For me the main thing is to leave behind ideas like the “tie break” in marriage. Which causes me guilt and resentment at the times I DON’T insist upon my own way– a rather unchristian lifestyle.

  479. Lydia wrote:

    I credit John Piper with introducing me to David Instone Brewer and NT Wright. :o)

    I’ve read a couple good things by Greg Boyd– wouldn’t have known him from Adam without JP’s help.

  480. @ Dave A A:
    I can imagine how that happens. He starts with “Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church.” Then they will say, “How does Christ love the church?” Then they answer, “Christ lays down his life, he sacrifices, he leads the church.” Then the next step is the therefore: “Therefore, husbands lead your wives.” They find whatever analogies they choose to find in the metaphor, even though the literary context says nothing about authority. That concept is imported into the text via the participle “submitting” borrowed from verse 21.

    I have unraveled many of these strange “reasoning” strings. “Head” is another example. In Ephesians, head is not used of “authority over.” But because “head” can conceivably be used to mean that, at least in English, they then say that is what it means. They ignore Paul’s use of “head” in Ephesians 4 and even in Ephesians 5 where he spells out what he means by the metaphor. Doesn’t matter if this violates hermeneutical principles because it gets to the right answer.

    Same with “head” in 1 Corinthians 11. The chapter is all about who comes from whom or by whom, which was the accepted understanding of how things grow and how things come from other things. But they insist that “head” means “authority over.”

    I don’t know if you’ve read Chapter 3 of RBMW, but Ortlund totally re-writes the Genesis narratives, cleverly inserting speculation and unsupported inference into the actual narratives. And from his re-worked narrative, he supports his thesis that God ordained male authority.

    The more you read of their stuff, the more you can recognize their rhetorical tricks and fallacious reasoning.

  481. Nancy2 wrote:

    I never bought into the comp/pat doctrine.
    Reading about and and reading works by Piper, MacArthur, Driscoll, Dever, Burk, and their ilk

    I was, I suppose, a moderate comp UNTIL I started reading about and reading works by their ilk. Tried to love my wife as Christ loved the church. Tried not to overly expect her to submit (her job, after all, not mine). But under great pressure to “picture” Christ and the Church through sufficient Ephesians 5-ness. And not once, in 30 years, did Fred and Ethel ever come up to us and say, “We see an imbedded icon in your marriage! Tell us about Jesus!”

  482. @ Gram3:
    I like Bilezikian’s CBE article “I believe in male headship” where he also looks at Eph 1 (Christ as head over all things for, or to, the church) and Colossians,which lends support to the “source” interpretation.

  483. Patrice wrote:

    I was raised in US/Canada in a Christian Reformed parsonage with a Kuyperian emphasis. I’ve been gone from it a very long time, and had never done reading into the Boer war, etc. It wasn’t mentioned in my childhood circles haha. It’s fascinating to me, so thanks. Do you know a good book to read?

    So neo-puritanism in S Africa is appearing only via Acts 29 and TGC. Does 9Marks do international, I wonder?

    And it’s the same type of person as here, too—white and more affluent. Their US
    church planters choose those areas.

    Our neo-puritans have quite a bit to say about politics. Possibly yours are neophytes, yet, so haven’t gotten that far. May it never be more than niche in your country.

    Thomas Pakenham’s “The Boer War” is excellent. A lighter read would be Martin Meredith’s “Diamonds, Gold and War: The Making of South Africa”. For a scholarly treatment of the history of South Africa from the first settlers to the present I recommend Frank Welsh’s “A History of South Africa”.

    Dever’s book is prominent in certain bookstores and entirely absent in others. The 9 Marks approach is being pushed in the Acts 29 churches. I am not aware of any other 9 Marks activity.

    I suspect that our church has more people of colour on staff than in the general membership. The Methodist church a block away is far more demographically representative.

    Our church was never Calvinist. That changed with the return of the pastor from nearly 2 years with Driscoll/Acts 29. He is now the leader of Acts 29 in the region and the church is now the Acts 29 bridgehead into the southern half of the continent. I intend to prevent that from continuing.

  484. Gram3 wrote:

    @ JohnD:So I guess that means that CLC did not learn the lesson about authoritarianism.

    To be more precise, what remains of the paid “pastoral staff” (translated=yes-men with jobs for life) still hasn’t learned anything at all, but know that they need a sparkling orator to keep the biz going.

  485. KMD wrote:

    To be more precise, what remains of the paid “pastoral staff” (translated=yes-men with jobs for life) still hasn’t learned anything at all, but know that they need a sparkling orator to keep the biz going.

    I’m afraid you are right. I hope you are wrong.

  486. JohnD wrote:

    Our church was never Calvinist. That changed with the return of the pastor from nearly 2 years with Driscoll/Acts 29. He is now the leader of Acts 29 in the region and the church is now the Acts 29 bridgehead into the southern half of the continent. I intend to prevent that from continuing.

    We’ve had some great times in your lovely country. The baboons at the Cape are really something, and I will never think the are just cute big monkeys again! Loved the whales near Fishoek (sp) and the penguins were so cute. And I loved, loved, loved the fabulous scenery at the Cape. And the amazing coconut candy we had in a lovely restaurant in Capetown.

    May God grant you success in preserving the Gospel from legalism and authoritarianism there.

  487. @ Gram3:
    Those baboons. It sounds like you had one of those “up close and personal” experiences for which they are infamous. The Cape is beautiful in many different ways. It is heartwarming to know that my country gave you such pleasure.

    It is painful to watch the gospel being distorted by legalism and authoritarianism. One would think that those in my country, of all countries, would have a well developed sense of the extent of the freedom we have in Christ, but sadly that is not always the case. I value your support.

  488. Lydia wrote:

    This makes me think of what was going on here before the Civil War and chattel slavery.

    That is most interesting history.

    At the time that Boyce was supporting slavery David Livingstone was intent on destroying it by opening up the interior of Africa so that the gospel could be taken to the people where they were, and commerce would generate economic activity. Boyce: as you say, the mind boggles.

  489. @ JohnD:
    I can’t afford to go to Africa. You and Gram 3 make me want to stow away on a boat!!!

    Occasionally, SBC pastors/preachers come to my church and share stories about the mission work they do in Africa, and other places. I wonder, do any of them ever visit anywhere near your area??? These mission trips are usually short term – 3 months at most. I wonder if they really have the effect that they believe they have?

  490. @ Nancy2:
    Africa is an amazing place, at least the parts I’ve visited. The plants and wildlife are incredible, and the sheer scale of everything natural is somewhat like our West. We made quick friends with the Massai guard of a rhino and got to see it up close. The calls of the hippos in the river in Kenya are hilarious, too. Giraffes and elephants in the wild with their babies! Zebras who invariably offered their “tourist view” for the camera. A lion king resting in the shade. No words. Kirstenbosch (?) Botanical garden has a gardenia *tree* that I really, really coveted. The Cape and Rift Valley from the air are breathtaking when you consider the history and geography and geology.

    We had the opportunity to worship in different places with different races and tribal groups, and it was very interesting to experience worship as a tiny minority in a little church in a foreign country. I think that it was a taste of the New Creation. Their music is still with me to this day, but I can’t identify why exactly the worship so touched me and why the music still moves me. The people were very gracious and sang English hymns so that we could sing along, but after a couple, we asked them to please sing their songs so that we could be blessed by their voices singing praise to God. It reminded me of colonization which was very bad, but as the local ethnic non-Europeans reminded us, it also brought some good things. It is one of those things that okrapod says is complicated. Yes, I get a little wrapped up when I remember.

    Regarding missions trips, I would say that “it depends.” I prefer development-type missions or holistic missions or however you would like to describe it. If skilled labor is available to do construction work, for example, then I do not favor spending a ton of money to take a bunch of middle-age or older guys to do stuff. However, if skilled labor is not available, then a few can go and train the men and women to do culturally-appropriate work or form micro-businesses. If I were younger I would probably use a word like “sustainable.”

    Clean water is a big, big deal in undeveloped areas. Also vaccinations for people and for animals, and we can help with that here through Christian medical, dental, and veterinary organizations and Baptist Global Relief. Other denoms probably have their own groups who do this kind of work. There are people doing good work and there are scammers, just like here, so it pays to have trusted local partners with a track record. People are people.

    And we only had a small sample! I wish I were younger and could go back and see some other places there.

  491. Velour wrote:

    And my question is…what woman in her right mind ever agreed to date them, let alone marry them?

    What makes you think said woman would have any choice in the matter?
    Agreement or not, she WILL marry the Patriarch’s son under direct orders of her Patriarch/father.
    It’s called Christian Courtship.

  492. Daisy wrote:

    One thing you have to be careful of. I’ve seen this a time or two on other forums, and I think it was HUG (or someone) who was telling me a long time ago either here on the Internet Monk site that he knew a Christian woman who no longer believed in female subordination (gender comp). She started dating this Christian guy who insisted he did not either.

    Wasn’t me.

    But whoever it was, it’s a classic example of marrying under false pretenses and taking off the mask only when she’s committed too deep to ever back out.

  493. Velour wrote:

    Yes, women do have to be careful. There are men who will deceive women. But usually the bad attitudes can’t be hidden forever.

    It only needs to be hidden until she’s trapped in a Covenantal Marriage, with all her Church circle backing up hubby iron fist with threats of Hellfire.

  494. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    And my question is…what woman in her right mind ever agreed to date them, let alone marry them?

    What makes you think said woman would have any choice in the matter?
    Agreement or not, she WILL marry the Patriarch’s son under direct orders of her Patriarch/father.
    It’s called Christian Courtship.

    My comment was to Gram3 and who would date/marry the likes of Bruce Ware (and his contemptuous attitude toward women), John Piper, etc.

    The patriarchy/courtship thing is fairly new.

  495. Velour wrote:

    I found that the comp doctrine has become a primary doctrine in the NeoCal churches and they are foisting their insufferable, un-Biblical rules and *authority* on the rest of us, and we’re not even married to them!

    In this they are imitating their Real Personal LORD and Savior, Calvin and his Institutes.

  496. KMD wrote:

    To be more precise, what remains of the paid “pastoral staff” (translated=yes-men with jobs for life) still hasn’t learned anything at all, but know that they need a sparkling orator to keep the biz going.

    And the $$$$$ flowing in.

    “The Spice Must Flow.”
    — Frank Herbert, Dune
    (And if it takes a Harkonnen to keep it flowing…)

  497. Dave A A wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    At first I thought it was just misplaced emphasis, until I started studying things like in Desiring God, where Piper paraphrases Paul as, “Husbands, LEAD your wives as Christ LED the church…” Or “wives– submit to your husband’s LEADERSHIP” (and I may be paraphrasing Piper a bit here).

    Sounds kinda stuck on male LEADERSHIP, doesn’t he?

    Isn’t Piper a short man with a not-so-impressive voice and some feminine mannerisms?