John Piper Backs Himself Into a Corner and Even Reformed Complementarians Are Confused.

"The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud."  Coco Chanel link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=3286&picture=horse-patrol&large=1
Horse Patrol

Over the last two years, there have been a few more people who are willing to discuss the issues surrounding John Piper. These include his theology of gender, his penchant for speaking in behalf of God during disasters, and his communication style in general.  Many people sat up and took notice of his infamous advice to abused women in which he declared that they should endure abuse for a season. He tried to walk that back but some are not convinced. Others have expressed concern when Piper seems to be able to tell us God's reasons for sending a tornado or allowing a bridge to collapse. Others have discussed his occasional cryptic and depressing Tweets. He also believes that God gave Christianity a masculine feel. There are many more examples where those came from.

John Piper exposed in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

TWW believes that Piper's growing strident rhetoric about the role of women can be traced back to the ever infamous Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which was written in 1991 and edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Many consider this the landmark book regarding gender roles. Since it is regarded the most important book of the complementarian movement, they have made the PDF of the book available for free at this link. So, I read it and was disturbed. I had a hard time believing that even complementarians were not concerned about a number of issues in this book. 

John Piper does not believe women should be muscular.

I am not joking about this. We wrote a post John Piper: On Election, Sin and the Painful Lives of Muscular Women and asked the question, "Are muscular women are outside of God’s will?" Why? because John Piper in 1991 believed that women who were muscular might be outside the will of God for very odd reasons. Here is a Piper quote from that post.

“Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive. It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.

But no woman should be encouraged by this fact. For it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.

The image of a masculine musculature may beget arousal in a man, but it does not beget several hours of moonlight walking with significant, caring conversation. The more women can arouse men by doing typically masculine things, the less they can count on receiving from men a sensitivity to typically feminine ”

Since exercise is considered an essential part of a program for health, his comment struck me as bad advice. His reason for doing so was rather strange. He was imagining a sexual encounter with a muscular woman and his imagination seemed to run wild. I knew then that Piper's view on women was strange from as far back as 1991 and probably earlier. If I was correct, then we should be prepared to see even more concerning statements. In my opinion, we have.

John Piper view on the role of women extends into the secular arena: Women should not be police officers.

A recent Q+A at Desiring God caused many people to question his views on gender. He extended those views far outside the church and into secular jobs. The question was "Should Women Be Police Officers?"

Piper believes that men and women not only have role differentiation within the church and home but also in society. Here is how he distinguishes between "jobs for men" and "jobs for women." If a woman is in a job which is personal and directive, then it will cause men to be uncomfortable. Yes, he means all men, even those who are not involved in his sort of church.

There is a continuum from very personal influence, very eye-to-eye, close personal influence, to non-personal influence. And the other continuum is very directive — commands and forcefulness — directive influence to very non-directive influence. And here is my conviction. To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man, guidance of a man, leadership of a man, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order. 

Here are two examples that he uses to demonstrate his rather unusual guidelines.

1. A woman civil engineer is OK. 

A woman who is a civil engineer may design a traffic pattern in a city so that she is deciding which streets are one-way and, therefore, she is influencing, indeed controlling, in one sense, all the male drivers all day long. But this influence is so non-personal that it seems to me the feminine masculine dynamic is utterly negligible in this kind of relationship.

2. A woman as a drill sergeant is not OK

A drill sergeant might epitomize directive influence over the privates in the platoon. And it would be hard for me to see how a woman could be a drill sergeant — hut two, right face, left face, keep your mouth shut, private — over men without violating their sense of manhood and her sense of womanhood.

He then repeats his advice, saying that there will be a breaking point for godly men and women if they do not adhere to these roles.

If a woman’s job involves a good deal of directives toward men, they will need to be non-personal in general, or men and women won’t flourish in the long run in that relationship without compromising profound biblical and psychological issues. And conversely, if a woman’s relationship to a man is very personal, then the way she offers guidance and influence will need to be more non-directive. And my own view is that there are some roles in society that will strain godly manhood and womanhood to the breaking point.

Just in case you are prone like me to think his advice is strange and possibly damaging, he reminds is all that we must be "submissive to Scripture" and he is pretty darn sure that he is one of those who is submissive. 

John Piper's dreamed up guidance is impossible to attain in most jobs in the world.

Let's take the female civil engineer that he said had negligible directive and personal interactions with the guys who are driving the car on the roads she designed. (I am not kidding.) He apparently thinks that this woman is working in a vacuum, deciding how to build the roads. Did it occur to him that she is working for a company or government agency in which she will most likely be required to give directives to men who will implement her plans? Did he even think that she would be working in an office in which she will be in charge of others, both men and women, whose work she will supervise. 

Except for the church in which men are in control and women are not allowed to be in a position of leadership with men, I can think of virtually no profession in which a woman would be able to avoid personal and directive relationships with men. 

Think about it: which job would prevent a woman from never interacting personally with and giving directions to a man?

Benjamin Corey believes this is a dangerous message for women.

He discussed his concerns in John Piper: Women Not Suited For Most Jobs In The World

Where could one work, what vocation could one hold, where one wouldn’t be in the position of giving instructions to men? I can’t think of many, and certainly this position would mean that women are not suited for anything other than entry-level positions, as increased supervisory responsibility would undoubtedly include giving directives to male subordinates.

Thusly, it appears that Piper actually thinks biblical womanhood disqualifies women from the vast majority jobs in the world, unless those jobs took place inside a giant lady bubble.

And this is precisely why I will fight to protect the beautiful girls I am raising from this brand of Christianity– it is an absolutely dangerous message for women.

Scot McKnight believes that Piper's theology is all about rigid roles and hierarchy.

He wrote a post called That Complementarian Non-Negotiable. I smiled when I read this because I had tweeted out that I believe Piper is backing himself into a corner of his own making. I was pleased to see that someone else thought the same thing. It helps me to see that I am not too far off base.

Notice the terms he uses for a husband’s role: “benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for, and protect women.” And a woman’s role: “a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men.” This is the complementarian non-negotiable: it’s about roles and it’s about hierarchy and it’s about males being leaders and women being submissive. 

Unfortunately, John Piper far too often turns the man-woman relationship into the role of leader-follower and scales it on a map of hierarchy rather than mapping it all on the scales of love and mutual sacrifice for the good of the other. Beginning with the second leads to radically different perspectives on issues like what women “can” do in society. So, when Piper ends up talking about non-personal and personal influence and directions I think he’s gotten himself into a corner of his own making (the leader-follower perspective) and is turning in circles.

McKnight ends with the best statement I have read in answer to Piper's increasingly confusing gender rhetoric. It should be all about caring for the good of others.

Once one begins where the NT household regulations begin, with the radical revolution of Roman hierarchies, one sees that it is not about who has authority or hierarchy but about giftedness, about how that woman can best serve her community with the gifts God has given her. It’s not about whether your status and honor will be preserved but about whether your status and honor will be surrendered for the good of the other.

Even some of the Reformed, complementarian folks are raising questions about Piper's increasingly confusing gender rules.

I follow Scot McKnight's blog regularly. He mentioned two Reformed individuals who point out the problem with Piper's viewpoints.

1. Aimee Byrd at the Mortification of Spin, a blog for The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, wrote John Piper's Advice For Women in the Workforce

She took issue with this statement from Piper's post.

At the heart of mature manhood is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for, and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships. The postman won’t relate to the lady at the door the way a husband will, but he will be a man. At the heart of mature womanhood is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.

She believes that men are the head of their households and affirms herself as a complementarian. But, even she seemed to think that Piper is off base as well as confusing in his views on jobs and gender.

As far as the postman goes, I am at a total loss. Are we referring to the obvious, ontological fact that he is a man, or to something in his behavior that makes him a manly postman at the door? And if I am a woman opening the door, am I to be affirming this manliness in some sort of way?
 
And I suppose this definition of mature womanhood exposes me as terribly childish. I do not think it is my purpose as a woman to be constantly seeking affirming, receiving, and nurturing strength and leadership from worthy men. I am married to one man. I affirm that Scripture teaches that my husband has the responsibility of headship in our home. Even then, I take the ezer with the kenegdo. I should be a suitable strength matched for him, discerning if his leadership is of the Lord. I also affirm that only certain men are called to ordination in the church as pastors and elders. Those are special leadership positions that I affirm as a result of the goodness and authority of God, who is the authority of us all. Isn’t this what a complementarian believes?

She found that his statements made her feel uncomfortable with her female body.

I find it very confusing. When are we pushing the personal versus directive limits? This kind of teaching has always made me uncomfortable with my own female body. My very presence is imposing. It has the same neo-gnostic ring that we hear in our culture today, separating the physical from the spiritual. Is the job okay for women if the men can’t see us? His illustration seems to say that:

2. Carl Truman thinks Piper makes women appear as defective beings. 

Carl Truman wrote An Accidental Feminist? at Mortification of Spin. He is also a Reformed complementarian. He responded to this portion of John Piper's post.

At the heart of mature manhood is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for, and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships. The postman won’t relate to the lady at the door the way a husband will, but he will be a man. At the heart of mature womanhood is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.

He took issue with Piper's statement which he believes is promoting radical subordination.

It seems to me to make women in themselves into nothing more than defective beings and to rest upon a definition of complementarity which is really one of radical, across-the-board subordination.   It also leaves me wondering what I can say to single women in my church.   Find a man, any man, to submit to in some context or other?

Truman believes all sorts of unanswerable questions get raised when one takes gender roles outside the church.

Third, the consequent complication of even the most routine male-female encounters creates a world where people are practically infantilized.  They are ever fearful of doing the wrong thing even in situations of no real consequence, and always dependent on the advice of the gurus who own the criteria mentioned under the second point – and who now have power and influence way beyond the bounds of that ministerial authority given to the church and her officers.

Truman remarks that he rarely reads complementarian literature these days. He believes that once it leaves the church and the household, it gets off track.

And too often it slides into sheer silliness.

Women in formerly traditional male roles have positively added to those roles.

My daughter served as a firefighter for a short time in Raleigh. She is small but strong. Her size was convenient when they had to get people into tiny spaces during a fire. She was also commended when she found an elderly lady who was confused and lying in her own waste. While waiting for the ambulance, she cleaned the lady and put fresh coverings on her. Her compassion added value to her fire fighting team by treating an elderly woman with dignity.

I have developed a keen interest in Norway because I have a dear Norwegian friend and have spent time with her family in Norway. Norway has one of the most humane prison systems in the world. They believe women guards are essential in their prison. You can read about it here.

Norway’s prison guards undergo two years of training at an officers’ academy and enjoy an elevated status compared with their peers in the U.S. and Britain. Their official job description says they must motivate the inmate "so that his sentence is as meaningful, enlightening and rehabilitating as possible," so they frequently eat meals and play sports with prisoners. At Halden, half of all guards are female, which its governor believes reduces tension and encourages good behavior.

If you go to the link, you will see women prison guards interacting with the prisoners. Men do well in working with women who are directive and personal in their actions. My guess is that there are some men like Piper who don't do well and I wonder why.

John Piper and women: there is a peculiar undercurrent that runs through his writings.

I am pleased to see people in John Piper's camp responding to his odd treatise on women as police officers. However, I believe he has had  strange views on women for the last 25 years. Go back and read his weird take on women who exercise. It seems like there is something off kilter here and it causes me to wonder if Piper had some bad experiences with women in his life. He appears to be fearful that a woman might actually get too close to him and he wants to avoid any woman who might tell him what to do. The question is Why?

Women have been both directive and personal in interacting with men throughout history. From Aimee Byrd's post:

I respectfully disagree with John Piper's principles for women. This just isn’t biblical. After we clean up our own vocations that involve women in personal, directive positions, we will need to get rid of the Deborahs and Abigails of the Bible. Women are warriors too. And it does not violate a mature man’s sense of manhood when they do their job well.

Comments

John Piper Backs Himself Into a Corner and Even Reformed Complementarians Are Confused. — 916 Comments

  1. Bridget wrote:

    What’s even scarier is the comments!! Sounds like TGC wants to reinstitute head coverings. I think they need to read to the end of the chapter.

    Yes TGC is a scary bunch. The whole YRR is a scary bunch. I think that I previously mentioned one of the elders, at my former church, thought bringing back Calvin’s Geneva would be a good thing.

  2. Will M wrote:

    How long has he been at Third Avenue?

    Third Avenue is the Louisville branch of Capitol Hill. Not formally, of course, but Greg Gilbert is a disciple of Dever. The young Ph.D. candidate is probably part of their internship program. You can judge the worth of a Ph.D. from a SBC seminary from their own writing. What is sad is that Greg Gilbert wrote a little book about the Gospel that is good. What is not good is that he teaches things and promotes things which are not in accord with the Gospel.

  3. Will M wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    What’s even scarier is the comments!! Sounds like TGC wants to reinstitute head coverings. I think they need to read to the end of the chapter.

    Yes TGC is a scary bunch. The whole YRR is a scary bunch. I think that I previously mentioned one of the elders, at my former church, thought bringing back Calvin’s Geneva would be a good thing.

    Yes, I managed to a mini-Calvin’s Geneva at the former Gulag NeoCal Church. Unlike Geneva, there were no good chocolates in the experience.

  4. Gram3 wrote:

    If I have not already said so on this thread, this Piper incident is yet another example of the idiocy that ensues when Female Subordinationists do or say something absolutely consistent with their doctrines. It is only when they are inconsistent or disingenuous that they seem possibly reasonable. The Target toy aisle signage is another recent example of Cuckoo Consistent Complementarianism.

    I agree with all that.

    Other than the Target toy signs thing, there are other examples, such as….

    The Gospel Is for Baby Bear: On Sesame Street and Gender Confusion
    February 21, 2013 by Owen Strachan
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2013/02/the-gospel-is-for-baby-bear-on-sesame-street-and-gender-confusion/

    (Strachan was concerned because a bear muppet was playing with a baby doll toy in an episode.

    And Gender Comp Ken above was complaining about feminists who bleat about inconsequential things?)

  5. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Is it me or does Piper just sound like a creeper?
    “Consider what is lost when women attempt to assume a more masculine role by appearing physically muscular and aggressive. It is true that there is something sexually stimulating about a muscular, scantily clad young woman pumping iron in a health club.”
    Can someone check this guys hard drive please?

    I have thought the same thing.

  6. Velour wrote:

    Will M wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    What’s even scarier is the comments!! Sounds like TGC wants to reinstitute head coverings. I think they need to read to the end of the chapter.

    Yes TGC is a scary bunch. The whole YRR is a scary bunch. I think that I previously mentioned one of the elders, at my former church, thought bringing back Calvin’s Geneva would be a good thing.

    Yes, I managed to a mini-Calvin’s Geneva at the former Gulag NeoCal Church. Unlike Geneva, there were no good chocolates in the experience.

    ^”to live through”

  7. Gram3 wrote:

    Third Avenue is the Louisville branch of Capitol Hill

    Yep, TGC actually took the article from the 9 Marks site.

    I have been attempting to point out to a younger friend the problems with 9 Marks. He is currently in a membership class at a 9 Marks outfit (9 Marks is big in the evangelical circles here). I have told him that I would not sign a membership covenant. I am praying that he sees what these guys believe before he signs.
    I think I have read Gilbert’s little book on the Gospel. My impression was different than yours. Any time someone writes on a topic in the Bible, and basically says, let’s ignore the places in the Bible where the term is used, I become a little suspicious.

  8. Will M wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Third Avenue is the Louisville branch of Capitol Hill

    Yep, TGC actually took the article from the 9 Marks site.

    I have been attempting to point out to a younger friend the problems with 9 Marks. He is currently in a membership class at a 9 Marks outfit (9 Marks is big in the evangelical circles here). I have told him that I would not sign a membership covenant. I am praying that he sees what these guys believe before he signs….

    Hi Will,

    Here are some excellent articles from conservative Baptist Wade Burleson’s blog
    (Oklahoma; The Wartburg Watch’s own E-Church pastor on Sundays)that perhaps you could share with your friend.

    1. Saying No To A Church Membership Covenant
    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/05/five-reasons-to-say-no-to-church.html

    2. Authoritarianism Is The Main Problem In Today’s Churches
    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/01/our-problem-is-authoritarianism-and-not.html

  9. Will M wrote:

    Any time someone writes on a topic in the Bible, and basically says, let’s ignore the places in the Bible where the term is used, I become a little suspicious.

    Well, now I’m going to have to read it again because it has been a while since I read it, and maybe I’ll see some things I did not see before. It has happened to me once or twice in my life. I agree that the places the Bible mentions the Good News is the best place to start when describing it.

    I hope you have success with your friend. I doubt that you will, because some things you have to just experience for yourself before you believe it.

  10. Let me get this right, if one has a vagina, and attends, as a paritioner, New Calvinism 501(c)3 religious services, this individual is ‘viewed’ subserevant by church leadership, that is ‘viewed’ as a scond tear or second class citizen, subject, and expected to fully comply with comp religious community rules.

  11. Nancy2 wrote:

    Ken, as a woman, I take statements like these as personal affront.

    He tends to equate women choosing not to have children with them automatically being selfish, materialistic, immature, and/or with being secular feminists.

    He also, IIRC (I don’t mean to put words in his mouth, I may have my understanding of his view here wrong, but he), seems to think that Bible verse that talks about ‘women being saved in child birth’ really applies literally, in some sense.

    As in, women getting pregnant and having children is necessary for their salvation, sanctification, or some such.

    As an early middle aged woman who never married nor had sex (and therefore never had a kid and may never have one), I find all that offensive, too.

    Hard not to take it personally.

  12. @ Will M:
    Also Andreas Kostenberger of SBTS is the editor of JETS, and ETS is located at an address oddly close to a certain seminary in Louisville, KY. Just so everyone knows that JETS probably has a POV on certain non-negotiables. Let’s recall that Kostenberger and Schreiner are two that say that women will be saved/sanctified through keeping to their assigned roles as exemplified in childbearing. Which, as everyone knows is what 1 Timothy 2:15 “plainly says.” So, the fact that this kind of article was published in JETS is no surprise.

  13. @ Sallie Borrink:

    I don’t think it’s just the denominations that are Calvinistic in bent that bother the posters here, but I find the theology itself disturbing, and how it depicts God.

    It’s not a very loving theology.

    I have a hard time buying into Calvinistic concepts like humanity supposedly is unable to respond to God at all, in any fashion, God willy nilly chooses who to save in eternity past, humanity does not have free will (only free to sin), that sort of thing.

  14. Law Prof wrote:

    God says some things to some, other things to others. We don’t try to insist that everyone does it our way.

    There’s also other categories.

    I want to marry, but there is nobody to marry. I am not single and celibate because I chose to be.

  15. Sopwith wrote:

    Let me get this right, if one has a vagina, and attends, as a paritioner, New Calvinism 501(c)3 religious services, this individual is ‘viewed’ subserevant by church leadership, that is ‘viewed’ as a scond tear or second class citizen, subject, and expected to fully comply with comp religious community rules.

    Yes, that was my exact experience at my former Gulag NeolCal church. Much to my surprise the four pastors/elders subscribed to comp doctrine.

    And here’s some of the bizarre ways it played out in my life at that church.

    *I, a grown woman, was not expected to have any personal business and that the pastors/elders could call me in to church meetings on a whim to have me *answer* about why I did not provide personal information to one of their women friends.

    *The chairman of the elder board called to give me *advice* about *how to conduct* myself at my new job when they heard I got a new job. I’ve been working for years. I don’t need their insufferable lectures.

    *I was told in a meeting with the pastors/elders about their friend a convicted Megan’s List sex offender that they brought in to our church, without telling all members and parents (I discovered him on Megan’s List while doing research for a prosecutor about another sex offender) that he was *fine* and that a father had *final say* over permitting the sex offender to touch the family’s children.
    I had watched the sex offender run his hands through my friends’ young son’s hair (preschooler) and my friends had no idea the church member was a sex offender.

    Uhhhh…no. Fathers AND mothers are required by law to protect their children. A mother’s abdicating her legal responsibility to her husband is a crime if harm happens to her children. She can be arrested and prosecuted, charged with felony child abuse, if convicted serve prison time, and have her children taken away by Child Protective Services and put in foster care.

    The comp NeoCals are bizarre people!

    *The pastors/elders closed their meeting with me by reading a Scripture to me that I was destined for Hell, in very somber terms. This for bringing up the safety of our children. (Note: There is an epidemic of child sexual abuse in the evangelical church according to Church Mutual, the largest insurer of churches, and attorney Richard Hammer, at Church Law & Tax, who researches thousands of lawsuits every year. Child Sexual Abuse is the No. 1 reason that churches get sued every single year.)

    *The pastors/elders demanded to know if I had prayed for their friend the sex offender. Me: “We are discussing the safety of our children. He is a convicted felon who served prison time. He’s on Megan’s List.”

    *The pastors/elders said their friend was “coming off Megan’s List”. His supervising law enforcement agency the Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force called that “all lies” and total lies”. The Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force wanted to meet with the pastors/elders. They refused.

    *The chairman of the elder board called me at home and threatened me, and he told me that I was to never call this sex offender’s law enforcement agency again or any other law enforcement agency and that I was “to obey my elders” and to “submit to their authority”.

    I just documented it all for the California Attorney General and the Sheriff’s Sex Offenders’ Task Force.

    Oh yes, my former Gulag NeoCal pastors/elders are mandated child abuse reporters.

  16. @Law Prof wrote “practicing homosexuals ought not be welcomed into full fellowship, they being very much like the guy who was playing around with his step mother in I Corinthians.”

    Really? So my two Lesbian friends (both severely abused, one by a church leader) in a lifelong committed relationship for over 20 years, raising two homeless boys from Brazil, who have invested everything in these abused orphans, fall under your judgment here? And my close relative, still single, who begged God from childhood to make him a heterosexual? And my other close relative who has been in a committed lesbian relationship also for over 20 years, falls under this category?

    And most of these people love Jesus and are loved by Him. Don’t worry though, they are faithful church members in churches that value them. And fortunately, because they are legally married, they have insurance and will be the ones caring for each other on their deathbeds.

    I was truly sorry to hear of the bigotry you experienced in your wife’s parents and others. Extreme liberalism is simply the other fundamentalist face of extreme conservatism.But I am equally sorry to see your own bigotry expressed with such anti-biblical meanness of spirit.

    It’s interesting how relationships with real people change everything — and make bigotry of all types look like the Satanic leer it is.

  17. ___

    “The Mark Of Jesus”

    hmmm…

    Jesus ‘affirmed’ that the [gospel] must ‘begin’ with these basic propositions: 

    —> That God sent His Son into the world to proclaim salvation, eternal life to all who believe in Jesus, God’s Son, the one who had the power to forgive sin.

    —> That God sent His Son into the world to taste death for every man, that Man might be restored to Himself.

    —> That God Sent His Holy Spirit into the world to glorify Jesus to testify of Jesus & to lead believers into all truth!

    ATB

    Da Gatz O’ Hell shall not prevail!

    YeHaaaaaaa!

    Sõpy
    __
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL67CE54F745D573F7&v=Weep71ay4Bc

    🙂

  18. GovPappy wrote:

    Law Prof wrote: Nancy2 wrote: …but I think you’re doing a great job. My best students were those who were allowed the freedom to explore. Thanks for saying it. I don’t know, I do a pretty crummy job much of the time. I just hope I’m not the reason they reject Jesus. I’d vote Professor in as a church elder any day. How do you look in a pair of skinny jeans and a beard? How’s your ESV game? Do you have a passable “caring elder” tone you can use?

    Ha! : ) I loathe the ESV, I look like a middle aged tu#d (ed.) in skinny jeans (which I haven't worn since the 1990s), I can grow a fair beard, but that's countered by a growing bald spot on top, and my tone is usually that of the cynic, the rascal, at best a curmudgeon. The one time I was an elder in a neocal church (briefly), I blew such whistles and made such a stink once I saw the interworkings that I am sure I am blacklisted in SGM, A29, what's left of the MHC network, Bet Bap and probably the SBC to boot. No way would they want anything to do with me.

  19. Daisy wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    God says some things to some, other things to others. We don’t try to insist that everyone does it our way.
    There’s also other categories.
    I want to marry, but there is nobody to marry. I am not single and celibate because I chose to be.

    You’re right. Sorry for the omission.

  20. Will M wrote:

    There are so many very young men in the SBC and other groups, who are making definitive statements about doctrine, discipline, church life. Do, they not see that leaning on some of the older people who have struggled with life might help inform their views of church life? The logical thing would be to incorporate the thoughts of the older members, but no we get a whippersnapper to talk about this stuff.

    Exactly. I”ll take it a step farther: The logical thing would be to burn down the seminaries, eliminate pastor-as-profession from the Church, and insist that those who wish to be leaders of some sort take side jobs, such as tent building, carpentry, or some other profession, to support their ministry jobs.

  21. Law Prof wrote:

    You’re right. Sorry for the omission.

    That’s OK.

    One qualifier I’d like to put in there about my last post on this. When I say I didn’t choose to be single and celibate….

    As to the celibate part, I have in a manner of speaking, yes, chosen to be celibate for different reasons, one of which is that the Bible says sex outside of marriage is sinful. So, I did choose to abstain in that sense.

    But, I’d rather be married and having sex than be celibate. It’s not that I’m thrilled and overjoyed with years of celibacy.

    I did not want to be single this long, nor did I plan on it. I thought I would have been married years ago, but it didn’t happen.

  22. Nancy2 wrote:

    Would my NRA-ILA cap count as a head covering? I don’t care if it matches my dress or not!

    It might work 🙂

    These Christians who think women should be required to wear head coverings today. They remind me of some factions of Islam which require women to wear a hijab (spelling?) or a burqa.

    I can’t believe some Christians want to promote practices and teachings that echo those of Islam or Mormons and other groups.

  23. Daisy wrote:

    He also, IIRC (I don’t mean to put words in his mouth, I may have my understanding of his view here wrong, but he), seems to think that Bible verse that talks about ‘women being saved in child birth’ really applies literally, in some sense.
    As in, women getting pregnant and having children is necessary for their salvation, sanctification, or some such.

    Well, that just makes so much sense. We can use that little tidbit to determine which women are not part of the “elect”! Now, how do we go about determining who the “non-elect” men are???
    Geeesssshhhhhh.
    Maybe it makes sense in Ken’s world. Space, the final frontier……

  24. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    @ Daisy:
    Would my NRA-ILA cap count as a head covering? I don’t care if it matches my dress or not!

    Ya know Nancy2, your NRA-ILA cap is *not* official, submissive NeoCal/Hotel NeoCalifornia womanly headgear.

    Ask yourself this question when you get up in the morning to get dressed,
    go out in public, are expecting company: “Would John Piper be intimidated and faint?”

    I am already in charge of all of our NeoCal/Hotel NeoCalifornia merchanidise for the BIG, BIG, BIG upcoming Playbook-for-The-Salem-Witch-Trials-Conference, known officially by the NeoCals as *Church Discipline*.

    Sister, do ya really expect me to carry a 5-bucket of smelling salts to revive the Right Reverend John Piper (or whatever he is called) after he sees your NRA cap?

    Sincerely,

    Velour,
    Vice President of Product Development
    at Shehad (Pronoun “She” + Had, sounds like Jihad), Inc.

    “The NeoCals New ‘War on Women'”

  25. Nancy2 wrote:

    Now, how do we go about determining who the “non-elect” men are???

    In NeoCal doctrine all of the men are *elect*. If you were a submissive woman you’d give your seat up for a man.

  26. Velour wrote:

    Ask yourself this question when you get up in the morning to get dressed,
    go out in public, are expecting company: “Would John Piper be intimidated and faint?”

    Shoot! I was on Ft. Campbell miliary post yesterday. I should’ve gotten me a pair of army boots to wear to the HNC conference. A pair of those and my cap would lay Piper out for sure!
    No smelling salts necessary – if we pour a little left over gravy on his face, my Great Pyrenees will give him a little mouth to mouth.

  27. Velour wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Now, how do we go about determining who the “non-elect” men are???
    In NeoCal doctrine all of the men are *elect*. If you were a submissive woman you’d give your seat up for a man.

    I’ll leave a thumbtack in my seat. Maybe that man I submit my seat to will rocket straight to heaven.

  28. Nancy2 wrote:

    Shoot! I was on Ft. Campbell miliary post yesterday. I should’ve gotten me a pair of army boots to wear to the HNC conference. A pair of those and my cap would lay Piper out for sure!
    No smelling salts necessary – if we pour a little left over gravy on his face, my Great Pyrenees will give him a little mouth to mouth.

    ROFL!

  29. Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Now, how do we go about determining who the “non-elect” men are???
    In NeoCal doctrine all of the men are *elect*. If you were a submissive woman you’d give your seat up for a man.

    I’ll leave a thumbtack in my seat. Maybe that man I submit my seat to will rocket straight to heaven.

    Why bless your lil’ heart, Miss Nancy2, for your lovingkindness.

  30. Velour wrote:

    Agreed, Max. Old Calvinists that I know – including in Europe (long-time church elders) are shocked by what is going on in the American church, complete with excommunications and shunnings, etc.

    Very interesting. My move away from YRR church didn’t move my confidence in reformed theology which has historic roots. I think the issue is the church in America as it continually sheds one snake skin fad for another never changes its true nature of corporate my way of the highway leadership and governance. Frankly it’s a product of demanding that pastors and planters be type A and driven rather than meek, gentle, easily approachable.

  31. Law Prof wrote:

    , and insist that those who wish to be leaders of some sort take side jobs, such as tent building, carpentry, or some other profession, to support their ministry jobs.

    Absolutely. This was how my dad provided for us and had a ministry for years. He and my mom didn’t break the pocert y line till they were well into their 40s. I was on well paid staff for a few years and you loose touch with the realities of what commitment costs for the average person. Now having a regular career has opened my eyes.

  32. Gabriel wrote:

    I think the issue is the church in America as it continually sheds one snake skin fad for another never changes its true nature of corporate my way of the highway leadership and governance.

    Spot on.

  33. Law Prof wrote:

    I too am one of those “haters”. I believe that the Lord did not just want us to do whatever we pleased and with whomever we pleased with our private parts. I personally think that practicing homosexuals ought not be welcomed into full fellowship, they being very much like the guy who was playing around with his step mother in I Corinthians. Perhaps we both occupy that hated middle ground, despised by hyper egalitarians and fundamentalists both. It can be a lonely place.

    This is one reason why I won’t go to church. Not GLBT myself, but I won’t go where my friends are not welcome. You’ll welcome other sinners, but Teh Ghey is beyond the pale for you. Yes, I am calling you out for your hypocrisy. Some sins are perfectly OK and others, well, they get hit with the worst opprobrium which can be mustered. And, I would point out, Jesus had this very bad habit of hanging out with tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners. If Jesus were here today, he’d be down at the gay bar or at the PFLAG meeting, not in the church, because GLBT people are the prostitutes, tax collectors and other evil sinners of the truly devout today.

    I’m not going to apologize for being blunt and harsh, because I’ve seen up close and personal what happens when attitudes like yours prevail. I have one friend (a former Civil War re-enactor) who has a Civil War-era bullet in her shoulder because she tried to commit suicide with her Civil War revolver. She was struggling with being transgender and, to be blunt, the church was of absolutely no help. All that gets told to her is that she’s a sinner, so no wonder she decided her life meant nothing and she tried to kill herself. Good thing those Civil War weapons aren’t as good as today’s guns or she wouldn’t be here. She is in a better place now, no thank to the many, many Baptist and other churches cluttering up the Deep South.

  34. Velour wrote:

    I’ll leave a thumbtack in my seat. Maybe that man I submit my seat to will rocket straight to heaven.
    Why bless your lil’ heart, Miss Nancy2, for your lovingkindness.

    Be kinna like Elijah goin’ up in that whirlwind, now, won’t it.

  35. EricL wrote:

    follow the Pied Piper, you are most likely a rat.

    Simon Sinek calls the followers, sheeple, and notes the drive to follow as equally addicting as the drive to lead. Thus the sheeple and the narcissists find each other and build their type of orgs/connections/hierarchies. Allegiance produces a serotonin high and the feeling of safety produces an oxytocin high. Science.

  36. Max wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    DG paid for a crew to fly to Geneva to shoot his professional retirement video.

    Good Lord! I missed that. Geneva didn’t become a Christian utopia when Calvin was there … I’m sure that fine city didn’t even notice Piper and his retirement entourage. If he is “retired”, why is he still complaining about muscular women?

  37. Max wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    DG paid for a crew to fly to Geneva to shoot his professional retirement video.
    Good Lord! I missed that. Geneva didn’t become a Christian utopia when Calvin was there … I’m sure that fine city didn’t even notice Piper and his retirement entourage. If he is “retired”, why is he still complaining about muscular women?

    If you have not seen the retirement video….you must. Simply must… watch it.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/after-darkness-light-video-from-geneva

    Note that Calvin restored the Gospel to the church. Sound familiar?

  38. Gram3 wrote:

    Will M wrote:
    How long has he been at Third Avenue?
    Third Avenue is the Louisville branch of Capitol Hill. Not formally, of course, but Greg Gilbert is a disciple of Dever. The young Ph.D. candidate is probably part of their internship program. You can judge the worth of a Ph.D. from a SBC seminary from their own writing. What is sad is that Greg Gilbert wrote a little book about the Gospel that is good. What is not good is that he teaches things and promotes things which are not in accord with the Gospel.

    Located near the University. Now, I have a question, how on earth can that church support that staff? How can they pay those full time salaries? NAMB? (Oh, same question asked about Sojourn who has a huge staff of full time salaried men and many locations. Some filled with seminary students)

    I can understand that Smethurst is paid by TGC as managing editor but seriously, I see these YRR living pretty decent lives paid full time by churches that my experience knows is not bringing in that sort of cash flow. Are some double dipping at SBTS? Is NAMB providing funds? And the pew sitters will never ask because that is a sin. The elders handle it for them.

  39. almost60 wrote:

    But I am equally sorry to see your own bigotry expressed with such anti-biblical meanness of spirit.

    I certainly understand your concerns about bigotry. I want you to know that I met with Justin Lee for over 2 hours and posted about our interactions at this blog. Justin envisions two legitimate positions: Side A-monogamous marriage between gays and Side B celibacy for this within the church.

    It is entirely possible to believe that LGBT should be celibate within the church and not be a bigot. There are some sites, run by those who live this lifestyle, that are well written and thought out.

    This is a horribly difficult question for all sides who take the Bible seriously. I think we need to be careful to express grace to one another as we learn to communicate with one another.

    I appreciate you point of view and find it challenging to all of us. My heart goes out to the woman who was abused by a pastor. That is disgusting, despicable, and diabolical.The pain that he caused her will need to be answered for one day.

    Thank you for telling us about your friends. Such stories make me sad and also challenge some of my presuppositions to the core.

  40. Chemie wrote:

    a reasoned discussion into slander

    Could you tell me what you mean by the word *slander* so I can respond to your comment. I find lots of people have different views on this than the agreed upon legal definition.

  41. almost60 wrote:

    @Law Prof wrote “practicing homosexuals ought not be welcomed into full fellowship, they being very much like the guy who was playing around with his step mother in I Corinthians.”
    Really? So my two Lesbian friends (both severely abused, one by a church leader) in a lifelong committed relationship for over 20 years, raising two homeless boys from Brazil, who have invested everything in these abused orphans, fall under your judgment here? And my close relative, still single, who begged God from childhood to make him a heterosexual? And my other close relative who has been in a committed lesbian relationship also for over 20 years, falls under this category?
    And most of these people love Jesus and are loved by Him. Don’t worry though, they are faithful church members in churches that value them. And fortunately, because they are legally married, they have insurance and will be the ones caring for each other on their deathbeds.
    I was truly sorry to hear of the bigotry you experienced in your wife’s parents and others. Extreme liberalism is simply the other fundamentalist face of extreme conservatism.But I am equally sorry to see your own bigotry expressed with such anti-biblical meanness of spirit.
    It’s interesting how relationships with real people change everything — and make bigotry of all types look like the Satanic leer it is.

    So why is it that you’d distinguish between a relationship between two adult women having sex together and two adults, a son-in-law and step mother, having consensual sex with the apparent approval of the father? Is that bigoted of you?

  42. mirele wrote:

    This is one reason why I won’t go to church. Not GLBT myself, but I won’t go where my friends are not welcome. You’ll welcome other sinners, but Teh Ghey is beyond the pale for you. Yes, I am calling you out for your hypocrisy. Some sins are perfectly OK and others, well, they get hit with the worst opprobrium which can be mustered. And, I would point out, Jesus had this very bad habit of hanging out with tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners. If Jesus were here today, he’d be down at the gay bar or at the PFLAG meeting, not in the church, because GLBT people are the prostitutes, tax collectors and other evil sinners of the truly devout today.
    I’m not going to apologize for being blunt and harsh, because I’ve seen up close and personal what happens when attitudes like yours prevail. I have one friend (a former Civil War re-enactor) who has a Civil War-era bullet in her shoulder because she tried to commit suicide with her Civil War revolver. She was struggling with being transgender and, to be blunt, the church was of absolutely no help. All that gets told to her is that she’s a sinner, so no wonder she decided her life meant nothing and she tried to kill herself. Good thing those Civil War weapons aren’t as good as today’s guns or she wouldn’t be here. She is in a better place now, no thank to the many, many Baptist and other churches cluttering up the Deep South.

    So was Paul wrong in the Bible to tell the church at Corinth to temporarily toss out the guy who was openly having relations with his step mom?

  43. @ dee:
    I agree about challenging our presuppositions. I think these women should be commended for adopting orphans and all that entails. They shame me by their example of love for these children. However, their love for the children does not mean that practicing homosexuality is therefor OK by God’s standards. I imagine these women are kind and compassionate individuals and that they would be that whether they were heterosexual or homosexual or practicing or celibate. Put another way, the good deeds of an unmarried heterosexual and non-celibate couple does not validate their sexual activity. I think we can affirm people for being created in the image of God and affirm their good actions and affirm that orientation is not the same thing as sin. That puts me outside the camp of my normal fellow-travelers and doesn’t earn any favor in progressive circles either, but so be it.

  44. almost60 wrote:

    It’s interesting how relationships with real people change everything — and make bigotry of all types look like the Satanic leer it is.

    Of course, you have no idea what sort of relationships I have and have had over the course of five decades, the people I hang with, enjoy fellowship with, love, care about, write recommendations for, etc. Remember, I teach at a public university. I may be a mite less ignorant than you think.

    If I start having relations with various and sundry consenting adult coeds on campus (assuming I could find a single one who’d give a second glance to a middle aged mediocrity), do I have your permission to tell my departmental chair that his judgment is a “satanic leer”?

  45. Gram3 wrote:

    @ dee:
    I agree about challenging our presuppositions. I think these women should be commended for adopting orphans and all that entails. They shame me by their example of love for these children. However, their love for the children does not mean that practicing homosexuality is therefor OK by God’s standards. I imagine these women are kind and compassionate individuals and that they would be that whether they were heterosexual or homosexual or practicing or celibate. Put another way, the good deeds of an unmarried heterosexual and non-celibate couple does not validate their sexual activity. I think we can affirm people for being created in the image of God and affirm their good actions and affirm that orientation is not the same thing as sin. That puts me outside the camp of my normal fellow-travelers and doesn’t earn any favor in progressive circles either, but so be it.

    We’re holding hands on this one, but we usually see eye to eye, don’t we?

  46. Law Prof wrote:

    Your reasons were not ignored, they were rejected because they were invalid reasons, heavily influenced not by the secular liberal culture, but by the ultraliberal complementarian culture in which you have foolishly placed yourself

    If you get to use the insulting “bleat” with regard to women (oh how you nail the stereotype, Ken, and are apparently not quite self aware enough to know it), …

    The comeback iirc on Eph 2 : 21 such as it was was either the continued assertion without argment that one another means ‘everyone to everyone’ rather than ‘some to others’, and the accusation that I was arguing women were the equivalent of slaves, which was a distraction from the topic in hand. No-one seriously tried to explain why I should not continue to believe the meaning is ‘some to others’, that mutuality is not intended in the context of this passage and the first half of the next chapter. Why, the apostle Paul himself doesn’t use it this way in the very next verse! Wives be subject to your own husbands, not mutually submissive to her own and every one else’s husband.

    I am not in a complementarian church, they hardly exist round here, and I do on a regular basis attend a church led by women. Did you not read that? I’m not an American, I didn’t get my views on this from America. I have never encountered the extremism that you seem to be complaining about.

    In view of you intemperate language upstream, I really don’t think you are in any position whatsoever to criticise me for the word ‘bleat’. (All we like sheep have gone astray is not intended as a compliment to us, either.) It may not have been the politest word in the English language, but I do indeed occasionally get fed up with first world women who moan about their lot as though they were still living in the Victorian era. They may indeed still have legitimate grievances, being used as sex objects immediately comes to mind, but compared with what so many in other parts of the world have to endure, they really ought to get some perspective on this. I have in mind people I have actually met (particularly at univesity) or encountered in various other places such as work. And I didn’t apply this simply to women, it was a particular sort indulging in a particular form of whining. And men complaining about their wages in the first world can be just as bad.

    If a Furtick had to downsize due to problems in his church, live in a normal house with a normal car and a normal salary, and then harangued his congregation to give more ‘because of the great sacrifice he had had to make’ as their pastor, and if I said he had nothing to ‘bleat’ about, would you have been so offended? Or should I stick with complain or moan?

  47. Gram3 wrote:

    Put another way, the good deeds of an unmarried heterosexual and non-celibate couple does not validate their sexual activity.

    I think you have nailed it here.

    I am very libertarian so I have a different approach to Christianity and individual civil rights than most Christians I have come in contact with.

    . However, what concerns me the most with this issue is the bent toward proclaiming disagreement as hate speech. There is this push to demand that people embrace and affirm homosexuality or they are neanderthal haters who want to kill them all. There will always be a backlash to that sort of position. And frankly, it is not all that different than the fundy method of shaming coercion. I saw this with the Jenner situation which was “in your face” the way many were handling it.

    We really need to watch what is happening in the culture about “speech”. We are all going to be offended at some point. We are going to run out of bubble wrap and lose our ability to discuss ideas that are part of being free.

  48. mirele wrote:

    This is one reason why I won’t go to church. Not GLBT myself, but I won’t go where my friends are not welcome. You’ll welcome other sinners, but Teh Ghey is beyond the pale for you. Yes, I am calling you out for your hypocrisy. Some sins are perfectly OK and others, well, they get hit with the worst opprobrium which can be mustered. And, I would point out, Jesus had this very bad habit of hanging out with tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners. If Jesus were here today, he’d be down at the gay bar or at the PFLAG meeting, not in the church, because GLBT people are the prostitutes, tax collectors and other evil sinners of the truly devout today.

    Thanks, Mirele, for your post. I honestly don’t understand the incessant chatter that some people in the church make about *gays*. They are forever talking about. I observed this at my former Gulag NeoCal Church.

    I found that those who talked the most about it:
    *had lived the lives of THE MOST sexual sin as straight people in their pasts
    *were immature
    *lacked love for others
    *used the topic of gays to digress from truly how messed up these church members were and how much work they needed to do on themselves (“take the log out of your own eye before taking the speck out of your brother’s eye)
    *Chillingly would protect child sex offenders in the church (the No.1 reason that churches are sued every year is the Sexual Abuse of Minors according to Church Mutual, the largest insurer of churches, and according to attorney Richard Hammer at Church Law & Tax)
    *were rigid in personality type
    *had an *us vs. them” mentality
    *listened to a lot of talk radio (i.e. buffed and shined their hatred when they should never listen to it again)
    *they were willing to lie about and exclude any conservative Christian member for any reason that the church leadership said (i.e. their hatred of others could quickly turn into their hatred of anyone).

    Ironically, the very weekend that I was excommunicated and shunned at my former church over the issue of the sex offender at church (the pastors/elders’ friends whom they protect), two gay men were so horrified that I had lost all of my friendships for 8-years and that people were ordered to never talk to me again, that I was *destined for Hell*, etc., that the two gay men invited me to go hiking with them and to take me out to lunch! There’s love for ‘ya, Mirele!

  49. For Mirele re gays

    ^Oh, one more thing. As other posters here have pointed out, some of those who do the most lecturing about gays in the church may also be gay and hiding it (as we’ve seen in story after story in the news).

  50. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    I pity Ken’s wife’s!

    Ken and his wife are probably quite suited to one another. I would only be concerned if she was being harmed in some way. I don’t get that impression at all. Do I disagree with Ken on some issues, yes, but that doesn’t make him a monster or his wife to be picked.

  51. Law Prof wrote:

    We’re holding hands on this one, but we usually see eye to eye, don’t we?

    You may want to think that over. 🙂 I have two minds–extremely analytical and extremely sensitive–and often have battles with myself. And also with others who are mostly analytical or mostly sensitive.

  52. dee wrote:

    Could you tell me what you mean by the word *slander* so I can respond to your comment. I find lots of people have different views on this than the agreed upon legal definition.

    slander
    [slan-der]

    noun

    1. Any words or speech, whether true or false, that have the effect of placing a Christian celebrity or church leader in less than than a wholly reverential light.

  53. Gram3 wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    We’re holding hands on this one, but we usually see eye to eye, don’t we?
    You may want to think that over. I have two minds–extremely analytical and extremely sensitive–and often have battles with myself. And also with others who are mostly analytical or mostly sensitive.

    Still holding hands.

  54. Bridget wrote:

    Ken and his wife are probably quite suited to one another. I would only be concerned if she was being harmed in some way. I don’t get that impression at all. Do I disagree with Ken on some issues, yes, but that doesn’t make him a monster or his wife to be picked.

    It’s doubtful he’s a monster, but he sure does make my head want to explode sometimes.

  55. almost60 wrote:

    @Law Prof wrote “practicing homosexuals ought not be welcomed into full fellowship, they being very much like the guy who was playing around with his step mother in I Corinthians

    The problem is…the conservative evangelical church *welcomes* all kinds of people with active sexual sins, including sex offenders, men who prey on girls (and boys too) at churches, and on and on.

    The Corinthian church wasn’t dealing with a known sexual sin – a horrible one that not even unbelivers did – a son having sex with his father’s wife (step-mother). Paul admonished the church to deal with that son’s sin, because everybody knew about it and wouldn’t do anything. Paul then told them after they handled business to welcome him back.

    I think most conservative evangelical churches fail to deal with their members’ sexual sins, including their leaders’, and are EXACTLY like the Corinthian church. It’s easy to say, “Oh we banned gays from church and have purified our ranks.” That’s following the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law.
    And yes, it is very hypocritical.

  56. @ Daisy:
    Daisy I was going to reply to this with the simple sentence You shall not bear false witness, but I noticed you said you did not want to put words in my mouth which made that seem a bit unfair.

    Nevertheless, you seem to have mangled everything I’ve said on these subjects beyond recognition, which is why I felt like quoting the commandment.

  57. Bridget wrote:

    Ken and his wife are probably quite suited to one another. I would only be concerned if she was being harmed in some way. I don’t get that impression at all

    Bridget, thank you for this post. I really appreciate it.

    My wife is a saint – she has put up with me all this time. (She says that in reverse.) Off soon to England to celebrate 30 years. Just us without the accoutrements.

    I have my faults, I’m sure she could supply a reasonable list so I’m not going to ask, but I can tell you with upmost confidence that if you ask her if she knows she’s loved, the answer will be yes.

    Feelings run very high on this whole complementarian issue especially in the States – which is more culturally different from Europe than perhaps I have appreciated; it would be nice to stop this getting so personal. Avoid the ad hominem, if I can use an expression like that on this subject.

  58. Law Prof wrote:

    It’s doubtful he’s a monster, but he sure does make my head want to explode sometimes.

    I don’t think I actually bear much resemblance to your impression. I really would like to leave the heated and acrimonious discussion behind. I’m not deliberately trying to be a pain in the neck.

    And you say some things on the whole homosexual issue I agree with – this issue is not going to go away, and is going to require wisdom in its handling.

  59. lydia wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    And, for the record, it is the Female Subordinationists who totally ignore the atrocities committed against women in the non-First world because Target toy aisles are so mission-critical.

    Oh my –that is so true!

    It’s the Truly Reformed Christianese Activist version of First World Problems.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svdMInNxZFM
    (Besides, the Third World already has the right Godly idea about women’s submission (and how to remind them of that), so why change them?)

  60. JYJames wrote:

    Simon Sinek calls the followers, sheeple, and notes the drive to follow as equally addicting as the drive to lead.

    And the Anointed Leaders’ mouths water for the taste of Mutton.

  61. @ Gram3:

    I agree with you.

    The theology that says that good deeds somehow make up for sins is not true; not true whether it is sexual sin or any other sin and not true whether the sexual sin is homosexual or heterosexual. There is no salvation by good deeds alone. Not for anybody. Good deeds are good for a lot of things, but they do not give anybody a get out of jail free card.

    On thing I want to mention. While I do agree that getting to know people does sometimes alter one’s attitude about a number of things, that change in attitude is not always towards more leniency toward various behaviors. In getting to know people it sometimes become clear the havoc that people have made in their lives by bad decisions. I am not more lenient of alcohol abuse, for example, just because I have know an alcoholic or two whom I otherwise admire. In fact, I am less lenient because I see the damage in the people’s lives.

    And like LawProf I am also not naive, not after 50 years as a health care professional. I have seen so much over the years of people’s lives (not limited to people’s sexual lives) that I wish I could wash some of it out of my memory-it gets discouraging.

  62. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    That was funny, so thanks for my daily dose of pop culture, and I’m guilty of one. As it happens, I was frustrated with a dead wifi spot yesterday and cranked up the power on the router. While I now have signal, I may also have a melted-down router sooner rather than later. Too lazy to put in another access point because that means I would have to go down in the basement and try to remember which patch cable corresponds to which ethernet outlet upstairs and which is connected to the switch that the router is connected to and which ports on the switch still work. It is a jungle of coax and Cat5 down there. Another project which remains unfinished at our house which is one hot mess of first world problems.

  63. Gabriel wrote:

    it’s a product of demanding that pastors and planters be type A and driven rather than meek, gentle, easily approachable.

    Yes, a behavior that is producing many of the negative manifestations we are seeing in the New Calvinist movement. The YRR, as a group, would not be characterized as meek, gentle, and easily approachable … marks of a true pastor. And everybody on this watchblog, who have experienced these reformed whippersnappers firsthand, shout a hearty AMEN!!

  64. Max wrote:

    Gabriel wrote:

    it’s a product of demanding that pastors and planters be type A and driven rather than meek, gentle, easily approachable.

    Yes, a behavior that is producing many of the negative manifestations we are seeing in the New Calvinist movement. The YRR, as a group, would not be characterized as meek, gentle, and easily approachable … marks of a true pastor. And everybody on this watchblog, who have experienced these reformed whippersnappers firsthand, shout a hearty AMEN!!

    Amen!

    Signed,

    Velour, Proudly Excommunicated/Shunned from my former Gulag NeoCal Church this past year for defending children in the face of the pastors/elders bringing in their friend a convicted Megan’s List sex offender whom they say is “safe” and his supervising law enforcement agency begs to differ!

  65. okrapod wrote:

    I have seen so much over the years of people’s lives (not limited to people’s sexual lives) that I wish I could wash some of it out of my memory-it gets discouraging.

    Yes, I can understand that. I don’t watch some things on TV or go to the movies or even listen to some stories because I can’t get it out of my head.

  66. Velour wrote:

    Ask yourself this question when you get up in the morning to get dressed,
    go out in public, are expecting company: “Would John Piper be intimidated and faint?”

    *smacking forehead* You are correct. Things like this must pass some kind of John Piper Test or get Piper’s approval. 🙂

  67. EricL wrote:

    Here’s an old post from Piper (2008) where he states he would consider church discipline for a person who refuses to stop smoking, and that eating pizza can be a sin:
    http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-it-a-sin-to-smoke-or-eat-junk-food
    If you follow the Pied Piper, you are most likely a rat.

    Is he joking?

    The Bible says that such matters are left up to the individual’s conscience (see Romans Chapter 14), and that anything not done in faith is a sin (Romans 14:23).

    As there is no specific verse or concept in the Bible that says smoking or eating pizza are sins, it’s up to you to figure that out for you. You don’t need to ask another Christian if that stuff is sin or not.

    But Piper is sort of passing off his personal comfort levels and opinions as being binding on others, and he says in one point in that that such matters should be left up to church elders.

    You can read Romans 14 here:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14

    Here’s a snippet from Rom 14:

    I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
    15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

    And, Romans 14:23:

    But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

    It looks like this lady, Daisy, maybe knows the Bible a little better than guru Piper.

    Maybe I should write advice columnists for confused or wondering Christians? Sigh.

  68. Lydia wrote:

    If you have not seen the retirement video….you must. Simply must… watch it.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/after-darkness-light-video-from-geneva

    Note that Calvin restored the Gospel to the church. Sound familiar?

    Truly disturbing, Lydia. I wish Piper and the rest of New Calvinism spoke as passionately about Christ, as they do Calvin! It’s clear that JP idolizes Calvin; the spirit of Calvin still lives.

    While the magisterial reformers were trying to create a Christian utopia in Geneva “to restore the Gospel to the church”, there was actually another group accomplishing that mission. Calvin oppressed the true reformers who were preaching Christ to the common man … the Anabaptists, the true reformers and restorers of the Gospel, who brought a free church of baptized believers out of darkness into light … many of them martyred by Calvin’s brand of reform.

  69. mirele wrote:

    Not GLBT myself, but I won’t go where my friends are not welcome. You’ll welcome other sinners, but Teh Ghey is beyond the pale for you. Yes, I am calling you out for your hypocrisy. Some sins are perfectly OK and others, well, they get hit with the worst opprobrium which can be mustered.

    He did use the term “practicing” before the word “homosexual.”

    I am upset that more churches don’t stand against hetero based sexual sin (adultery, fornication, etc), but a lot of them tend to water it down or just ignore it.

    As an adult celibate (hetero) myself, I can tell you that a lot of churches today don’t support celibacy but are very lax about speaking out against all manner of sexual sin.

    You will find the occasional exception to that here and there, but what I’ve seen the last few years are preachers and churches who are loathe to confront people on sexual sin, regardless if it’s homosexual or hetero.

    I think churches should make more of an effort to support celibates of all stripes (whether hetero or homosexual). But they usually don’t.

  70. mirele wrote:

    All that gets told to her is that she’s a sinner, so no wonder she decided her life meant nothing and she tried to kill herself. Good thing those Civil War weapons aren’t as good as today’s guns or she wouldn’t be here. She is in a better place now, no thank to the many, many Baptist and other churches cluttering up the Deep South.

    I’m sorry to hear about your friend’s struggle and that she was let down by Christians.

    I see variations of this in regards to other life struggles.

    Whether it was having clinical depression or being in grief over my mother’s death, most of the Christians I went to with either of those problems let me down, too.

    (I was scolded or lectured when I asked for support or help, or these folks did stuff like quote Bible verses at me. I was told I was being selfish for being in emotional pain.)

    There is a real reluctance among many Christians to “weep with those who weep.” Many of them would rather either ignore you in a time of crisis you’re having, or give you platitudes, or shame you for admitting you need help.

    You can be transgender, have depression, or be undergoing some other kind of stress you find difficult, and you will be shunned or criticized by Christians over it, I can about guarantee that.

  71. @ almost60:

    I’m a hetero person, over 40, and still a virgin, as I am still single. Marriage didn’t happen for me, but I had wanted to be married.

    I don’t believe the Bible excuses homosexual behavior, even if it takes place in marriage. But hetero unmarried people (such as me) are asked by the Bible to remain celibate so long as we are single.

    I don’t think homosexuals are being asked anything more difficult that hetero singles like me (i.e., to remain celibate).

    And I may never marry. I may never meet Mr. Right. So, if I remain committed to being celibate while single, I shall never have sex. I may go to the grave celibate. It’s not like hetero singles get a break in this by the Bible.

  72. Bridget wrote:

    Ken and his wife are probably quite suited to one another. I would only be concerned if she was being harmed in some way. I don’t get that impression at all. Do I disagree with Ken on some issues, yes, but that doesn’t make him a monster or his wife to be picked.

    I’m sure Ken is in many ways a nice guy and treats his wife real nice.

    I’m sorry to beat a dead horse, but again, Ken’s version of gender complementarianism, while soft and gentle, is still harmful and dangerous.

    I grew up in a gender comp family.

    My father did not abuse me physically or sexually, but his views about things, like men are better than women, men are smarter than women, etc. (and these views were re-enforced with gender comp sermons I heard at churches we went to, Christian magazines my folks subscribed to, etc), still messed me up and made me a rich, easy target over my life for users and controllers.

    I am having to now, in middle age, work through the issues gender complementarianism wrought in my life since I was a kid.

    I was raised in the kinder, gentler, warm and fuzzy brand of gender comp, the sort Ken seems to be practicing or advocating, and it still was problematic for me.

  73. Law Prof wrote:

    It’s doubtful he’s a monster, but he sure does make my head want to explode sometimes.

    Me too. 🙂
    He seems very tone deaf to various issues I’ve brought up with him. He doesn’t really address them, but goes on kicks about feminists instead.

    This can get very frustrating.

    I admire that Gram3 keeps her patience when responding to him.

  74. Gram3 wrote:

    That was funny, so thanks for my daily dose of pop culture, and I’m guilty of one.

    There’s a site with a collection of First World Problems memes.

    I think this might be it (it’s been awhile since I’ve visited the site):
    http://whitepeopleproblems.us/

  75. Daisy wrote:

    I think churches should make more of an effort to support celibates of all stripes (whether hetero or homosexual)

    Yes.

  76. okrapod wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    I think churches should make more of an effort to support celibates of all stripes (whether hetero or homosexual)
    Yes.

    Agreed. Jesus was celibate. Paul was celibate. Various prophets were celibate. Big families are fine things, but they make terrible idols.

  77. Daisy wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    It’s doubtful he’s a monster, but he sure does make my head want to explode sometimes.
    Me too.
    He seems very tone deaf to various issues I’ve brought up with him. He doesn’t really address them, but goes on kicks about feminists instead.
    This can get very frustrating.
    I admire that Gram3 keeps her patience when responding to him.

    I’m not sure if Ken is a youngish neocalvinist, can’t remember, but conversing with him is an awful lot like conversing with a lot them. You’re right, he has the way of sidestepping, taking an ad hominem shot or two, then moving onto another tactic to shove his complementarianism to the front. He’ll stay for a bit, then run off if he has a tough time dealing with a counterpoint. Sure wouldn’t make much of a lawyer.

    He’s reasonable at times, but he can be darned dismissive and insulting, seems to have a very tough time supporting his views with much logic, he can be really sensitive to a slight. He sure does sound like a 20 or 30-something neocalvinist.

  78. okrapod wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    I think churches should make more of an effort to support celibates of all stripes (whether hetero or homosexual)
    Yes.

    Yes. We should see people as people and not categories, too, because we all struggle. Mirele is right about our acceptance of OK sins, but that doesn’t mean that therefore all sin is OK. It just means that Christians should be more consistent about being Christ-like which included celibacy for the unmarried and faithfulness for the married along with the other virtues which go beyond intimate matters.

  79. Daisy wrote:

    @ almost60:
    I’m a hetero person, over 40, and still a virgin, as I am still single. Marriage didn’t happen for me, but I had wanted to be married.
    I don’t believe the Bible excuses homosexual behavior, even if it takes place in marriage. But hetero unmarried people (such as me) are asked by the Bible to remain celibate so long as we are single.
    I don’t think homosexuals are being asked anything more difficult that hetero singles like me (i.e., to remain celibate).
    And I may never marry. I may never meet Mr. Right. So, if I remain committed to being celibate while single, I shall never have sex. I may go to the grave celibate. It’s not like hetero singles get a break in this by the Bible.

    Good points.

    If what we do is made right by our desire to do it and the fact that we have certain natural tendencies, or (in your case) circumstances with which we must deal, then the world would absolute anarchy, everyone would do what was right in their own eyes–it would be hell on earth.

  80. @ Gram3:
    I live in that outlier camp 😉 I’m Canadian and have worked with many gay men an women over the years, my employer has a huge number of homosexual employees (Im using the word ‘homosexual’ to be gender neutral, not derogatory). I am one of a small minority of Evangelical type Christians (the city I work in has an abysmally low number of evangelicals) working there. Anyways, all this to say, I’ve had many conversations and questions put to me about my views over the years, so this isn’t something I just came to.

    The problem we encounter using the Bible to define marriage is, the New Testament doesn’t define it in a Christian way. It just writes about marriage in the context it found itself in. Jesus was in a Jewish area and Paul was in a Greco-Roman area. They don’t re-define marriage for Christians. Why? because, marriage was second best. Let that sink in for a bit. Marriage was second best. Celibacy was the calling they strived for. If you got married, you marriage was a worldly contract, not a blessed institution set up by God. In fact, you couldn’t serve in a Church position, such as apostle, or Bible translator, if you were married for 700 years of church history.

    It wasn’t until the 12th C. that that Catholic church began to hold marriage masses and it became a sacrament. That is over a thousand years after Christianity began. The EO church still does not hold marriage ceremonies in their services, since it wasn’t something the church was involved in.

    When Protestantism burst onto the scene in the 1500s, they didn’t like the strict celibacy rules the Catholic church had imposed on it’s members, so the threw out all celibate orders. Marriage was elevated even more than a sacrament, it was an expected lifestyle. Protestants still don’t seem to know what to do with unmarried people. Next came evangelicals who upheld the marital tradition. When divorce became easier to obtain, women went back to work and families shrunk, Evangelicals panicked. Marriage became a huge focus for the church. Far more than it should be, really.

    That focus on marriage, the benefits, the blessings, the importance translated into laws and financial structures that favoured married couples. It is curious to us non-Americans why Americans even bother with a third or even fourth marriages (why not common law?), until you consider benefits the state offers married couples (insurance, tax breaks, etc.). Then, the church sang the praises of love and sexual fulfillment, everyone wanted in.

    So, for us westerners, marriage is about showing commitment to someone we are sexually attracted to and in love with. When the church decided to promote this form of marriage as wonderful, it was only a matter of time before people who were sexually attracted to the same sex said; Hey, what about us? Why are we being denied this?

    The huge problem to grapple with is that the Bible had marriages. But they were not based on sexual attraction and passionate feelings towards someone of the opposite sex. A famous secular Greek writer wrote: Prostitutes for pleasure, mistresses for love and wives for sons. That is the context Paul and everyone in the New Testament writes in. No one had to be “in love” to get married, they usually hardly knew each other. Men would pick a wife the way a modern day couple would pick a surrogate mother. Sexual attraction would be low on the list for a Greek male citizen. First, he would want a women with a reputation of celibacy and honour, she would be a virgin so he could determine her sons were really his. Next, he would want a woman who seemed somewhat accomplished so she could raise his sons well, but more importantly, that she’d be a good wife. Loyal to his family, capable of taking care of her children and not cause problems. Would he care if they never fell in love. No, as long as she had his sons and raised them well, he would be happy with her. He wouldn’t expect much sexually from her. As long as they had a few sons together, she’d be treated well by him. He would then go off to fulfil his love, romance and sexual needs elsewhere. Paul really rocks the ancient boat by telling men to quit having lovers and prostitutes and instead, put that energy into their wives, often virtual strangers to them.

    So, when Paul says to give up your mistresses and prostitutes, he is talking to gay men as well and straight men. To Paul, our sexual gratification was irrelevant. Marriages in the Ancient Roman world weren’t about sexual gratification. Love had four distinct meanings to the ancient Greeks. Paul doesn’t tell men to “Eros” their wives, but to “Agape and Storge” them.

    In our modern culture, we can’t imagine marriage without ‘Eros’ as well as ‘Agape’. So, when we deny a gay person their Eros love we seem bigoted and mean. But, what do Jesus and Paul teach us about Eros love? They were both celibate. Jesus says count the cost of following him and Paul councils people to avoid marriage and save themselves the trouble. Our churches don’t preach that. They preach marriage is the lifelong goal of every little girl, marriage is something everyone should do, the younger the better. They preach sexual fulfillment and, as in the case of Josh Duggar and many others, marriage is the cure for sexual issues.

    Paul would roll over in his grave if he could see our modern day obsession with marital relationships in churches.

    Churches did such a good job promoting marriages the last few decades, now, everyone wants in (gay men in the 70s would have laughed at the idea of getting married btw) and churches are stuck saying – um, wait…not everyone is even supposed to be allowed in! Remarriage was forbidden by Jesus, yet no one knows what to do with divorced people, so churches preform remarriages (some have criteria for who they will remarry, but the Bible says not to, ever). While preforming remarriages, because what is a divorced person supposed to do??? (Marriage is just soooooo important) they were hammering homosexuals for wanting in. Hypocrisy much?

    The problem is, the focus. We should not be a church promoting western family values, leave that to sociologists to discover, we should be focused on Jesus. If we weren’t in the marriage business to begin with, we wouldn’t be having mass debates about gay, remarriage, and divorce issues. We don’t have huge debates about business contracts, union membership, and so on. Marriage is a worldly institution somehow brought into the church and elevated. It wasn’t in the early church. Some who came in were married, some weren’t, either way, the church wasn’t setting up or preforming those ceremonies.

    It would be a lot easier if the church wasn’t asked to get involved in marriages at all. People could go get married, or not. No need to get involved in who is married to whom, if it was legit by a church’s standards, if it was common law or not. The church could focus on teaching people to put Christ first in all decisions and let people figure out how to navigate that in the marriage world, much the way we don’t get involved in how business men/women run their businesses, even though the Bible has a lot to say about honesty, not insisting on getting paid back on loans and so on. We don’t regulate banks and interest rates anymore, but Christians used to. Only Jews could do banking in Europe, Christians weren’t allowed – charging interest is technically a sin. Is taking out a mortgage also sinful since it involved interest? We don’t even know this anymore, or really care. It isn’t the point of church to be running our business ventures, or our marital ones. It is up to us to live godly lives without piles of rules attached all over.

    But, if we are going to stick to the GrecoRoman world view of marriage in order to guide ours, then remarriage is not permitted and nor is homosexuality. Sexual gratification is irrelevant, marriage was about legitimate heirs, not sexual fulfillment. That and celibacy should be more encouraged and promoted while marriage should be viewed as second best and not too fawned over. It should be an institution for children to grow up in and provided for, but not more than that. Yeah, not really our view at all any more.

    So, although I am sure Paul was teaching people homosexuality was wrong, he was teaching that in the context that sexual gratification is not something Christians ought to be off seeking. In other words, it isn’t about gay marriage being wrong and heterosexual marriage being right. It is about getting into relationships for sexual gratification as wrong. Since marriage was for heirs, what does that tell us about Paul’s view on marriage. In other words, as I was told when living in India, Love marriages are wrong. The entire west is wrong. Or, we westerners don’t bother with Greco Roman marriage advice and just get out of the marriage business entirely as churches. People show up at our church, we point them to Christ and all that entails and people make decisions based on their own understandings of the Bible on how to conduct their own lives in a Christlike manner. Someone may strongly disagree with me being a union member, but I’ve never been accused of not being a Christian because I am a union member. Churches don’t see it as their place to direct me on my union belonging (I actually have no choice, either lose my job or belong to the union, but anyways), why do churches feel the need to direct people on their marital status?

  81. One more thing: I don’t think the Bible compels me or anyone else to grab control of the government or use the power of the ballot to force Christian views of morality on the culture at large. Further, I don’t think it’s my business to be standing in judgment of people who do not identify with my faith (“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” 1 Cor 5:12).

    That’s where I think the dominionists and “Yer all goin to Hell!” campus preacher lunatics get it wrong.

    My job is to look first at myself, judge my own actions, be humble, consider there are a whole lot of people doing it better than me (“…in humility consider others better than yourself” Phil 2:3), and then, when I think my house might be in order in some particular area, perhaps then help another who identifies as Christian to address that issue in their life.

    I’m also to expose evil, I suppose implicitly it’s obvious, based on the way Jesus and all the disciples did it, within the church (note Jesus never seemed to take a shot at all the pagans and non-Jews out there, it was all directed at His own).

    Finally, I’m supposed to do all of the above in love–understanding that love is sometimes a kick in the seat of the pants rather than a gentle stroke (I’ve received my share of the kicks).

    That’s it, judge myself, judge those with whom I’m in fellowship, provided I’m not being a hypocrite about it, expose evil in the church, do it all with love.

    I have no business hammering away at the transgendered crowd, militant homosexuals, what-have-you. Not my business. But that doesn’t mean God didn’t mean what He said about what’s right and wrong and those with whom I’m supposed to be in close Christian fellowship–with the understanding that such standards can be used on me as well.

  82. Law Prof wrote:

    In the written portion: 4 Calvins, 1 Christ (in the closing, not the body)

    Yes I noticed that.

    I also noticed his phoney, ‘dramatic’ sounding voiceover with its bizarre intonation, no doubt designed to sound holy, authoritative and humble all at once. Or was I just reading too much into it 🙂

  83. Val wrote:

    why do churches feel the need to direct people on their marital status?

    I think that, by and large, people in the church are concerned to uphold the importance of faithfulness and commitment and stability for children. Obviously there are other agendas, too.

    Whether the church should be in the marrying business, so to speak is a different question, I think. I don’t know as much history as you do, but I’m guessing that churches got into marriage as agents of the state to determine what was and was not a legitimate union and what offspring had rights of inheritance and duties to parents, etc.

    Personally, I think that churches need to look to the original creation to see what God had in mind, and along with that the instructions we get in the NT. ISTM that before the Fall, there was a Man and a Woman and they delighted in one another. The Song of Solomon captures part of that, IMO. However, the realities of the fallen world brought new realities, and marriage became an economic arrangement or a means of avoiding conflict or war. I think that is because the Fall introduced a reality of scarcity which, IMO, drives much of human behavior. So, ideally a Christian marriage will increasingly reflect the condition before the Fall when the Man and the Woman loved each other with a perfect love and both loved their Creator with a perfect love. They walked in unity because they walked in fellowship with God personally.

    One problem is that the church can fall into the trap of utopianizing marriage in a fallen world, but I think that God and the authors of the Bible are much more practical than that. I think that God is a covenantal God, and so we should have a covenantal view of marriage as well. We should enter marriage solemnly and not frivolously as the world does. Serial marriage, as you say, is kind of pointless. Where the church gets off track, IMO, is making the status of being married into an idol such that all other Kingdom considerations get sacrificed on the altar of preserving married status which, as you also say, is a social construct. In the Bible, God is much more concerned, ISTM, with faithfulness to our vows which extend beyond merely avoiding adultery.

    Piper makes a huge deal out of marriage permanence, and that is an example where the state of marriage becomes more important than the actual covenantal relationship and the vows that each made to the other. That is why Piper says such foolish things about divorce for abuse. He cannot see beyond the status of marriage to what the marriage really is from God’s POV, which is *not* the legal document or the legal status of the people. If someone is a covenant breaker in a marriage, then the covenant has been broken. Joshua Duggar has broken his covenant vows to his wife. Yet there are Christians all over the place who are insisting that she has a duty to stay in a covenant which no longer exists, IMO. She is not bound, just as the abandoned Christians were not bound if their unbelieving spouses chose to leave.

    Basically I think we need to spend a lot more energy on what God intended, what he expects us to enact as Priests of the New Covenant, a people with the law of God inscribed on our hearts and who have the indwelling Holy Spirit. We have the power to pursue a marriage in the inaugurated New Creation that looks more like the original creation. That was a Man and a Woman who delight in one another and who both delight in the Lord. That is the big picture that I think we lose, and it is the picture I wish we portrayed to young people instead of either the license of the world or the legalism of religion. There is something much better.

    IMO, the state can recognize whatever arrangements it chooses to recognize and grant whatever benefits it chooses to grant to those relationships or statuses. I don’t see that affecting Christians so long as Christians have their freedom of conscience and religious practice protected. Personally, I think the church has plenty of work to do inside the church with marriages there.

  84. May wrote:

    This retirement video simply proves what Piper’s life’s work was always about – Calvin.

    I suppose every good Calvinist must make a pilgrimage to Geneva in their lifetime. The infamous Al Mohler led a “reformation tour” to Geneva a few years ago.

    Dr. Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is definitely passionate about New Calvinism, as indicated by his words: “If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going to end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this New Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there …”

    I guess non-Calvinists are not “committed to the gospel” and do not “want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ”? There are no other options to Calvinism out there in the Body of Christ? To the reformed mind, Gospel = Calvinism. Such arrogance! If I go to Geneva someday, I will be on a mission to find a good watch.

  85. Max wrote:

    If I go to Geneva someday, I will be on a mission to find a good watch.

    I’ve been. I was strangely unmoved by the formality of Calvin’s cathedral (St Peter’s) and his pulpit. Now, a trip to the Holy Land, that would be quite different I feel.

  86. Law Prof wrote:

    In the written portion: 4 Calvins, 1 Christ (in the closing, not the body)

    I have actually sat listening to New Calvinist sermon podcasts and recorded the number of times that “God” is mentioned vs. Jesus and the Holy Spirit. “God” is named a LOT, with little reference to Jesus, and hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit. These folks have their priorities messed up in more ways than Calvin vs. Christ … but it’s the over-emphasis in what ‘a’ man said vs. what ‘the’ Man said which drives reformed theology to its aberrant gospel delivery.

  87. @ Max:
    I read somewhere there is a tiny plaque mentioning Servetus there but it is hidden by bushes or something.

  88. Gram3 wrote:

    MO, the state can recognize whatever arrangements it chooses to recognize and grant whatever benefits it chooses to grant to those relationships or statuses. I don’t see that affecting Christians so long as Christians have their freedom of conscience and religious practice protected. Personally, I think the church has plenty of work to do inside the church with marriages there.

    That is pretty much my view as a libertarian Christian. I do worry about speech censoring and accusations if one disagrees and being able to actually debate/discuss different ideas/opinions. I fear we are running out of bubble wrap for offenses and I fear our country will become even more collectivized over it.

  89. @ Max:
    Piper thinks REAL Christianity started around the mid 1500’s. So yes, it is his Holy Land. AFter all, he took his DG crew there instead of Jerusalem. :o)

  90. @ Gram3:
    I’m not disagreeing with you. But I am noting there are a lot more guiding principles than marriage in the Bible the church doesn’t touch. Business/legal contracts, usury, etc.

    As for the history of marriage. The legitimacy of heirs was already set up in the Greco Roman world, and the church never had need of taking over that aspect. Basically, only males could be citizens, but not all males were citizens. A Greco Roman marriage was between a Roman Citizen and the daughter of a Roman Citizen. If a Roman citizen had a mistress who was not the daughter of a citizen, their offspring could not become his heirs. This system of marriage guaranteed inheritance, but had little to do with covenant bonds. Non citizens freemen could marry too, but as they had no land titles to inherit, the state was not involved. When Rome “Christianized” nothing much changed in the marriage department, except prostitution was now something forbidden, both male and female prostitution, but since it was usually tied in with temple worship, the whole temple package got banned (and the slaves must have rejoiced at no longer being forced to have sex with old men). The church didn’t get involved if a man wanted to marry a Citizen’s daughter or a non-citizens daughter. They didn’t view the legal Roman marriage contract as somehow above remaining faithful and monogamous to whomever they were with. They didn’t get involved with freemen marrying someone they fancied and starting a family. Remember, in the early church, it was much more encouraged to not get married and come serve Christ while remaining celebrate for the rest of your life. Youth groups (as if they existed, but let’s pretend) wouldn’t have talks about “Song of Solomon” and finding your soulmate but about the joy of denying self and taking up the orders.

    So, if someone did not take up orders in the church, the church didn’t get involved in their marital decisions.

    But, fast forward to 1200s and the Pope of the day was on (another) building spree over at the Vatican or somewhere in Rome, and wanted to raise money. Since rich people had formal marriages, arranged and drawn up agreements, vestiges of the Roman era. The church saw a financial opportunity. If they made marriages sacramental they could get involved and get some of that contract money. So that is what happened. The church took on the judge and jury role in marriage, declaring what was right and wrong, enforcing it, deciding who could/couldn’t get married. Outlawing ‘Common Law’ marriages, etc. In other words, the church became overly meddlesome for a tax grab. It is so long ago we don’t imagine time before it, but marriages were not covenant contracts for most of church history.

    As for covenants, the Bible says let your yes be yes. I am not sure we are supposed to be entering into all sorts of covenants with each other. The Old Testament did this, but that is not how Jesus teaches us. It sounds all sweet and lovely, but there is a problem with being covenantally bonded on this earth with others. A simple “I do” should mean just that “I do promise to …” and it shouldn’t matter if it is an “I do promise to take you as my lawfully wedded spouse” or “I do promise to serve and protect our citizens” or “I do promise to keep this secret”. Needing a covenant beyond that is out of the scope of New Testament kingdom living actually,

    Like you said, marriages breakdown due to someone’s abuse, political leaders can take on wars that are unjust and secrets that hurt others sometimes need to be revealed to proper authorities. We do what we must to follow Christ. But if we need the church to fluff up our “yeses” with covenants and conditions and rules (apparently the state of Arkansas has Covenant marriages on it’s books where a couple can only get divorced in severe conditions – adultery is included- but must undergo counselling for up to 30 months prior to a granted divorce, so even if Anna decides to divorce Josh, it would take a long time, since I suspect they had a covenant marriage), we aren’t getting what Jesus was calling us to.

    It is notable to me how often Christians have to go to the Old Testament to support church-sanctioned marriages. The Old Testament was an Old Covenant between God and Israel. We are under a new covenant with him. In our New Covenant, we aren’t supposed to need covenants between Christians, we aren’t supposed to put marriage first and we are certainly not guaranteed a Song of Solomon experience in our marriages. Also, consider who is credited with writing song of Solomon. A guy with 300 wives and 700 concubines, hardly a covenantal relationship. From the wife’s perspective, it is about marrying up into power, not love or fulfillment, how could a wife be fulfilled by a man with 1000 other love interests? I actually think that isn’t the meaning of SofS at all. It is about God’s love for his Church/Bride. That is the traditional Jewish reading (substitute Israel for Church) and they were not at all squeamish about sex – they write tombs on the topic in way to much detail if you ask me – but the Bible points to God, not to our earthly fulfillment, so that is why I think SofS isn’t about earthly sex. It also shows how little support the church has for being so involved in marriage when it resorts to using Old Testament poetry to back up it’s rules and “rights” to be involved in marriage unions.

  91. I studied Reformation history at university and for me, if there was going to be a hero, it would have to be Luther. I think, judging by the name of their blog, the Deebs might agree 🙂 Yes, he held some unpalatable views but didn’t they all?

    Or if you want other heroes of the faith, try William Tyndale (who died a martyr) and John Wyclif (whose adherents advocated female priests).

    What none of these guys did, incidentally, is invent a system which interprets the Bible definitively and force others to follow it slavishly and without question.

  92. Daisy wrote:

    I’m sorry to beat a dead horse, but again, Ken’s version of gender complementarianism, while soft and gentle, is still harmful and dangerous.

    I’m sure his wife is more easily deceived than he is!

  93. Lydia wrote:

    Note that Calvin restored the Gospel to the church. Sound familiar?

    Piper gave a talk at the Resurgence conference in 2008 titled “How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and False Gospels”. The audio and notes are on desiringgod.org.

    At the beginning of his talk he states that advocating for a false gospel will bring a “final curse”. According to him, the belief that individuals have free will enabling them to decide for themselves whether to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation is a false gospel.

  94. Lydia wrote:

    Note that Calvin restored the Gospel to the church. Sound familiar?

    You are so right! It’s just hit me. Piper actually regards himself as a modern-day Calvin.

  95. @ Val:
    Anna and Josh were married in Florida. They don’t have covenant marriages in that state. But I am sure that if Anna wanted to divorce Josh both sets of parents would make it practically impossible and then try to disown her and grandkids too.

  96. Val wrote:

    But, fast forward to 1200s and the Pope of the day was on (another) building spree over at the Vatican or somewhere in Rome, and wanted to raise money. Since rich people had formal marriages, arranged and drawn up agreements, vestiges of the Roman era. The church saw a financial opportunity. If they made marriages sacramental they could get involved and get some of that contract money. So that is what happened. The church took on the judge and jury role in marriage, declaring what was right and wrong, enforcing it, deciding who could/couldn’t get married. Outlawing ‘Common Law’ marriages, etc. In other words, the church became overly meddlesome for a tax grab. It is so long ago we don’t imagine time before it, but marriages were not covenant contracts for most of church history.

    Thanks for clarifying some questions I have had on the history of marriage. Of course, you’d have a hard time convincing the church at large that marriage isn’t as important as it has been portrayed since the 1200s.

    On another subject, what did the Jewish marriage commitment look like, involve? Was it more of a promise between two fathers and a celebration when the promise was fulfilled? I’m assuming that Christian Jews still followed some of the traditions of their Jewish heritage.

  97. Nancy2 wrote:

    The church saw a financial opportunity. If they made marriages sacramental they could get involved and get some of that contract money. So that is what happened. The church took on the judge and jury role in marriage, declaring what was right and wrong, enforcing it, deciding who could/couldn’t get married. Outlawing ‘Common Law’ marriages, etc. In other words, the church became overly meddlesome for a tax grab.

    Between the church and the state, mankind is often in a steely grasp.

  98. May wrote:

    I studied Reformation history

    May, have you read “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” by Leonard Verduin? Through that and other sources, I have developed a great appreciation for the faithfulness of the Anabaptists (the “stepchildren”) during the reformation. The Anabaptists were heavily persecuted during the 16th and 17th centuries by both the Roman Catholics and Magisterial Reformers, including Calvin. IMHO, the real heroes of the faith during the reformation were men like Grebel, Manz, Blaurock, Hubmaier … not Calvin. While some of their views appeared a little radical, they challenged Calvin’s route to reformation by championing a free church of Jesus Christ comprised of baptized believers (while Calvin baptized infants of the “elect”). The Anabaptists were the first to advance a separation of church and state (Calvin preferred the strong arm of the law to enforce his theology) and they advanced congregational church governance (rather than Calvin’s authoritarian elder rule). Their names may have been dwarfed by Calvin’s expanding influence, but their contributions live on through the free church.

  99. harley wrote:

    Anna and Josh were married in Florida. They don’t have covenant marriages in that state. But I am sure that if Anna wanted to divorce Josh both sets of parents would make it practically impossible and then try to disown her and grandkids too.

    That’s just horrible to contemplate. Josh and Anna’s marriage is now in a place where nobody disputes Jesus said you could issue a writ of divorce. But they’re going to coerce these two into staying together, sending one off to a facility where he’ll get NO REAL HELP and locking the other one away with three toddlers and a newborn baby where she’ll get NO REAL HELP.

    This is not going to end well.

  100. @ Max:
    I agree about the Holy Spirit being delegated to the back pew a bit. But, we just buried my 96 yr old mother-in-law yesterday. The Holy Spirit was felt so much during the wake and the funeral. I thought a prayer meeting was going to break out. This was a group of Southern Baptists mixed in with some Lutherans.

  101. @ Max:

    I haven’t read the book you mention – must look it up.

    Your commentary re the proud history of the Anabaptists is spot-on.

  102. @ Val:
    That was very interesting background about things I did not know. Thank you. I think we may be talking about different things. When I talk about the marriage covenant, I’m not talking about what the state of Arkansas has. I’m talking about how seriously God takes promises we make to one another. So, I totally agree that the church does not talk enough about that. Honoring contracts has cost us personally a lot, so we do take that seriously. Same with paying people fairly and on time. Ironically, one of the worst entities WRT contracts we have known is a church-affiliated organization. There is definitely some work left to do there!

    The Song of Solomon is an allegory, IMO. It may be about Christ and the Church. It may be about Solomon and a bride whom he loves or about some other couple or pure allegory about something else like God’s love for Israel. Or it may be about some combination in some sense. I don’t know about that. But what it portrays is what interests me and the nature of covenantal love. If it is about Christ and his Church, then wouldn’t we expect to find some similarity between that and the first Man and Woman? Not saying an exact correspondence because we are talking about a metaphor. The point is that it portrays love in a much different way than was typical for marriage then. Same with Jacob and Rachel. Jacob and Leah was more typical, if my understanding is correct. That was a strictly economic and social transaction, but Jacob was still expected to honor his commitment. He was defrauded, but nevertheless worked to secure his love, Rachel. I think there is some kind of metaphor there for Christ’s love, even if it is not strictly a type.

    In that way, and if we take the unfolding narrative of the scripture as being one of moving back toward the creation that was lost to the New Creation, then I think that our Christian marriages should look different than worldly ones. That is not to say that non-Christians cannot have good marriages! I do not believe in utter depravity. However, the self-sacrificing and deferential love that we see in Ephesians, for example, is much different than the social or economic marriages of the cultures into which Paul was speaking. It reflects Jacob and Rachel rather than Jacob, Laban, and Leah. It reflects the New Creation we should be moving toward, and that, ISTM, is what Paul and Jesus direct us forward toward in their rather radical instruction regarding marriage. Do a man and a woman need a church to make a valid covenant with one another? I don’t think so. Practically speaking in a fallen world, however, it seems like a good idea to have an enforcement mechanism in place to protect the offended party should one of them break their covenant with one another. Long ago that would have been the tribal elders and now it is the state.

    How similar are the old marriage ceremonies of the Roman church and the Anglican church? The history is fascinating and something I’ve not explored.

  103. mirele wrote:

    That’s just horrible to contemplate. Josh and Anna’s marriage is now in a place where nobody disputes Jesus said you could issue a writ of divorce

    At this point it is about upholding the face of the System. What is good for the people or for the name of Christ is beside the point. I would argue those have always been beside the point. IMO the horror is magnified because it is being perpetrated in the name of Christ.

  104. Ken wrote:

    I don’t think I actually bear much resemblance to your impression. I really would like to leave the heated and acrimonious discussion behind. I’m not deliberately trying to be a pain in the neck.
    And you say some things on the whole homosexual issue I agree with – this issue is not going to go away, and is going to require wisdom in its handling.

    I was thinking you were a pain about 24 inches lower. Then again, as many here would surely say of me: takes one to know one.

  105. Ken wrote:

    …Or should I stick with complain or moan?

    No, you should do none of the above.

    By the way, I still want to know why it is that men who insist upon women-to-men-only submission do not consider that “ezer” does not mean sidekick or lesser partner but means the one who is there to help and direct the other, and that this word “ezer” is used in various places to describe God’s relationship to us.

    One can only imagine what the male dominant crowd would do with such a fact if Adam had been described as being an “ezer” to Eve, how you’d be hammering that one home here to prove the inevitability of male superiority.

    So since you don’t have that argument, people who believe as you do have to ignore that irrefutable fact, then play patently absurd creation order games to get to male dominance. Of course, by that standard a baboon would win out over man in terms of creation order/prominence, a morey eel over the baboon, and a blade of grass over both.

    I just have to say, I am sincerely glad I listen to my wife and take her guidance and submit to her, because I am a perfect idiot without her (she is not, by the way, a perfect idiot without me, as a rule women don’t need the guidance quite like we do–of course, the Lord created the ezer for Adam, not Eve).

    If I stopped listening to her, I might become like John Piper or Mark Driscoll or something.

  106. Law Prof wrote:

    If I stopped listening to her, I might become like John Piper or Mark Driscoll or something.

    I don’t think Ken would ever think it is smart for a man to not listen to his wife.
    Where we have the problem is that he believes the man has one-way judgement over the advice she gives. He can deem it lesser than his own judgement, any day, everyday. But he listened to her.

    The wife, however, cannot deem her husbands words as lesser but must submit. This is the problem with teachings that claim women are more easily deceived than men. Men get to make that judgement about everything with no ‘legitimate’ recourse for the wife.

  107. Ken wrote:

    So

    Ken,

    Seriously? You would quote Daisy the commandment about not bearing false witness? Seriously?

    I have never once seen you give Daisy credit and her point of view living in the comp system and the incredible damage it does. She was raised in it.

    There is another commandment, Ken, which is greater: Love. Show Daisy some Christian Love.

  108. Ken wrote:

    Or should I stick with complain or moan?

    The term you use is not the problem. The problem is that you are comparing the wrong sets, as I’ve said elsewhere. You are comparing first world women with non-first world women. The issue under discussion is the relative status of first world women and first world men, particularly in the church and home. Is everyone in the first world barred from protesting anything that is worse in the non-first world? You are evading the question at hand.

    Regarding mutual submission, you made the argument that we can understand that Paul is not calling husbands to submit to their wives, and you cited his instructions to slaves and to children as being non-reciprocal. What you are ignoring is that those instructions to children and slaves come well after his description of how wives and husbands are to relate. However, 5:22 cannot be de-coupled from 5:21 the way you would like to do because it is dependent upon it.

    To say that husbands should not submit to their wives is, at best, an argument from silence of sorts in that Paul did not explicitly mention husbands submitting to their wives, and you are arguing that he must have done so or else no mutual submission. He is not limiting the amount of submission on the part of husbands in 5:22 but rather the submission required on the part of women. Husbands are nowhere excluded from the universality of 5:21. The relationship of wife to husband is not comparable to the relationship of children to parents or slaves to masters. Therefore, we should not apply the non-reciprocity of those relationships to the marital relationship.

    Those are the points to which you have not responded except to say that it can’t be mutual because slaves and children which is not a response to the other points we have made.

  109. Mara wrote:

    Men get to make that judgement about everything with no ‘legitimate’ recourse for the wife.

    Which leaves the option with the husband, and options have value in relationships and elsewhere. He can make a decision which she cannot make which means that his agency is a higher sort of agency or viewed from the other perspective, her agency is defective. That means that one of the things that determines personhood is diminished for a married woman. Equal is not equal to not equal.

  110. Mara wrote:

    I don’t think Ken would ever think it is smart for a man to not listen to his wife.
    Where we have the problem is that he believes the man has one-way judgement over the advice she gives. He can deem it lesser than his own judgement, any day, everyday. But he listened to her.
    The wife, however, cannot deem her husbands words as lesser but must submit. This is the problem with teachings that claim women are more easily deceived than men. Men get to make that judgement about everything with no ‘legitimate’ recourse for the wife.

    In all honesty, Mara, what do you think? My belief and experience is that a man without a woman’s guidance often tends to be a wreck and a fool–a heck of a lot more than a woman without a man’s guidance. This is not just some idle thought full of confirmation bias. Insurance companies recognize it, the criminal justice system recognizes it, educational institutions recognize it. Anyone who has a brain in their head has seen this.

    Yes, it’s undeniably true, to one church at one time, Paul said that he forbade a woman to have authority over a man within the context of the church body. There were of course serious problems with female superiority/fertility cults at that church. To bolster his argument, Paul certainly did reference Eve being deceived. But Paul also to us to “submit one to another” However much Ken would want to make that into a one-sided women submit to men and/or church members submit in a one-sided way to church leaders, it says what it says. He also told us unequivocally that “in Christ there is neither…male nor female”. And of course, there’s that niggling issue of the woman being described as the one doing the guiding, the one being the strength, the ezer.

    Ken basically has his one verse, but he must explain away all the rest, plus the cultural context, plus logic, reason, and the observation of us all (including big insurance), to carry the day. I think he’s outnumbered.

  111. Gram3 wrote:

    Regarding mutual submission, you made the argument that we can understand that Paul is not calling husbands to submit to their wives, and you cited his instructions to slaves and to children as being non-reciprocal. What you are ignoring is that those instructions to children and slaves come well after his description of how wives and husbands are to relate.

    Actually, in a legal context in the First Century, sure, slaves (bad translation there, by the way, they were more like those who’d sold themselves into temporary servanthood as in 19th century England, and serfdom from previous centuries, and the like) were to submit to masters and culturally, children to parents, but in Christ, we are all to submit to each other. You bet, I’m still their parent, but I’m supposed to submit to my children. Absolutely. And masters to slaves. And men to women and women to men and children to parents and everyone in Christ to everyone else. No part of the Body taking prominence over the other.

    The people who are truly divisive, the ones we ought to avoid according to scriptures, are those who like to cut the Body of Christ up into greater and lesser parts and worship their hierarchies. They are divisive, coming up with strange doctrines, have nothing to do with them. Which is why I reject fellowship with the average complementarian or authoritarian.

    They don’t uphold the Gospel, they make up their own and draw to themselves leaders who tell their itching ears what they want to hear..

  112. @ Max:
    The real hero’s are the nameless persecuted by drowning or worse in hamlets and villages all over Europe documented in Martyrs Mirror. Someday we will know their names. Not just by ‘cobbler and his wife’.

    I am unimpressed by the Reformers who were protected by merging with the State authorities.

  113. Law Prof wrote:

    So was Paul wrong in the Bible to tell the church at Corinth to temporarily toss out the guy who was openly having relations with his step mom?

    But isn’t the problem we are seeing (what Mirele was pointing out in the hypocrisy of the church) is that the churches will not deal with sexual sin in their midst and will give their *friends* a pass? We see this all of the time, choose your denomination.

    How does targeting one group of people -gays – deal with ALL of the Corinthian-like churches today who give their friends special perks?

  114. Law Prof wrote:

    In all honesty, Mara, what do you think?

    I did not know all of this that you have said about insurance companies and the criminal justice system. And I have no reason to believe you are making this up. So if what you say is true then women really ARE the Ezer Kenegdo of men in more ways than what I originally understood.

    And if things are as you say, it is a crying shame that the church is one of the loudest opponent to women taking their rightful places beside men (neither above nor beneath). It is a shame that many ‘Christian’ men fight tooth and nail to keep women away from where they can actually help men. It is a shame that these men sideline women to the position of watchers and receivers, who have no choice but to be helpless victims of the consequences of the choices and decisions of men.

    (Kind of like Anna Duggar? Dear God, what sort of VD is she suffering with in silence?)

  115. May wrote:

    What none of these guys did, incidentally, is invent a system which interprets the Bible definitively and force others to follow it slavishly and without question.

    Like Calvin?

  116. @ Gram3:
    Interesting view point. I’m not sure the state makes the best over seer of a Christian marriage, though. I agree, there shouldn’t be an qualms from a married couple making their marriage legal. A while back there was the Julie McMahon story here and her ex was all about ditching legal marriage contracts. Conveniently after his breakup with her didn’t go so well, and there was a new paramour in the wings. So, I’d be suspicious of any Christian shunning a marriage licence. Fallen world and all.

  117. JohnD wrote:

    At the beginning of his talk he states that advocating for a false gospel will bring a “final curse”. According to him, the belief that individuals have free will enabling them to decide for themselves whether to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation is a false gospel.

    Oh yes, I am familiar. And I cannot begin to tell you how much that teaching has permeated here in certain circles. Of course they ignore that it is not practical in everyday life. And it most certainly cuts the guidance of the Holy Spirit out and a personal relationship with our Savior.

    I would also have to believe Piper has no free will. So what am I to do with that? My guess is that his followers then have to believe that he has a direct line to God we dont have. Some sort of special anointing.

    That might explain his drama, passion, verbosity, inflection, pained humility, etc. I think he believes that he is very special.

  118. Mara wrote:

    I did not know all of this that you have said about insurance companies and the criminal justice system. And I have no reason to believe you are making this up.

    Just pointing out, for example, that car insurance rates tend to be higher for men, particularly young ones, than for women. People have noticed that young men, particularly those unattached, tend to act a lot more like lunatics than women, young or otherwise. Likewise, men outnumber women by an enormous amount in the criminal justice system, there’s no real rational explanation for this, such as institutional bias, a history of oppression, or socioeconomic factors (as is the case for the disparities between races), it’s just plain and simple: men are more likely to act like idiots.

    It’s just so. Does Piper deny this? Driscoll? Ken? Oh heck, they probably would, if backed into a corner, Piper would likely flutter and Driscoll would thunder about feminist oppression or male sexual frustration, Ken would just change the subject. What the heck.

  119. @ Law Prof:

    They wouldn’t call it idiotic. They’d call it being manly men. They laugh at danger, even danger they create themselves. Like this!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VsqJ4I4GwU

    (I have to admit this looks like fun but I’d never do it. And I probably wouldn’t stick around very close with guys that were doing it. And if there were any children, I’d take them far away from this stuff. With my luck I or one of my kids would end up seriously injured or worse. But I guess that fear doesn’t shadow the mind of a guy like it does mine.)

  120. Val wrote:

    I’m not sure the state makes the best over seer of a Christian marriage,

    Ideally the couple’s Christian friends and family would step in to do that, though I’m not sure I like the idea of overseeing anyone. Matters might not have to go to the state, but I think that things like abuse and threats need to be taken immediately to the police or other authorities. I like the idea of Christians encouraging people to do the right thing, especially for the children. Exhortation, warning, etc. As a practical matter, however, the state is the “neutral party” which theoretically will at least do the right thing for the children. Theoretically. Did I mention this is only in theory? I do not agree with Piper’s “permanence” view at all though I do appreciate what I presume motivates him to advocate for that. As in so many other things, IMO he misses the main point and obsesses over the wrong thing.

  121. Dee, thank you for your reply.

    I completely agree with you (and especially Daisy, who lives it!) that celibacy for homosexuals is a very viable option with very articulate proponents for believers — one of my close friends practices that option, in fact. In my younger years as a Christian, I wished that it was one the friends and family members I mention above could be happy in (I’ve known these folks for 20-30 years and longer).

    I’ve never known you or Deb to be anything but welcoming and supportive of LGBT people on your blog. Your interview with Justin Lee must have been great — he is so gracious and biblically thoughtful — we need more of his ilk. BTW, he did a lovely interview on NPR that I am linking here:

    http://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/165276593/torn-living-as-an-openly-gay-christian

    I think you would also enjoy conversations Krista Tippett has (on her radio interview show, ‘On Being’) with various Christians and others on these topics — she has that same combination of grace and biblical depth that I think you would love.

    (An aside to those who commented on salvation by works: I am an evangelical — in “the older, wiser, deeper sense” — Christian, and would never say good works save us — nor would I say faith without works is salvific, since I hold to a high view of all Scripture — James as well as Paul.)

    What concerned — and continues to concern me so deeply with Law Prof’s posts above is that he lumps all “active homosexuals” as “very much like the guy playing around with his stepmother” and says the church should not grant them “full fellowship,” (whatever that means — since Paul had the immoral guy kicked out and shunned until he repented). He repeats this fallacious analogy over and over again, both to Mirele and to me. Paul never equates the two, and Gentile culture of his day was filled with people who had gay and/or straight lovers as well as wives (as Val points out so articulately — thank you for your history of marriage lesson!) Even THEY would not do what this man was doing openly in the church, says Paul.

    The fact that Law Prof so clearly associates all active homosexuals with this most lascivious, lewd behavior cited by Paul (“even the Gentiles” did not do what this man was openly doing!) is further substantiated in his follow-up comment to me, where he compares judging homosexuals’ behavior to being “judged” by his boss if he were to have flings with his undergrad students!

    I have simply known and observed people for far too long who are in lifelong committed relationships and who are amazing parents as well. Law Prof slandered them, in my opinion, which is why I used the “B” word with him. Perhaps its sister term, “sanctimonious,” would have been more fitting, but I was cut to the quick by his words, and deeply offended on behalf of my brothers and sisters in Christ. I, for one, have been changed for the better by knowing and walking closely with these, my friends and family, and I have come to the option you mention, Dee, of LGBT Christians living in monogamous relationships as a valid one. Do I still struggle with Scripture on this? You bet I do!

    Which brings up a question I have, Dee: You have said that one of your main priorities is providing a safe space for those who have been abused. However, Law Prof’s words would make me not recommend this blog to those I know who have been the most severely abused and who are in the LGBT lifestyle, to one degree or another.

    What about a wounded, LGBT person who knows Jesus, who comes looking for solace and guidance here? How do you think Law Prof’s words would come across to them? And what about the fact that no one else called him on it except Mirele and me, after hours of other comments went by?

    I’m not criticizing you here — you do an amazing job, and your blogs are getting such major traffic that no one could keep up — I’m just asking you to consider Law Prof’s statements from another perspective, one I know for certain that you value.

    And BTW — the woman abused by her pastor? Her partner was raped by her stepfather from the age of 6, while her mother, who knew about it, turned a blind eye. I have only known four other people who come from that extreme, early abuse, and one of them is my spouse. And I have done social work for years with at-risk low income populations.

    So, Law Prof, while I NEVER called you “ignorant” or questioned your wide-ranging experiences or relationships (those were your inferences, NOT mine), I do have a right to say relationships change everything. Especially our relationship with Jesus and his Word, which states, “Act as those who will be judged by the perfect law which gives liberty, for judgment without mercy will be shown to all who have not shown mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment! James 2:13) I will always err on the side of mercy, if only to keep my own a$$ out of the fire! 🙂

  122. Law Prof,

    I have explained to Dee above, why your statement is so offensive to me. I also explained why your logic is faulty and your biblical analogy does not work.

    However, I am glad my comment caught your attention, because I have more to say to you. I would never call you ignorant or question your wide-ranging experiences and relational integrity — those are entirely your inferences, reflecting you, not me — in fact, I didn’t call you a bigot, though I did speak of your bigotry, by which I meant your bigoted words. I should have made that clear, and I’m sorry I offended you.

    I would not insult you that way. I regard you as a highly intelligent, articulate brother in Christ who has a lot of things to teach me, based on your comments on this blog that I’ve read over the past 2 years or so. In fact, I’ve learned a ton from most of the people here.

    However, I have also seen a very mean-spirited side to your comments as well. Most recently, your blanket condemnation of all seminaries and your constant ad hominems toward Ken, above, really bothered me. Part of the reason I was shocked by your gay analogy was that your vitriol (confirmed in your further posts to Mirele and me) was so personal, so angry, so arrogant, and so slanderous to faithful, gay, Christian people. I felt stabbed in the heart by your words.

    I know you hate arrogance and ignorance, especially in church leadership. So do I. Yet I’ve seen you do this before — a few blogs ago you parodied James Packer and his supposed relationship with his wife — again, your comments, for me, came out of left field and seemed so blindingly ignorant and arrogant. And yes, slanderous and bearing false witness come to mind; again you target people you apparently do not know anything about.

    I think you want to be a better man than that — as evidenced by your lengthy post above about staying humble and considering your own sins first. Are you having second thoughts about your vitriol? How different that post is from your others here — almost like two different people.

    You and I probably agree on most things scriptural. Plus you seem to understand God’s viewpoint on the poor and needy, which makes you even more fun to read, in my book. You do not know me either, but I have been reading your posts for a pretty long time, and, as I’ve said, enjoying them and learning from them, mostly.

    As someone said somewhere, as you do your writing and state your case, please do not become what you most despise. And please consider others who read here, too.

  123. almost60 wrote:

    What about a wounded, LGBT person who knows Jesus, who comes looking for solace and guidance here? How do you think Law Prof’s words would come across to them? And what about the fact that no one else called him on it except Mirele and me, after hours of other comments went by?

    @almost60,

    Thanks for your posts. I did say something to LawProf in objection as well, but because of the nature of the topics for the past few days, a record number of posts are going in to moderation as our lovely blog queens Dee and Deb have pointed out.

    I actually have found that in the conservative church, like the NeoCal churches, they are like the Corinthian church: They give their friends a pass at sexual sins. The NeoCals, and others like them, are fond of purging gays from their rank in the name of sexual purity. But their own friends? Their own leaders? The child sex abusers? You have got to be kidding! Not on your life!

  124. Law Prof wrote:

    So was Paul wrong in the Bible to tell the church at Corinth to temporarily toss out the guy who was openly having relations with his step mom?

    You honestly think that there was only ONE illicit sexual relationship in the Corithian church? Even unbelievers drew the line at what that son was doing and they would not tolerate it. It was forbidden, unheard of.

    The hypocrisy of conservative Christians is astounding. Toss out a gay person; give a pass and excuses to your own friends/family/leaders’ sexual sins. Double standard. You bet.

  125. Mara wrote:

    I don’t think Ken would ever think it is smart for a man to not listen to his wife.

    And you would be absolutely correct in saying that. As evidence, my middle one asked my wife a while back how this submission thing worked out (I can’t remember exactly how she phrased it). That got my attention, I was intrigued to know the answer. Basically she said you talk things over until you come to agreement. That was it. We haven’t spent the last 30 years constantly having Eph 5 in the background and agonising over exactly who does what. If a wife is a ‘helpmeet’, how can she help if he ignores her?!

    Not long ago I had to make a difficult decision that will affect us for the rest of our lives. We talked it through endlessly (I don’t like making decisions!), but we both knew, though it was never actually said, that on this occasion it was down to me, there could be no evading it by trying to palm it off onto her even under the guise of being ‘sacrificially loving’ and not insisting on getting my way. So in some ways I wish the ‘head’ thing weren’t there, but it is and it won’t go away.

    If wives want their husbands to be responsible and take initiative, they have got to let them do this; if they start to undermine them then this is when ‘wives submit to your husbands’ comes into play. This will also mean a husband cannot evade his responsibilities and the duties if you can call them that, so Eph 5 although giving a basic pattern to the original one flesh relationship envisaged from the beginning, is more likely to be needed to correct things if they start to go wrong with one or both parties to the marriage.

    I’m sure the passage is there for our blessing and protection, but it is nevertheless the word of God, Jesus himself speaking through his apostle, so notwithstanding the arguments exactly how to understand it, it is there to be respected and obeyed. It is this attitude of respect that I find so sadly lacking in so many of the churches I have attended over the years. If I have a ‘thing’ about this issue, this lackadaisical attitude to apostolic teaching is it. I know we all do it, but we are not supposed to negotiate over the bits we like and the bits we don’t.

  126. A friend sent me a link to this site. When I saw the name of the website i thought the writers must be big fans of Luther. In light of the fact the writer finds Piper offensive I recommend changing the name of the site because Luther’s comments on the role of women are far worse. Here are a few i found with a basic internet search:

    The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.
    Martin Luther, Works 12.94

    Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children.
    Martin Luther, Table Talk

    Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for.
    Martin Luther, Works 20.84

    God created Adam master and lord of living creatures, but Eve spoilt all, when she persuaded him to set himself above God’s will. ‘Tis you women, with your tricks and artifices, that lead men into error.

    We may well lie with what seems to be a woman of flesh and blood, and yet all the time it is only a devil in the shape of a woman.

    No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise.

    Cheers!
    -Jonathen

  127. Gram3 wrote:

    Ideally the couple’s Christian friends and family would step in to do that, though I’m not sure I like the idea of overseeing anyone.

    Katherine Bushnell has a whole chapter on this issue. I am not sure I agree with her interpretations in totality but it sure is interesting and lots of food for thought. It is based on “leave and cleave” and how ignoring that played out badly for women.

  128. lydia wrote:

    Katherine Bushnell has a whole chapter on this issue. I am not sure I agree with her interpretations in totality but it sure is interesting and lots of food for thought. It is based on “leave and cleave” and how ignoring that played out badly for women.

    http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%206.htm

    It’s interesting that the “leave and cleave” is completely ignored by most. I wholeheartedly agree with Bushnell that her parents and her tribe provide the best, most natural safeguard against abuse.

  129. @ Victorious:
    Thanks for the link. What is so interesting to me is that it implies a husband is not considered the obvious and natural protector of his wife before the fall. Lots to consider there.

  130. lydia wrote:

    What is so interesting to me is that it implies a husband is not considered the obvious and natural protector of his wife before the fall

    Ahh…but he was to “cultivate and keep” the garden.

    Keep (from Strong’s)

    shaw-mar’
    A primitive root; properly to hedge about (as with thorns), that is, guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc.

    I maintain he failed to guard the garden as the enemy serpent found it’s way in.

  131. @ Victorious:
    Great point. My conundrum is that I tend to view Adam as “human” and not distinctly male before the female is formed based on the plural language used for creation…. if reading it literally.

    But I lean toward Genesis as a creation narrative about the Good God creating, providing wisdom and rescue to humans who ignored His wisdom. Not so much as literal. I think it was most likely a creation narrative contrasting Yahweh from other ancient creation narratives with their angry god’s and general hopelessness.

    I don’t think it was meant to be read as a treatise on male/female gender roles. I think the main point is God’s promise of rescue and his wisdom. Sadly the whole gender focus takes away from the attributes of God and turns him into a manipulating tyrant who forms a lesser human gender.

    IOW, I dont think Cain married his sister. :o)

  132. @ Mortimer:
    Your comment made me laugh. We often link to the Luther insult page.

    http://ergofabulous.org/luther/

    It isn’t Luther, per se, that we are emulating by the name of this blog but the circumstances surrounding his stay at Wartburg.

    He hid in Wartburg because of the pope, who was not enamored of him to say the least, with the assistance of the German princes.

    Then he finished the translation of the New Testament into German which was then copied by the Gutenberg Press.

    There are a number of church who are not enthralled with us, to say the least! And today’s Internet let’s the little guy have the ability to enter the marketplace of ideas and to have an influence. And, we are certainly little guys in the Christian arena!

    Like the rest of us, Luther was deeply flawed. However, I shall be always grateful that he understood “by faith alone we are saved.”

  133. Mortimer wrote:

    A friend sent me a link to this site.

    I have to admit that I am curious. Why did your friend send you a link to this site? Was he happy with us or irritated by us?

  134. Velour wrote:

    Ken,
    Seriously? You would quote Daisy the commandment about not bearing false witness? Seriously?

    Daisy has continued to impute views to me that I don’t hold, in particular to the effect I put down women who don’t want to have children. This despite twice me stating that ‘having children is not compulsory’. I think though I’m not wading through it again she did this a third time. On this thread she had said the following:

    He tends to equate women choosing not to have children with them automatically being selfish, materialistic, immature, and/or with being secular feminists.

    He also, IIRC (I don’t mean to put words in his mouth, I may have my understanding of his view here wrong, but he), seems to think that Bible verse that talks about ‘women being saved in child birth’ really applies literally, in some sense.

    As in, women getting pregnant and having children is necessary for their salvation, sanctification, or some such.

    With the first and last sentence I thought she was bearing false witness. That’s sinning, and the loving thing to do would be to direct her away from this. Yet I did notice she didn’t want to put words in my mouth, so I qualified what I was going to say. She has also finally differentiated between my ‘gentle and soft’ complementarianism and the ‘comp system’ somewhere upstream.

    Now I don’t actually think she was deliberately setting out to misrepresent me – believe the best of people unless there is evidence to the contrary – but if I or anyone else want to criticise something anyone has said and disagree with it, there is an obligation to make sure it is at least reasonably accurate. She admitted to only skim reading some(?) of my replies to her. If she had read a bit more carefully, she would have found I don’t hold to what she thinks I do in the above quote.

    I don’t think I could have spellt out more clearly in these ongoing discussions that I am no more in the Vision Forum camp than Gram3 is Rachel Held Evans. And I do appreciate this is only an informal discussion, not a synod; what we pontificate about is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

    I’m sorry if she has been hurt by complementarianism, but I’ve never seen this myself, over here it is largely ignored or actively suppressed except in a minority of conservative churches. My own sister is single and pretty strongly complementarian – in the UK sense. I have no doubt in my mind it is the pattern intended by the Creator (before whom all our opinions and interpretations have to give way and against whom we can assert no rights), and can only be intended for our blessing and protection. Anything that doesn’t achieve this is wrong.

  135. almost60 wrote:

    the church should not grant them “full fellowship,”

    I just want to point out, again, that in most churches, women are not granted “full fellowship”!

  136. Law Prof wrote:

    He sure does sound like a 20 or 30-something neocalvinist.

    You couldn’t be more wrong, not just here but in most of your other posts on this thread.

    You asked a question I considered answering, but I’m not going to. I don’t know what your problem is at the moment, you are coming across as too much a factious man. You need to deal with it.

  137. Ken wrote:

    If wives want their husbands to be responsible and take initiative, they have got to let them do this; if they start to undermine them then this is when ‘wives submit to your husbands’ comes into play.

    This is extremely confusing. Why wouldn’t a husband want to be responsible and take initiative? Isn’t that what grown ups do–whether male or female? It seems to me we are really discussing a much deeper problem than gender roles. If it takes a wife playing a certain role so her husband will take responsibility/initiative, we are talking about something much deeper.

    Do you not see that your translation means the man gets to decide what is “undermining” and what isn’t?

  138. Ken wrote:

    I know we all do it, but we are not supposed to negotiate over the bits we like and the bits we don’t.

    Actually, we are to seek to understand them within their grammatical and cultural context. If they seem to negate other scriptures, even the words spoken by our Savior, then we really need to rethink why. The problem is you lean toward making some badly interpreted passages, a law (obeyed). Now think of “being filled with the Holy Spirit” as a “law” same as you tend to view submission passages. As Gram has pointed out, the law is for the immature.

  139. Ken wrote:

    I’m sure the passage is there for our blessing and protection, but it is nevertheless the word of God, Jesus himself speaking through his apostle, so notwithstanding the arguments exactly how to understand it, it is there to be respected and obeyed. It is this attitude of respect that I find so sadly lacking in so many of the churches I have attended over the years. If I have a ‘thing’ about this issue, this lackadaisical attitude to apostolic teaching is it. I know we all do it, but we are not supposed to negotiate over the bits we like and the bits we don’t.

    How can we know how to respect it and obey it if we do not know what it means? I am trying my best to obey and respect it *and* to know what it means so that I do not disobey it due to misunderstanding it. I do not believe I have demonstrated a lackadaisical attitude at all to the scripture, and I have not tried to negotiate over the bits I like or don’t like. Maybe men are negotiating because they don’t like the bit about mutually submitting. You are making a purely ad hominem response which boils down to women don’t want to submit. That is simply not the case, at least for me. The question is whether the male enjoys a privilege of avoiding the mutual submission that Paul, the apostle of the Lord, says that men *and* women should display in imitation of Christ’s own character. That is the point of Ephesians. I agree that there is an ignorance of scripture in the churches, and that is manifesting as legalism as well as disregard for morality. But misunderstanding the text by proof-texting is not an answer to that. Properly engaging the text with established conservative methods consistently applied is the way to properly apply what Paul is actually teaching.

  140. Lydia wrote:

    Why wouldn’t a husband want to be responsible and take initiative? Isn’t that what grown ups do–whether male or female? It seems to me we are really discussing a much deeper problem than gender roles.

    Yes, I think we are talking about a much deeper problem than gender roles. What we are talking about is a lack of the Spirit’s work in our lives which manifests itself as a lack of love and deference toward one another. A man or woman who loves and respects his/her spouse will love and defer to them. He or she will not undermine or disrespect the spouse. He or she will seek to support and affirm his/her spouse. If there is a lack of either respect or love, then that indicates that there is a lack of love and respect for God himself, the Son who gave his life to reconcile us, and the Holy Spirit who indwells us and empowers us to love and respect and support one another in a fallen world. That is what Paul is teaching in Ephesians. What does living life in the power of the Spirit look like? How is that different from the old ways of the world? That is the heart of the issue. Not who does what when to whom how. That is the reasoning of a legalist and not one who desires to walk in the Spirit.

  141. Gram3 wrote:

    I do not believe I have demonstrated a lackadaisical attitude at all to the scripture,

    No neither do I, note what I said It is this attitude of respect that I find so sadly lacking in so many of the churches I have attended over the years.

    It’s no coincidence (Lydia for you too) that charismatics were the ones to try and take this seriously in my experience. You do need to be filled with the Spirit, so that we obey the scripture without making it law. Word and Spirit together.

    Have you never met people for whom this is the last thing on earth they would ever do, even though they claim to be Christians? The flesh (self) never wants to do this, wives don’t naturally want to submit, and husbands don’t naturally want to lay down their lives for their wives, not the extent Christ demands of us. I don’t think anybody will condenmed for not understanding exactly what this all means who had a heart for God, that would be to deny grace and put us back under works again. But we all do have a responsibility to work at it and try.

    My sister gets grief on this subject from other women sometimes (she is wary of bringing it up), those who do not have a submissive heart, and I think that is a lot of what it is all about.

    It’s a slight aside Gram, but do you wonder that with indifference to this subject, or indifference to immorality going on in the church, when we then try to corporately pray for someone who is desperately sick or some other need, and believe the scriptures regarding prayer, so often nothing happens because we have cultivated an attitude of unbelief that God will not honour. Believe it all, or none of it, you can’t choose the bits you like as it were. It’s certainly something I have wondered about.

    Anyway, I must away.

  142. lydia wrote:

    But I lean toward Genesis as a creation narrative about the Good God creating, providing wisdom and rescue to humans who ignored His wisdom. Not so much as literal. I think it was most likely a creation narrative contrasting Yahweh from other ancient creation narratives with their angry god’s and general hopelessness.

    Lydia, I agree.

  143.   __

     “From The Horse’s Mouth?”

    hmmm…

    “What Is New Calvinism?”

    (The Gospel Coalition  council members Kevin DeYoung, Ligon Duncan, and Albert Mohler discuss the eclectic movement of New Calvinism.)

    https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=jscdlO1BUj0

    Permalink: http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/deyoung_duncan_mohler_whats_new_about_the_new_calvinism

    *

    John Piper discusses Twelve Features of New Calvinism.

    https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vB5q6qIwJLk

    Permalink: 
    https://desiringgod.org/conference-messages/the-new-calvinism-and-the-new-community

    *

    Jeremy Walker: “New Calvinism Considered, Understood, & Assessed.”

    (The New Calvinism is proving to be such an influence on the global Christian church that it is now impossible to ignore it. But what are we to make of it? )

    https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=gQ9mZZ1SBkM

  144. @ Ken:
    I don’t know why God answers prayer the way he does or how he does or why he doesn’t. I don’t even know if we know if he is answering our prayers when he does! His ways not being our ways and all that entails. In no way am I advocating that we not believe everything the Bible teaches. That begs the question of what the Bible is teaching, however. Denying that the Bible teaches a particular thing is not denying the Bible itself or its authority. If it did, then it would be impossible to be a Berean, and that is what I’m being. Using a consistent and conservative and well-accepted hermeneutic. A hermeneutic that the Female Subordinationists insist upon for every other issue except the Woman Question. Why?

    How does your sister know whether someone has an unsubmissive heart? Don’t we all have unsubmissive hearts in some respects? Again, that is an evasion of the question. No one here has advocated for an unsubmissive spirit. What we have protested is your assertion that a husband need not have a submissive spirit and that 5:22 is somehow an exemption from 5:21 for the husbands when it does not mention the husband’s attitude at all. Similarly the exhortation to husbands to lay down their lives for their wives is not an exemption for wives from laying down their lives for their husbands (and children.) You have said that a woman’s role is exemplified in childbearing, and I have shown that a woman does, in fact, lay down her life for her husband and her child in childbirth. So now she is exempted from self-sacrifice for her husband? IMO, you are reading this way too atomistically and inconsistently to be persuasive to anyone who has not already made up their mind and does not care to look at the evidence. We all have opinions, but we can’t just willy-nilly make up hermeneutical rules (which function as the rules of evidence here) and invent exceptions which fit our preferred position. That is what you are doing while accusing us of doing that, at least implicitly.

  145. Ken wrote:

    I’m sorry if she has been hurt by complementarianism, but I’ve never seen this myself, over here it is largely ignored or actively suppressed except in a minority of conservative churches.

    Ken,

    I am glad you finally acknowledged this part of American patriarchy, how destructive it is, and how it has damaged Daisy’s life (and she’s a conservative). I wish you had done this sooner: given some kind of acknowledgment to her. She repeatedly tried to get you to acknowledge it, and you wouldn’t. I have read post after post in which you didn’t acknowledge it.

    Daisy’s disagreement with you does not constitute sinning on her part, and I think you went too far to say that to her. She is a reasonable person with a level head.

  146. From a book I happened to come across in a used bookstore, Expositions on Genesis by R.S. Standlish of whom I know nothing except I just looked him up and he lived in the 1800’s (died in 1870’s), I find this statement on Genesis 3:6 to be thought-provoking.

    There is a question raised here regarding the difference between the woman’s temptation and sin and the man’s. The only Scriptural ground for making any distinction is supposed to be found in the saying of the Apostle, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1Timothy ii:14).

    But the meaning there seems to be merely that the man was not first to be deceived– that the woman took the lead in this guilty act,– not that their guilt ultimately was diverse.

    The impression naturally made by reading the narrative is, that Eve, in giving the fruit to Adam, repeated substantially the serpent’s arguments, or at least used similar arguments herself, and not til both had eaten were their eyes simultaneously opened.

    Certainly in Scriputre, Adam is represented as the party responsible for himself and his posterity (Rom. v. 12 – 21; 1 Cor. xv. 22 -45). Hence, it has been supposed, not improbably, that it was with her husband’s full knowledge and concurrence that Eve ate the fruit, — that they consulted together before eating, and sinned and fell together. Certainly they suffered together; and together they obtained mercy. > end quote <

    For easier reading, I spaced out the text.

    Hmmm. So, I can't say I've previously heard this "not improbable supposition" which perhaps was widely accpeted at the time?

  147. Ken wrote:

    ’s a slight aside Gram, but do you wonder that with indifference to this subject, or indifference to immorality going on in the church, when we then try to corporately pray for someone who is desperately sick or some other need, and believe the scriptures regarding prayer, so often nothing happens because we have cultivated an attitude of unbelief that God will not honour. Believe it all, or none of it, you can’t choose the bits you like as it were. It’s certainly something I have wondered about.

    Ken, you have tied morality to one way submission by women by calling it indifference. Then you tie prayers not being answered to this issue and label it “unbelief”! Basically that is like saying your idea (or any man’s) definition of submission must be adhered to or someone we are praying for will die because God honors each mans definition of wifely submission and acts accordingly to how well the women adhere to it.

  148. Lydia wrote:

    Ken, you have tied morality to one way submission by women by calling it indifference. Then you tie prayers not being answered to this issue and label it “unbelief”! Basically that is like saying your idea (or any man’s) definition of submission must be adhered to or someone we are praying for will die because God honors each mans definition of wifely submission and acts accordingly to how well the women adhere to it.

    And this belief would render prayers lifted up by a woman completely useless. Only the prayers said by a man matter.

  149. Figure this one out, from eternal subordination article:
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Ken GERMANY on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 11:15 AM said:

    @ Nancy2:
    To be more accurate, the man failed to protect the woman. Being formed first, he had the command of God before the woman was created, but then failed to keep it himself when she was deceived. I’ve no doubt you’ve heard sermons on how the woman distorted and added to the word, and how Satan in the form of the serpent denied it. He (the man) is implicitly responsible for failing to keep the word given him, and instead listened to the woman.

    Adam’s failure of responsibility is why the fall is attributed to him and not the woman. His sin was deliberate, hers due to deception.

    I think it wise to let the NT shed light on this, this helps avoid speculating about what exactly went on.

    I take it as literal history narrated partly in figurative language.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Nancy2 UNITED STATES on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 03:33 PM said:

    Woman sinned because she was deceived. Woman was deceived because man failed. Man sinned deliberately. So, instead this justifying woman becoming educated and developing the ability to discern and accept personal responsibility, this only serves to stress that woman (who sinned because she was deceived) must submit to man (who failed and sinned deliberately)?

  150. Ardiak wrote:

    There is a question raised here regarding the difference between the woman’s temptation and sin and the man’s. The only Scriptural ground for making any distinction is supposed to be found in the saying of the Apostle, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1Timothy ii:14).

    Conservative Baptist pastor Wade Burleson (the Wartburg Watch’s pastor for E-Church here on Sundays) pointed out in his blog article that a specific problem in that church was being addressed at that time:
    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-woman-of-error-in-i-timothy-212.html

  151. Nancy2 wrote:

    And this belief would render prayers lifted up by a woman completely useless.

    She could text her husband before she prays and ask if her submission is on track.

  152. Lydia wrote:

    She could text her husband before she prays and ask if her submission is on track.

    Rhu rho. I’s in twouble! My husband never turns his phone on, unless he’s making a call!

  153.   __

    The 501(c)3 religious forced silencing of the female gender?

    hmmm…

    Go to a Comp 501(c)3 church?

    What?

    The cost inside this comp stuff environment has been great for women –for the most part, they are not allowed to use their  brains or their mouths. 

    What?

    And those comp churches that participate in this reprehensible behavior are tolerant of that?

    Krunch!

    In this discriminatory 501((c)3 religious climate, is it any wonder that Reformed Pastor Mark Driscoll refered to women in his horific anonymous blogging as ‘penis homes’, and so forth?

    Looks like da roosters are beginning to come home to an empty henhouse.

    Sopy 

  154. Sopwith wrote:

    The New Calvinism is proving to be such an influence on the global Christian church that it is now impossible to ignore it. But what are we to make of it?

    NeoCal is dangerous and deadly, like carbon monoxide poisoning. Flee!

  155. Sopwith wrote:

    Looks like da roosters are beginning to come home to an empty henhouse.

    Yep, the comp roosters are gonna come home to an empty hen house and more and more folks are fleeing these churches and have caught on. It’s authoritarianism, not The Gospel.

  156. Velour wrote:

    NeoCal is dangerous and deadly, like carbon monoxide poisoning. Flee!

    If you are female, wear a Hotel NeoCalifornia burqa ~ your nose and mouth will be covered!

  157. Sopwith wrote:

    Looks like da roosters are beginning to come home to an empty henhouse.

    Roosters???? Can I pluck some tail feathers and make a head dress??? Head coverings, doncha know!

  158. Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    NeoCal is dangerous and deadly, like carbon monoxide poisoning. Flee!

    If you are female, wear a Hotel NeoCalifornia burqa ~ your nose and mouth will be covered!

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    NeoCal is dangerous and deadly, like carbon monoxide poisoning. Flee!

    If you are female, wear a Hotel NeoCalifornia burqa ~ your nose and mouth will be covered!

    ROFL. Girl, you are a pistol!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVL4mDFX3rY

  159. @ Mortimer:
    Wow! Martin Luther was a man of his time as were many of the Reformers. It makes me admire Elizabeth Tudor all the more since she came from their time and she bucked convention.

  160. Val wrote:

    The problem is, the focus. We should not be a church promoting western family values, leave that to sociologists to discover, we should be focused on Jesus. If we weren’t in the marriage business to begin with, we wouldn’t be having mass debates about gay, remarriage, and divorce issues. We don’t have huge debates about business contracts, union membership, and so on. Marriage is a worldly institution somehow brought into the church and elevated. It wasn’t in the early church. Some who came in were married, some weren’t, either way, the church wasn’t setting up or preforming those ceremonies.

    Hi Val. Thank you for such a thoughtful post. As a 30-something-year-old single woman, I appreciate your perspective.

    However, I would like to point out some historical errors. First, the ante-Nicene era church DID have marriage ceremonies. The church strongly encouraged Christians to get the bishop’s blessing and permission for their new marriage. It was also recognized in this early era as instituted by God. They for the most part took Jesus’ words very, very narrowly (possibly out of their Jewish context) regarding divorce and remarriage. For example, divorce was generally considered OK only if it was an enactment of church discipline against adultery. Remarriage was generally frowned upon and even considered a sin, for any reason. So if you were divorced, you had to spend the rest of your life waiting for your wayward spouse to come back. The bishops would usually not bless a second marriage (though Origen mentions some laxity). The early church fathers of this era became so severe on their remarriage views that they began to forbid widows from remarrying, labeling the remarriage as adultery–clearly against the apostle Paul’s teachings, especially considering that he encouraged young widows to remarry rather than join the widow’s order and be supported by the church, so that they wouldn’t turn into busybodies. In summary, all the elements of marriage as a sacrament sprang up pretty early.

    Regarding the Eastern Orthodox, they do indeed perform marriage ceremonies. Ever seen “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”? No, the kiddie-pool baptism and two-second conversion process do not reflect real life, but the wedding was pretty spot on. They really do crown the bride and groom during the ceremony.

    But yes, your overall assessment that marriage wasn’t so emphasized until the Reformation is spot on. On the other hand, we must not overreact to Protestantism’s overreaction. In other words, we can’t idealize what came before. Prior to the Reformation, married people were treated like @$XADF*U$, to the point it blatantly contradicted the Bible. You couldn’t be a pastor/priest without being single. That is unbiblical.

    However, I totally agree that the Reformers had a knee-jerk reaction. Now you can’t be a pastor without being married. The balance is what is found in the Bible. Remaining as we are is what is recommended, but not absolutely required. Both married and single ought to be treated as dignified states. I hate to use the “gift of singleness” line, so I won’t. I don’t feel particularly gifted, but then maybe it’s because I didn’t want to receive the gift and for so long kept looking for the return receipt. But the point is to learn contentment in all circumstances, and keep our eyes fixed on Jesus. Which, I can tell, you completely agree with. I wish that were taught from the pulpit rather than marriage, marriage, marriage.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful post.

  161. @ Nancy2: A great leader who stood up to insurgencies within, the Habsburgs, and the papacy, and she never married at a time when all the pressure was to marry. She is a very admirable person in my opinion.

  162. Velour,
    Thank you for your post. I really appreciate the way you stand up for people and the resources and books you recommend.

  163. @ Nancy2: I would be happy any day to have a supervisor or President who is such a gifted and courageous leader, and a woman at that!

  164. Ken wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    He sure does sound like a 20 or 30-something neocalvinist.
    You couldn’t be more wrong, not just here but in most of your other posts on this thread.
    You asked a question I considered answering, but I’m not going to. I don’t know what your problem is at the moment, you are coming across as too much a factious man. You need to deal with it.

    I guess I’m just going to have to struggle through life knowing that you considered answering one of my posts, but you’re not going to. Have you ever considered how cultic passive/aggressive you sound? Ken, you could give lessons on it.

  165. Velour wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    So was Paul wrong in the Bible to tell the church at Corinth to temporarily toss out the guy who was openly having relations with his step mom?
    You honestly think that there was only ONE illicit sexual relationship in the Corithian church? Even unbelievers drew the line at what that son was doing and they would not tolerate it. It was forbidden, unheard of.
    The hypocrisy of conservative Christians is astounding. Toss out a gay person; give a pass and excuses to your own friends/family/leaders’ sexual sins. Double standard. You bet.

    Gosh, I sure wish you’d answer my question.

    Let me try again: do you think Paul was wrong? If so, why?

  166. @ Velour:
    …and if not, why not? I’ll be patient waiting for you (just sitting here wounded over fact that Ken won’t respond to me because I’m “factious”).

  167. almost60 wrote:

    Velour,
    Thank you for your post. I really appreciate the way you stand up for people and the resources and books you recommend.

    Thanks almost60 for your kind post.

    You know the weekend that I was excommunicated and shunned from my NeoCal church this past year, several hundred people were ordered to never speak to me again and that I was destined for Hell (I had opposed the pastors/elders authoritarian control over my life and their bringing their friend a Megan’s List sex offender in to the church without telling all parents), two very kind gay men were so horrified that I lost all of my friends for the past 8-years, that they invited me out to go hiking and to treat me to lunch!! There’s love, for ‘ya!

  168. Law Prof wrote:

    @ Velour:
    …and if not, why not? I’ll be patient waiting for you (just sitting here wounded over fact that Ken won’t respond to me because I’m “factious”).

    Considering it’s 3:30 a.m. in Germany, I think Ken is probably fast asleep.

  169. @ almost60:

    I swear to you I don’t know who James Packer is, nor his wife. I can’t fathom how it is I parodied him.

    As for saying “burn the seminaries”, I stand by it. I don’t believe they are any longer, if they ever were, a place where much good happens. It’s perfect nonsense that such a thing could be chosen as a professional vocation and that young men and/or women could self-declare their “calling”, then go off to a place often thousands of miles away from their fellowship, and be trained for a paid vocation by people not even known by those in the fellowship, I suppose to become a CEO-type of a church. I find it to be an outright travesty and twisting of the truth. Again, I stand by it. Absolutely.

    I don’t think you know the meaning of the word “slander”. I did not tell an objective lie about anyone. If anything, it’d be “libel”. But it’s not, I didn’t tell a lie, I expressed an opinion. Would it be better if I quoted Romans 1 on the matter? I did not say I dislike, hate, or feel smugly superior to anyone homosexual, I said that I do not think it’s right to be in Christian fellowship with a practicing homosexual, the reason I believe this is because of what the Bible says. I don’t think I should be in Christian fellowship with my heterosexual sister, either, because she is something of a Wiccan–but I love her and do not feel superior to her.

    I make no mistake of the fact that Ken makes my head want to explode, but I don’t know what ad hominem I used. Invective, sure, you bet. Ad hominem? I powerfully dislike the way he reasons, uses passive/aggressive dudebro put downs, accuses others of bearing false witness when they simply have a differing perspective. Makes me nuts.

    In all candor, I have an axe to grind here also that isn’t Ken’s fault. My adult daughter is being alternately emotionally abused and told to “submit in the name of God” by a pretty darned out-of-control complementarian YRR. We did not raise her to put up with this or to be attracted to this sort of nonsense. She seems to be the only one who doesn’t understand that this guy is knocking her around mentally and spiritually. So when Ken starts parrotting the same stuff I’ve dealt with from this guy–who might literally cause my head to explode, I swear!–it trips a few flags for me.

    No excuses, nothing excuses vitriol or invective. I still believe the way I beilieve about the whole shooting match, but sorry for not being more Christ-like about it. That was wrong.

  170. Law Prof wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    So was Paul wrong in the Bible to tell the church at Corinth to temporarily toss out the guy who was openly having relations with his step mom?
    You honestly think that there was only ONE illicit sexual relationship in the Corithian church? Even unbelievers drew the line at what that son was doing and they would not tolerate it. It was forbidden, unheard of.
    The hypocrisy of conservative Christians is astounding. Toss out a gay person; give a pass and excuses to your own friends/family/leaders’ sexual sins. Double standard. You bet.

    Gosh, I sure wish you’d answer my question.

    Let me try again: do you think Paul was wrong? If so, why?

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

    Would you be so kind as to answer my question first: Was there only ONE sexually sinful relationship in the Corithinian church? What the spirit, not the law, of what Paul was telling the church to do?

  171. LawProf,

    Because of the subject matter, as our dear blog queens Dee and Deb have posted to us over the last couple of days, a lot of posts are going into moderation.

    I saw so much hypocrisy in the church, so many other people leading lives of flagrant sin and doing so enabled and unchallenged, that I am simply not willing to say, “Oh well this person in this lifestyle can’t be in the fellowship.” Sorry but look at all of the other people that should be kicked out on the same criteria. I think Paul was addressing a larger issue, not targeted to one group: Deal with it.

  172. @ Mark:
    We have a little spitfire dog (rat terrier/Lab mix) named Lizzie. I call her Queen Elizabeth. We have 2 much larger male dogs, but Lizzie is the alpha dog. She’s smart, good natured, and a good judge of character. I believe Elizabeth Tudor would be quite proud of her namesake.

  173. Law Prof wrote:

    My adult daughter is being alternately emotionally abused and told to “submit in the name of God” by a pretty darned out-of-control complementarian YRR. We did not raise her to put up with this or to be attracted to this sort of nonsense. She seems to be the only one who doesn’t understand that this guy is knocking her around mentally and spiritually.

    I hope she comes to see what he is really concerned about, and it is not her. We are close to a young lady who was spiritually and emotionally abused by a guy and his church buddies and his “pastor” and his “pastor’s” wife. These guys are indoctrinated with the belief that all women are deceived and just waiting to undermine/rebel/buck their husbands or boyfriends or, really, any man. The men need to be constantly vigilant because their masculinity is said to be on the line. I hope that someone can break the spell, because that is really what it is, IMO. The upside is that the young lady we know has been able to show others the way out of this destructive ideology via her story. I hope your daughter gets out or the young man repents before she gets hurt. Powerful stuff because it puffs up the man, gives him a false assurance that his wife will be compliant and gives false assurance to her that he will take care of her and be a great husband and father. And the only one it can actually guarantee is that the man is puffed up.

  174. @ Ardiak:
    I have read someone whose name I cannot recall say something along the lines of the Woman and the Man being seen by God before the Fall as a complex union (one flesh) rather than merely as two individuals. I’m not arguing for that, but it is interesting in light of what you quoted here. It has always been a question for me why they did not individually Fall when they individually ate. Or at least they did not realize their fallen state until they had both eaten. And that leads me to wonder if communion is not the meal symbolizing the undoing via Christ’s sacrifice of what that “meal” did. But I guess that is my bent toward biblical theology showing itself. Thanks for that quote.

  175. Law Prof wrote:

    My adult daughter is being alternately emotionally abused and told to “submit in the name of God” by a pretty darned out-of-control complementarian YRR. We did not raise her to put up with this or to be attracted to this sort of nonsense. She seems to be the only one who doesn’t understand that this guy is knocking her around mentally and spiritually. So when Ken starts parrotting the same stuff I’ve dealt with from this guy–who might literally cause my head to explode, I swear!–it trips a few flags for me.

    I am so sorry. Seeing your adult child devalued by “Christians”, no less, is hard to take.

  176. How much of this complementarian abuse has to do with men using complementarianism as an excuse for bad behavior rather than what is Biblical? Sounds like phoniness to me. It is fun for these people to behave badly because they have an actual excuse to be a bully? I bet you Mark Driscoll was a bully before he became a Christian, and thIs just gave a sanction for him to continue being a bully, so he was bad before and still is a bad person. Where the heck are fruits of the Spirit in all of this because one is as much or more a child of hell as before? Just wondering?

  177. Mark wrote:

    How much of this complementarian abuse has to do with men using complementarianism as an excuse for bad behavior rather than what is Biblical?

    From what I’ve seen, I think the reasons/excuses vary from man to man.
    1.) Some are raised to believe that way.
    2.) Some have “little man complex”, and holding power over someone else makes them feel better.
    3.) Some have egos so big that they just think they’re better ~ God said so!
    4.) Some are just natural bullies.
    5.) Some are just unstable, psychologically.
    There are probably many more excuses, and some men may have a combination of those factors at play. In some cases, Mark Driscoll for instance, I wonder if these men really are Christians, or if they just use Christianity as an excuse to nurse or stroke their egos.

  178. Law Prof wrote:

    My adult daughter is being alternately emotionally abused and told to “submit in the name of God” by a pretty darned out-of-control complementarian YRR. We did not raise her to put up with this or to be attracted to this sort of nonsense. She seems to be the only one who doesn’t understand that this guy is knocking her around mentally and spiritually.

    Law Prof, I do pray that your daughter wakes up soon and either gets out of this relationship, or takes action to resolve the problems. This guy is working at wearing her down spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically. I am afraid physical abuse may be soon coming if she doesn’t do something.

  179. Nancy2 wrote:

    Mark wrote:

    How much of this complementarian abuse has to do with men using complementarianism as an excuse for bad behavior rather than what is Biblical?

    From what I’ve seen, I think the reasons/excuses vary from man to man.
    1.) Some are raised to believe that way.
    2.) Some have “little man complex”, and holding power over someone else makes them feel better.
    3.) Some have egos so big that they just think they’re better ~ God said so!
    4.) Some are just natural bullies.
    5.) Some are just unstable, psychologically.
    There are probably many more excuses, and some men may have a combination of those factors at play. In some cases, Mark Driscoll for instance, I wonder if these men really are Christians, or if they just use Christianity as an excuse to nurse or stroke their egos.

    I’ll add my observations:

    6) Have unresolved Daddy issues (a relationship with their own father that was either abusive or non-existent; don’t have a loving father whose behavior they can model)
    7) Have unresolved Mommy issues (although in my experience the comp men usually have #6)
    8) Have rigid personalities
    9) Don’t really know how to do life so engage in this massive game of pretend they know how to do it
    10) Haven’t resolved their prior anger/grief/loss from #6 and #7
    11) Lack of love for others

  180. Nancy2 wrote:

    I wonder if these men really are Christians, or if they just use Christianity as an excuse to nurse or stroke their egos.

    “Men of Sin” will glom onto any Cosmic-level authority — Bible, Koran, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Nature — to get Cosmic-level Justification for what they wanted to do anyway.

  181. Never heard Peeper Piper’s voice, but just from his recorded antics I keep thinking of him speaking in a falsetto “OH! OH! OH!” Like that matronly “straight woman” from all those Marx Bros movies, except clutching more pearls more tightly.

  182. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Never heard Peeper Piper’s voice, but just from his recorded antics I keep thinking of him speaking in a falsetto “OH! OH! OH!” Like that matronly “straight woman” from all those Marx Bros movies, except clutching more pearls more tightly.

    I watched one of his videos on youtube, just to see how he behaves. In that video, his voice seems fairly normal, maybe a high baritone? The nervous giggle and the hands are distracting, though. He does roll his eyes a lot. I get the feeling that he has trouble looking people in the eye when he talks.
    I see a short version of Harvey Korman dressed as the matriarch on the Carol Burnett show

  183. Velour wrote:

    I am glad you finally acknowledged this part of American patriarchy, how destructive it is, and how it has damaged Daisy’s life (and she’s a conservative). I wish you had done this sooner:

    Ever since the first thread on this subject on which I commented (and with no intention of getting embroiled in so many discussions of this!) I’ve made it clear I differentiate what I believe from more extreme versions current in America, assuming they have been accurately described here. It’s almost getting embarrassing to say ‘I’m not American, I didn’t get my ideas on this from America’. The point being it’s wrong to equate the version of this emanating from Vision Forum (or the like) with what I advocate just because of the label.

    I’m afraid Daisy was starting to get rather offensive over this on the other thread, and to some extent on this one, and I still feel I was justified in getting her to stop. Disagreement is fine; misrepresentation is not.

    I do not regard the relationship I have with my better half as being that of a master to a dog, and if she ever implies that again, I shall complain about it again.

    Just as not all egalitarianism is the same, is it asking too much that it be mutually(sic) recognised that not everything under the complementarian label is the same?

    A specific example of this is that I have never believed, don’t believe and never will believe that women are inferior to men. That’s heresy. It is inconceivable to me that she could ever have picked a superior/inferior relationship between husband and wife in anything I have posted. Yet Daisy claims this is what she was exposed to as a child. Clearly we are not talking about the same thing here.

  184. Ken wrote:

    Disagreement is fine; misrepresentation is not.

    I agree with that. So, please stop implying or saying that the rejection of Female Subordinationism is due to feminism or rejection of motherhood and/or spiritual deception to which females are especially prone. That is offensive and misrepresents both the people who have studied the *Bible* to see what it says and also women in general. It is not true, and you have not shown that it is true other than your interpretation of your experiences. If our ultimate authority is grounded in what God has revealed, then that needs to be the authority. You can’t just borrow God’s word to support what you think already and then call it a day. Not when what you say is so demeaning to women. We are not children, more foolish than males, and we do not require a keeper. Further, a good marriage is not a relationship grounded in relative power. It is grounded in mutual love and respect. You have not yet demonstrated from the Bible why we should accept your power paradigm or be labeled as rejecting our femininity.

  185. Ken wrote:

    Ever since the first thread on this subject on which I commented (and with no intention of getting embroiled in so many discussions of this!) I’ve made it clear I differentiate what I believe from more extreme versions current in America, assuming they have been accurately described here. It’s almost getting embarrassing to say ‘I’m not American, I didn’t get my ideas on this from America’. The point being it’s wrong to equate the version of this emanating from Vision Forum (or the like) with what I advocate just because of the label.

    @Ken,

    Thanks for your response. I repeatedly saw Daisy post to you about her experience and you did not respond or acknowledge it. I saw that in post after post after post.

    One response/explanation at the beginning isn’t good enough, in my opinion, to explain what you believe or to acknowledge others’ destructive experiences.

    The patriarchy movement – sold as The Gospel here – is driving people of all ages out of the church (including older Christians), has been made into The Gospel and a primary issue (it’s not), and has made the church the laughingstock of unbelievers and they have contempt for it. Patriarchy has denigrated women’s freedom in Christ.

    The patriarchy movement, as friends who are conservative elders in their churches in Europe that I know, has more in common with radical Islam than with our freedom in Christ.

  186. Ken wrote:

    I’m afraid Daisy was starting to get rather offensive over this on the other thread, and to some extent on this one, and I still feel I was justified in getting her to stop. Disagreement is fine; misrepresentation is not.
    I do not regard the relationship I have with my better half as being that of a master to a dog, and if she ever implies that again, I shall complain about it again.

    Your gender complementarian views are offensive, regardless if you picked them up from America or in Europe.

    Even the politer, watered down, friendlier version causes harm to women, as it did to me. I have explained this point several times over.

    I was raised under the “nicer” brand of gender comp that you are promoting, I was not raised under the “more extreme” kind.

    But your sweet, gentle kind of gender comp can end up in the more extreme forms you see among the full blown patriarchy crowd.

    Patriarchy is gender comp taken to its logical conclusions and not watered down to make it appear more inviting and godly to the every day Christian masses.

    Further, I was not the one who began the “you act like you are a master, your wife the dog” comparison.

    It was another poster here who started that point.

    You said in response to her that you disagreed with her about the analogy, and I backed her up by explaining your view really does boil down to,
    —–
    “Me man, me head of house, me master, wife takes orders, like dog would.
    Master gets final say so, because dog is prone to deception
    (and fill in the blank with other unfounded assertions and rationales about why women should not get any say in a marriage, why man gets all authority and control)”
    —–
    Your view is really that offensive, sexist, and damaging.

    However, you seem to think it’s okay to promote your version of gender comp because it hails from Europe and because it’s not as blatantly sexist as old school misogyny, because it comes wrapped in a soft, warm, fuzzy, friendlier sounding jargon.

  187. Ken wrote:

    Clearly we are not talking about the same thing here.

    But that is just it. Your comments read like the exact same things taught here in the comp world (which is only a nice word for patriarchy) by the Pipers, Mohlers, etc. You have literally brought in almost every one of their arguments from creation order, easily deceived, etc, etc.

    And btw; they will agree with the concept of “mutualism” but it is with a twist: For salvation only. It takes a while to nail that down with them because they are so focused on “equal but not in role”. They want to stress, like you have done, that one can be totally equal but not equal in role. This is Jim Crow. This is Orwell. The USSR taught this as matter of course. It is collectivism. You would most likely be appalled at that thinking when it comes to races but not for gender.

  188. Law Prof wrote:

    In all candor, I have an axe to grind here also that isn’t Ken’s fault. My adult daughter is being alternately emotionally abused and told to “submit in the name of God” by a pretty darned out-of-control complementarian YRR. We did not raise her to put up with this or to be attracted to this sort of nonsense. She seems to be the only one who doesn’t understand that this guy is knocking her around mentally and spiritually. So when Ken starts parrotting the same stuff I’ve dealt with from this guy–who might literally cause my head to explode, I swear!–it trips a few flags for me.

    I knew something was really bugging you. Having two daughters coming up for marriagable age, I can say I really feel for you in what you are currently experiencing in your own family. You so want them to end up happy with their partner in life.

    I don’t think for various reasons you can fight this YRR complementarian with egalitarianism, if only that he just won’t listen.

    I know you don’t like my unilateral submission in Eph 5 (I only believe this because that is how the text currently reads to me, I used to hold a view nearer to yours), but regardless of that the submission here is not unconditional. It is most important that wives understand this. There is no obligation to submit to rough treatment as though this were the will of God. Maintain an attitude of submission, but refuse to obey. The only unconditional submission is to God alone.

    The complement of wifely submission is the love, cherishing, nourishing, absence of being harsh (Col 3 : 19), and consideration/understanding on the part of the husband: 1 Pet 3 Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex/partner, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life …, this being the complement of submission in this context. These aspects are required of a husband and are also not mutual. They are not negotiable against her doing her part to respect her husband. More is required of the husband than the wife.

    As a former pastor of mine used to say, ‘you worry about doing what a husband is required to do, and let you (future) wife worry about what submitting means’. It was good advice especially for young single men. Your complementarian badly needs to heed that advice.

    This is, I think you would agree, the antithesis of what your daughter is currently experiencing from what you have said. Your YRR complementarian should be concentrating on his obligations, not using the word ‘submit’ to manipulate your daughter into acquiescing to behaviour she should never be expected to tolerate, all under the guise that this is the will of God. It most definitely is not.

    I shall pray about this on the way home by bike (that is, now), asking that God will open the eyes of your daughter to what his will really entails, and also the YRR character that he may see his obligations rather than his rights, and will be set free from an understanding of scripture that tortures its meaning into something the writers never intended. Also that he might grant you some peace of mind in the face of this.

  189. @ Daisy:
    I am the one who use the master/dog analogy.

    When Kens said: “… Christ through his apostle is asking more of the husband here than the wife ….” , and, “… The wife will give account if, rather than ‘submit’, she was assertive or semi-independant ….”, a master/dog scenario immediately popped into my mind.
    Here is what I wrote:

    “All a woman must do to enter the kingdom is accept Christ as her savior and be a mindless, obedient, subservient species with respect to her husband – much like the relationship between a dog and its master.
    A man however, not only has to answer for his own behavior, but also the behavior of his dog. If the dog is not submissive and obedient, the man must pay for the damage that results from his not having command of his dog.”

    It’s easy for me to picture a man with a woman on a leash, but most men can’t see it, because they are the ones on the “lead end” of the leash.

  190. Comps can wrap it in all the flowery words (changing them at will), but the fact is the doctrine is erroneous and women are smart enough to have analyzed it for themselves in scripture and found it to be so. They are wise enough and educated enough to see through the deception being taught today.

  191. Ken wrote:

    It is most important that wives understand this. There is no obligation to submit to rough treatment as though this were the will of God. Maintain an attitude of submission, but refuse to obey. The only unconditional submission is to God alone.

    Sigh.

    The whole of complementariainsm, even with all the qualifiers (“the women should have a submissive attitude, not obey!” or however you wish to sugar coat it), in the end scheme of things, still teaches women to be codependent, to be passive, to be doormats, Ken, which makes women ripe for being exploited and attracting abusive men.

    The book “The Gift of Fear” by DeBecker explains this.

    Also – This guy maybe explains it better than me or more concisely:

    ““Bible believing” [gender complementarian] pastors and the enabling of domestic violence”

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

    By encouraging your daughters to believe in and abide by gender comp, you are raising them to be used and abused by men (and by dishonest women friends).

    I lived it for years. I lived the sweet, gentler form or gender comp you think is so biblical and good for people, and this is what happened to me.

  192. Ken wrote:

    This is, I think you would agree, the antithesis of what your daughter is currently experiencing from what you have said. Your YRR complementarian should be concentrating on his obligations, not using the word ‘submit’ to manipulate your daughter into acquiescing to behaviour she should never be expected to tolerate, all under the guise that this is the will of God. It most definitely is not.

    Um, but this is exactly what you have been promoting on this thread, and previous ones.

    You also seem to think the word “submit” means “must take orders from,” and that the husbands have authority over wives (whcih theBible no where teaches).

    The Bible also contains that pesky Eph. 5.21, which says everyone is to submit to everyone, it does not say wives to husbands only.

    You must not take the Bible seriously and must not be sola scriptura. You have been influenced by Bro Culture, yes?

    Here it is:
    Eph 5.21
    Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
    ————–
    Yep, that verse is addressed to all believers, not just to women, not just to married women. Submit to one another.

  193. @ Ken:

    By the way, you seem to be dismissing Law Prof’s issues with gender comp due to his personal issues with is family members, in that post (i.e., “Ah, now I get it, you’re having problems with one of your daughters, that’s why you don’t like gender complementarianism, so your complaints with it don’t matter”).

    Your theological beliefs about gender, and whatever else, can and do negatively impact people in real life.

    You’re not dealing with abstract principles only.

    People have tried living under gender comp and have been hurt and unnecessarily limited by it.

    If that is so, if the real life working out of this gender theology has hurt people (and it has), that is a very valid reason to re-examine your views, to think, “Maybe I have misunderstood what the Bible teaches about these topics.”

    Also, Gram3 has largely stuck with the biblical text alone when discussing these things with you, and you’ve not been able to refute her points.

    Gender comp has failed to work in churches, universities, and families, too.

    I am constantly seeing news leaks and reports of gender comp preachers and fathers who have been arrested for, or in trouble for, things like…

    -Molesting kids, -having affairs, -physically abusing their wives, and some, like the Duggar guy, -joined adultery sites.

    Being gender complementarian whether it’s the nice version or an “extreme” version (or promoting gender comp),
    does not erode sexual sin, affairs, cheating, divorce, the use of sex workers by married men, etc., not even among Christian families and Christian clergy.

    Your view, is again, problematic for the problems pointed out in this page by an agnostic guy

    (last time I shared this link, you mainly chose to dismiss his very good arguments by focusing – ad hominem style – on the fact that the guy is currently agnostic. I think he used to be Christian):

    John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
    http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html

  194. Ken wrote:

    the submission here is not unconditional. It is most important that wives understand this. There is no obligation to submit to rough treatment as though this were the will of God. Maintain an attitude of submission, but refuse to obey.

    What do you mean??? What is defined as “rough treatment”? What criteria does a treatment have to me before it is defined as rough?
    Are wives commanded to submit unless and until “rough treatment” occurs??? Then, in the case of “rough treatment”, a wife is to “maintain an attitude of submission” while refusing to be abused??? How is this done???
    John Piper, anyone?

  195. TDaisy wrote:

    @ Ken:
    By the way, you seem to be dismissing Law Prof’s issues with gender comp due to his personal issues with is family members, in that post (i.e., “Ah, now I get it, you’re having problems with one of your daughters, that’s why you don’t like gender complementarianism, so your complaints with it don’t matter”).
    Your theological beliefs about gender, and whatever else, can and do negatively impact people in real life.
    You’re not dealing with abstract principles only.
    People have tried living under gender comp and have been hurt and unnecessarily limited by it.
    If that is so, if the real life working out of this gender theology has hurt people (and it has), that is a very valid reason to re-examine your views, to think, “Maybe I have misunderstood what the Bible teaches about these topics.”
    Also, Gram3 has largely stuck with the biblical text alone when discussing these things with you, and you’ve not been able to refute her points.
    Gender comp has failed to work in churches, universities, and families, too.
    I am constantly seeing news leaks and reports of gender comp preachers and fathers who have been arrested for, or in trouble for, things like…
    -Molesting kids, -having affairs, -physically abusing their wives, and some, like the Duggar guy, -joined adultery sites.
    Being gender complementarian whether it’s the nice version or an “extreme” version (or promoting gender comp),
    does not erode sexual sin, affairs, cheating, divorce, the use of sex workers by married men, etc., not even among Christian families and Christian clergy.
    Your view, is again, problematic for the problems pointed out in this page by an agnostic guy
    (last time I shared this link, you mainly chose to dismiss his very good arguments by focusing – ad hominem style – on the fact that the guy is currently agnostic. I think he used to be Christian):
    John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
    http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html

    This isn’t going to apply to Ken unless and until one of his daughter’s lands in a destructive relationship with a comp/pat man. Even then, he still might not bat an eye.

  196. Nancy2 wrote:

    This isn’t going to apply to Ken unless and until one of his daughter’s lands in a destructive relationship with a comp/pat man. Even then, he still might not bat an eye.

    That is kind of why I linked to this up thread:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2015/04/bible-believing-pastors-and-the-enabling-of-domestic-violence/

    But gender comp teachings can be harmful in less obvious ways.

    Gender comp is indistinguishable from codependency (especially as taught to or practiced by women).

    Even Christian authors (who are psychiatrists) refute codependency in their books (Cloud and Townsend are one example) as being unbiblical and harmful to men and women.

    Not only can codependent behaviors (gender comp) leave women wide open to ending up with abusive men or attracting abusers, but, gender complementarianism (even the nice, European variety Ken believes in) can create problems most would consider not quite as severe.

    Just a couple of examples from my own life to give you an idea (but these things show up in other gender comp women, too).

    I lacked boundaries. I was passive and unassertive. I was conflict avoidant. (All of these behaviors are encouraged under gender comp teachings, even under the “nice” type of gender comp.)

    Therefore, I seldom said “no” to men or women if they asked me for money, my time, or favors.

    I never spoke up and spoke my mind in debates or disagreements with people. I was afraid of offending people and of rocking the boat.

    I was taken advantage of financially, emotionally, time wise, etc, by male and female co-workers, bosses, friends, and relatives (and even by strangers on jobs I used to work), repeatedly from my childhood and into adulthood. -And again, this is all due in part to gender complementarianism.

    My ex fiancee never did physically abuse me, but because I was taught gender comp (that women are always to be accommodating, are never to say “no,” that my needs don’t matter, women are to always be nurturing and martyrs) my ex financially exploited me.

    My ex borrowed thousands of dollars off me. He never did repay, but he kept promising he would.

    It’s very easy at this stage for a gender comp like Ken to say,
    “Why gosh golly, that is awful, of course women should say no to manipulative greedy fiances like that man you were engaged to!,”
    -but under gender comp, that is not how it works.

    Me being ripped off by my ex (and he claimed to be a Christian) is the practical outworking of gender comp, it discourages women from having healthy boundaries.

    Gender comp makes women vulnerable to being taken advantage of by people.

    Women are heavily conditioned (under gender comp, and even by secular culture) to believe (by other gender comps, by churches, etc) that…

    The needs/wants of boyfriends (and whomever else), are more important than their own needs, wants, safety, time, energy, bank accounts, or physical health.

    We women are taught that saying “no” to other people makes us selfish.

    I had co-workers on previous jobs (in sales) ask me to do their jobs for them, including working extra shifts, so they could go home early and play tennis, or go to the movies with their BFs, or whatever.

    I wanted to say no to those co-workers because I was tired and wanted to go home myself, but I was raised under gender comp that sweet, loving, Christian girls are subservient to the needs of others.

    So I said “Yes” to these people who asked favors of me and then resented the crud out of it.

    I was harassed and walked all over at a full time professional job because gender comp teachings did not permit me, or prepare me, to be assertive and stand up to rude bosses and co-workers I had.

    The daily to weekly harassment at that job became so bad I had to quit that job after a few years.

    Had I had boundaries at that job at that time, you better believe I would have stood up to the jerk boss and coworkers.

    But I didn’t have any boundaries back then because Christian gender comp is basically the equivalent to the Mormon “Keep Sweet” drivel that is forced fed to Mormon women to keep Mormon ladies subservient, keep their mouths shut, and keep them in their place.

    So, this stuff can hurt women, not just in the advanced cases like marital physical abuse, but even before they get to the altar and get married.

    Oh, interpersonal dynamics I picked up under gender complementarian teachings also negatively affected my relationships with my siblings!

    I have an older sister who is incredibly emotionally abusive and nasty.

    For years, I thought I had to take my sister’s abuse, so I took it, and I thought that way, because gender comps teach women are to be submissive, quiet, deferential, and lovey dovey to others all the time, even if the other person is being rude, mean, and cruel.

    It wasn’t until the last couple of years I realized I don’t have to put up with the sibling’s abuse, so I have limited contact with this sister now.

    Gender comp can hurt women in friendships, at school, on jobs, with co-workers, with siblings, etc., not just in dating or marriage.

  197. Law Prof wrote:

    @ almost60:
    My adult daughter is being alternately emotionally abused and told to “submit in the name of God” by a pretty darned out-of-control complementarian YRR. We did not raise her to put up with this or to be attracted to this sort of nonsense. She seems to be the only one who doesn’t understand that this guy is knocking her around mentally and spiritually. So when Ken starts parrotting the same stuff I’ve dealt with from this guy–who might literally cause my head to explode, I swear!–it trips a few flags for me.

    You might benefit from reading the book, “The Verbally Abusive Relationship.” Abusers groom adult women, too, so that by the time the red flags are flying high enough for everyone else to see, the woman herself is already under some pretty intense forms of manipulative control. There not a certain personality, upbringing, etc. that draws women into these relationships or that prevents them from being drawn in. It’s the proverbial frog in the boiling water. It starts with little things at first, that can be explained another way, until that build-up of little things has the effect. It’s very likely that she isn’t thinking clearly because every time she has a rational thought, he has a way of undoing the reality of that. The book has a very clear list of those tactics.

  198. Abi Miah wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:

    @ almost60:
    My adult daughter is being alternately emotionally abused and told to “submit in the name of God” by a pretty darned out-of-control complementarian YRR. We did not raise her to put up with this or to be attracted to this sort of nonsense. She seems to be the only one who doesn’t understand that this guy is knocking her around mentally and spiritually. So when Ken starts parrotting the same stuff I’ve dealt with from this guy–who might literally cause my head to explode, I swear!–it trips a few flags for me.

    You might benefit from reading the book, “The Verbally Abusive Relationship.” Abusers groom adult women, too, so that by the time the red flags are flying high enough for everyone else to see, the woman herself is already under some pretty intense forms of manipulative control. There not a certain personality, upbringing, etc. that draws women into these relationships or that prevents them from being drawn in. It’s the proverbial frog in the boiling water. It starts with little things at first, that can be explained another way, until that build-up of little things has the effect. It’s very likely that she isn’t thinking clearly because every time she has a rational thought, he has a way of undoing the reality of that. The book has a very clear list of those tactics.

    Yes, this is a good book.

    Also, have her sit down and write up a list, draw a line down the center of the paper. Write the postives on one side and the negatives on the other side. Have her keep this in her room or somewhere she can read it.

  199. @ Daisy:

    Hi Daisy,

    I really appreciate your long post about gender comps. I learn so much from you!

    Hugs and love,

    Velour

  200. Deb Willi wrote:

    The author in the link below is a former army officer. HER thoughts are appropriate to the discussions about Piper’s (and his cohorts’)sad “theology.”

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/when-men-reflect-feminine-roles-and-women-reflect-masculine-roles

    Great article, Deb. Thanks for posting. Jeff has made similar points in his posts on The Wartburg Watch about his and his second wife’s roles not fitting gender comp definitions/roles. Ditto Gram3 and Gramp3!

  201. Nancy2 wrote:

    What do you mean??? What is defined as “rough treatment”? What criteria does a treatment have to me before it is defined as rough?
    Are wives commanded to submit unless and until “rough treatment” occurs??? Then, in the case of “rough treatment”, a wife is to “maintain an attitude of submission” while refusing to be abused??? How is this done???

    ‘Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing. For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly …

    Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behaviour of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behaviour.
    Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.
    So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you.’

  202. Daisy wrote:

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

    Submitting to one another – one another can either mean ‘everyone to everyone’, or ‘some to others’. I don’t believe it means everyone to everyone in this context because:

    Wherever the verb for submit is used, it is never mutual over against the person or institution being submitted to. Why is this verse an exception?

    Paul limits it use in the very next verse. Wives submit to their own husbands, not every wife to everyone’s husband.

    There is no command for husbands to submit to wives; she submits to him as head, there is no verse to say they are joint heads of the household.

    The submission of the wife to the husband parallels the church and Christ, and it is absurd to think this is mutual.

    The husbands duties, in turn, are not said to be mutual.

    None of the relationships up to the middle of the next chapter are mutual. Duty of care on one side, submission or obedience on the other.

    There is no mutuality at all in the Colossians parallel.

    There is no mutuality in Peter’s elaboration of this doctrine.

    Hence, until someone convinces me otherwise, I don’t believe in mutual submission requirement within marriage. I don’t believe mutual sacrificial love is required either. If the bible doesn’t explicitly say this, we shouldn’t either.

    An attitude of humility, of deferring and respecting each other is a Christian virtue. This is limited in marriage to avoid a situation where no-one takes responsibility – husband and wife cannot mutually submit to each other ‘in everything’.

  203. Daisy wrote:

    By the way, you seem to be dismissing Law Prof’s issues with gender comp due to his personal issues with is family members, in that post (i.e., “Ah, now I get it, you’re having problems with one of your daughters, that’s why you don’t like gender complementarianism, so your complaints with it don’t matter”).

    Sorry to follow you around, but you have posted a lot of entries.

    I can relate at least up to a point with Law Prof as a father of two daughters. We are supposed to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace even though we have not yet attained the unity of the faith, i.e. we do not agree on the passages dealing with marriage, and the arguments about this can generate a certain amount of heat.

    I am more than happy to stand together with LP in what must be a trying time for him. So I did pray for him and his family. That is hardly concommitant with thinking his complaints don’t matter.

    It’s a minor example of loving your neighbour as yourself. Doctrine matters; so do people.

  204. Lydia wrote:

    Your comments read like the exact same things taught here in the comp world

    There is a close parallel with the word ‘charismatic’ here. If by that you mean do I still think the gifts are for today based primarily on scripture but confirmed in experience, then I would reluctantly own this label despite the baggage it contains. If you mean the lunatic element and its doctrinal abberations, then no I would not consider myself charismatic, nor pentecostal, and doctrinally I differ considerably from the latter.

    Enter Dan Phillips and his famous ‘Ken, you are a gutless enabler of Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer etc etc, and a leaky canoner’. His unwillingness to make any distinctions, partly due to wanting to win the argument above all else imo, means he has to lump everything together under the particular label. He can then safely dismiss it all. In the end though, I suppose it it his loss.

    Similarly with complementarianism, I have no doubt this is a biblical concept, but no, I don’t consider myself as a gutless enabler of bullies. And it has to be said that sometimes the opposition to this comes from women who would not submit to anybody on anything (I’ve met one or two), it’s not just the misuse of the doctrine that is a problem. In the end though, a woman who rejects this outright is making herself vulnerable and could lose blessing God would otherwise give her.

  205. Ken wrote:

    . Maintain an attitude of submission, but refuse to obey.

    Can you explain how that works in real life terms.

  206. Nancy2 wrote:

    What do you mean??? What is defined as “rough treatment”? What criteria does a treatment have to me before it is defined as rough?

    Obviously the man defines. All he has to remember is that women are easily decieved. triscoll use to pull this one all the time to dismiss women’s concerns.

  207. Ken wrote:

    An attitude of humility, of deferring and respecting each other is a Christian virtue. This is limited in marriage to avoid a situation where no-one takes responsibility – husband and wife cannot mutually submit to each other ‘in everything’.

    So marriage is a lesser form of Christian relationship? Are men in the church under any obligation to submit to women other than their wives in the church? How is it that a woman laying down her life in childbirth is not an act of self-sacrifice which you say should not be mutual?

    Asserting that 5:21 is not mutual because you say it is never used mutually not only begs the question but ignores the reality that the Kingdom ethic is totally different from the world’s ethic of the weak submitting to the strong.

    Quoting Bible verses as if they mean “what they plainly say” is not convincing because you do this selectively. If that is your rigid hermeneutic, then you should be consistent.

    I pray that your daughters do not get into a situation like Law Prof’s. But what have you done to prevent that from happening? You are teaching them that relationships are not mutual, and that is simply unhealthy. Also, I do not believe for one minute that a responsible person will do the responsible thing even toward another person even if the other person is not required to one-way submit. It certainly does not say much about the Christian character of anyone if they have to be the boss in order to behave responsibly and lovingly, especially within a relationship as intimate as marriage.

  208. Ken wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Eph 5.21
    Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
    Submitting to one another – one another can either mean ‘everyone to everyone’, or ‘some to others’.

    Sorry Ken, but the Bible plainly and flatly says,
    Eph 5.21
    Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

    So you’re not sola scriptura?

    I think your biblical interpretation has been influenced by Dude Bro Culture.

  209. Ken wrote:

    Sorry to follow you around, but you have posted a lot of entries.

    I think I only posted about three posts since the last you were here.

    You usually ignore my posts, or did in the past.

  210. @ Daisy:
    Daisy, at least Ken answered you with his own words, sort of.
    I got answered with biblical passages that I’m already quite familiar with!

  211. Nancy2 wrote:

    I got answered with biblical passages that I’m already quite familiar with!

    So if you don’t agree with the sentiments expressed, you can take your complaint up with the author …

    MOD: Ken, if this is meant in jest please say so. If not then it’s not an appropriate reply.
    Everyone else. Don’t start an argument/discussion/attack on Ken over this.

  212. Gram3 wrote:

    Asserting that 5:21 is not mutual because you say it is never used mutually

    I’m saying this verse isn’t mutual because the underlying verb it uses only ever used of one person or group of persons submitting to someone with a legitimate authority. I’m arguing (Daisy as well) that one another doesn’t mean everyone submits to everyone because not everyone has responsibility or headship or leadership or governmental authority. The verse does not exist in isolation from the subsequent verses and parallel passages.

    Loving one another is mutual, and I’m not arguing against all believers treating each other with respect and even deference if you like. To love your neighbour is to cease to assert your rights or do anything that do them harm. But we are told to submit/yield to the leaders (or whatever jargon is used) and this is not mutual. That would negate them having any authority at all.

    My eldest daughter, who has wisdom beyond her years and no little discernment has asked me about this whole issue. In summary, I’ve concluded Gal 3 and 1 Tim 2 were written by the same apostle, are both true and should never be set against each other. It’s a huge responsibility to get this right, and neither of my daughters will get the notion of unconditional submission to a husband or a church leadership from me. Regarding the latter, I certainly do know this can go wrong.

  213. @ Ken:
    The three dots at the end of my sentence were meant to indicate there is an element of tongue-in-cheek about the reply.

    There was no intention to stir things up; quite the reverse.

    I quoted the verses in answer to Nancy’s point Are wives commanded to submit unless and until “rough treatment” occurs??? Then, in the case of “rough treatment”, a wife is to “maintain an attitude of submission” while refusing to be abused??? and my intention was to give what I think is the bible’s answer to this question and simultaneously avoid a heated exchange for sounding like John Piper, whom I think (though I have not actually listened to his piece on this) gave a botched and less than well thought out reply to this difficult question.

    I appreciate I am in the line of fire for anyone who has been hurt by a bullying husband who claims to be ‘complementarian’, but I wanted to head off any more personal attacks. I don’t mind and expect criticism, but I have started to get fed up with snide remarks, of which sadly there have been a few lately, including one from Nancy.

    There is a question Lydia asked I would like to reply to, but this whole subject is not my bible and faith, and I would like to give it a rest for a while. I’ve enjoyed being made to think about it, but it’s enough now. Whether I’ll manage that is a different matter, but there are plenty of other pressing or otherwise interesting issues to discuss.

    I hope that clarifies.

  214. Ken wrote:

    Paul limits it use in the very next verse. Wives submit to their own husbands, not every wife to everyone’s husband.

    There is no command for husbands to submit to wives; she submits to him as head, there is no verse to say they are joint heads of the household.

    The submission of the wife to the husband parallels the church and Christ, and it is absurd to think this is mutual.

    The husbands duties, in turn, are not said to be mutual.

    None of the relationships up to the middle of the next chapter are mutual. Duty of care on one side, submission or obedience on the other.

    There is no mutuality at all in the Colossians parallel.

    There is no mutuality in Peter’s elaboration of this doctrine.

    If by Peter’s elaboration you are referring to 1Peter 3-7, its crystal clear that wives are instructed to submit to their own husband. And husbands are instructed to be considerate as they live with their wife, and to treat them with respect as the weaker partner…

    There is no mention of mutual submission or submission to someone else’s husband.

  215. @ Joe2:

    The Bible does say to all believers:

    Eph 5.21
    Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
    ———
    Someone like Ken will come along and introduce his own thoughts and conjectures on to that, to explain to others that it “really” only means ‘wives to husbands,’ but that’s not what the text says at all.

    I’m supposed to take his opinion and assumptions of what the text means as though it is 1. the text itself and as 2. being binding biblical doctrine.

    Eph 5.21 doesn’t say “only wives to husbands….”

  216. @ Daisy:
    We have to consider the cultural context and the people that those letters were written in and to. God had a lot to say about women in the book of Numbers, but does that stuff still apply?

  217. Joe2 wrote:

    There is no mention of mutual submission or submission to someone else’s husband.

    So we should assume that when the Bible is silent on some matter it is forbidding it? That is, at best, an argument from silence.

    What do you think 1 Timothy 2:15 plainly says?

  218. On gender complementarianism or Christian patriarchal views:

    The Subordinate Place of Supreme Honor: A Response to Douglas Wilson
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/09/02/the-subordinate-place-of-supreme-honor-response-to-douglas-wilson/

    A snippet:

    Wilson’s image is of wife only as passive receiver, always taught but never truly teacher, voiceless and invisible.
    This startling distortion, which Wilson presents to couples on the threshold of their lifetime together, which may in some contexts lead to abuse, should prompt careful examination of the Scriptures.

  219. Daisy wrote:

    On gender complementarianism or Christian patriarchal views:

    The Subordinate Place of Supreme Honor: A Response to Douglas Wilson
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/09/02/the-subordinate-place-of-supreme-honor-response-to-douglas-wilson/

    A snippet:

    Wilson’s image is of wife only as passive receiver, always taught but never truly teacher, voiceless and invisible.
    This startling distortion, which Wilson presents to couples on the threshold of their lifetime together, which may in some contexts lead to abuse, should prompt careful examination of the Scriptures.

    As my conservative friends in Europe who are long-time elders in their Christian churches have said with alarm that these bizarre American “Christians” have more in common with radical Islam than with our freedom in Christ.

    My European Christian friends have pointed out that there is something seriously wrong with the American church.

  220. Daisy wrote:

    Eph 5.21 doesn’t say “only wives to husbands….”

    Paul’s writings were also epistles = letters ….. Written to the churches in Rome and Greece, but mostly Asia Minor. Ephesians and the Timothys were to Asia Minor. The letters are written to those cultures.

  221. Piper’s strange teaching on gender roles is simply the result of his own unaddressed psychological issues being projected onto others via his theology.

    Piper has issues with women. He has issues with his own gender identity. He needs to resolve those in the privacy of a therapy session, not in publications or the pulpit.

  222. Velour wrote:

    My European Christian friends have pointed out that there is something seriously wrong with the American church.

    NO. SKUBALON.

    If there weren’t something seriously wrong, we souldn’t have Spiritual Abuse Watchblogs like this one popping up all over the place.

  223. Nancy2 wrote:

    What do you mean??? What is defined as “rough treatment”? What criteria does a treatment have to me before it is defined as rough?

    I think the legal definition is “does it leave bruises or scars”.

  224. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I think the legal definition is “does it leave bruises or scars”.

    If you see my 5.26 P.M. post above in this thread, even the gentler, warm and fuzzy type of gender comp Ken (Ken the Gender Comp in this thread, above) is advocating for creates problems for women.

    I cited a few such examples from my personal life to illustrate.

    I was raised under the Warm And Fuzzy type of Gender Comp Ken is rooting for, and it is one of several things that messed me up.

    You can read that post of mine here, the one with a few examples of how “Nice Guy Gender Comp” hurts women:
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/08/24/john-piper-backs-himself-into-a-corner-and-even-reformed-complementarians-are-confused/comment-page-2/#comment-217220

  225. Ken wrote:

    I appreciate I am in the line of fire for anyone who has been hurt by a bullying husband who claims to be ‘complementarian’, but I wanted to head off any more personal attacks.

    Comp hurts SINGLE women, not just married ones.

    See my post here with examples from my life, of how comp hurts single women:

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/08/24/john-piper-backs-himself-into-a-corner-and-even-reformed-complementarians-are-confused/comment-page-2/#comment-217220

    And Eph 5.21 says everyone is to submit to everyone.

    Here is what the Bible states:
    Eph 5.21
    Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
    ———-
    There are no clauses or anything in that v. 21 that says it’s a one sided deal.

  226. Daisy wrote:

    There are no clauses or anything in that v. 21 that says it’s a one sided deal.

    Until somebody starts pulling an Interpretation for Personal Advantage.
    (Which is what it all comes down to…)

  227. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Until somebody starts pulling an Interpretation for Personal Advantage.
    (Which is what it all comes down to…)

    I agree.

    I’ve not read every post Ken has made in this thread, but from what I have read and some of the other posts I have skimmed, he goes on to explain what Eph 5:21 “really” means, and by adding his personal interpretations on to it, as though I’m supposed to give as equal weight to his additional words and interpretation as to the text itself.

    This is all the more strange because a lot of gender comps will claim that someone such as me (who no longer accepts gender comp) has been influenced by secular feminists, or, someone like me is not being faithful to the text.

    It doesn’t occur to some of them that they are doing the very things they are accusing their opponents of doing. I’m just taking Eph 5.21 at face value,
    —-
    Eph 5.21
    Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
    —-
    I don’t see anything in v 21 about ‘only women must submit.’ It’s directed at everyone in the body of Christ.

    And I’ll say things like “did you know the word “submit” in Ephesians 5:22 isn’t actually there, it’s inserted by translators carrying over the word from verse 21?”

    And of course they’ll say, “no way, well what does Ephesians 5:21 mean?”

    And then I’ll ask things like, “so, did you know the only passage in the Bible that says husbands have authority over their wives is the same passage that says wives have authority over their husbands?”
    And, I’ll get the deer-in headlights look.

    And then I’ll ask things like, “did you know that almost every gender-specific command in the Bible applies to the opposite gender?” And you get the same look there too.

    And these are people Chris, who have been going to church their entire lives.

    Source:
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/headship-madness-how-do-and-not-do-theology

  228. Daisy wrote:

    I’ve not read every post Ken has made in this thread, but from what I have read and some of the other posts I have skimmed, he goes on to explain what Eph 5:21 “really” means, and by adding his personal interpretations on to it, as though I’m supposed to give as equal weight to his additional words and interpretation as to the text itself.

    I’m not so sure that what Ken says is his own personal interpretations. I’ve read that stuff before – some of it word for word. I just can’t remember where. CBMW or John Mac.arthur, maybe?

  229. Daisy wrote:

    And Eph 5.21 says everyone is to submit to everyone.

    i) If ever I have not replied to posts, it not out of rudeness or wanting to ignore you (or anyone else) but there’s usually one of me and numerous people on the egalitarian side on this, and I don’t always have the time (or inclination if it is merely to restate something I have already said more than once).

    ii) As regards the quote above, I would be wary of getting yourself into a position where you are unable to consider a different understanding of this in the context of the whole passage. I used to understand this more like you do, I have reconsidered it by reading the passage myself and thinking about it, and seeing it differently.

    iii) My understanding of complementarianism is that it is the outworking of male and female differences, usually confined to marriage (Eph 5 etc) and in the church with females in authority as teaching elders being in dispute (1 Tim 2). This is pretty restricted and I don’t see how what I understand by the concept could hurt anybody. It would have to be abused for this to happen. By definition it cannot affect relationships between siblings.

    It’s not about you, nor is it about me, nor our opinions (humble or otherwise!!), it’s wrestling with the text until we become clear on what the will of God is in the whole matter.

  230. Ken wrote:

    it’s wrestling with the text until we become clear on what the will of God is in the whole matter.

    I have wrestled and become clear, as you have. I believe we have both become clear, ending up with different conclusions. If our consciences are clear, then we disagree on this issue. I don’t believe one is in the will of God and one is not.

  231. Ken wrote:

    My understanding of complementarianism is that it is the outworking of male and female differences, usually confined to marriage (Eph 5 etc)

    I’m not married, so complementariaism doesn’t apply to me.

    Eph 5.21 is addressed to the entire body of believers, not just married people, and it says everyone is to submit to everyone.

    Ken, you really need to apply this part of your post that you wrote to me to yourself:

    As regards the quote above, I would be wary of getting yourself into a position where you are unable to consider a different understanding of this in the context of the whole passage.

    You continue to read certain passages through male-hierarchy colored lenses.

    I don’t know if Gram 3 is still on this thread or not, but she has the patience to go through individual bible verses with you to see another way of reading them.

    I am more a “forest/ big picture” person on this topic than I am “trees / little details” person.

    I used to be a gender complementarian. I was raised in this stuff.

    I have heard your position and gender comp takes and interpretations of these texts repeatedly since my childhood and into my 30s.

    I now see there is another, more credible way of viewing these texts that does not assume or believe in male hierarchy.

    Or other degrading things, like women are supposedly more prone to deception than me, or cannot be preachers and leaders of mixed gender groups, etc.

  232. Daisy wrote:

    Or other degrading things, like women are supposedly more prone to deception than me,

    Should have read “meN” not “me”

  233. Daisy wrote:

    I used to be a gender complementarian. I was raised in this stuff.

    I used to be a gender complementarian until I realised my wife was an apostle.

  234. lydia wrote:

    Can you explain how that [submission] works in real life terms.

    i) A good question and ii) difficult to answer. I would say much the same way she shows respect, which Paul treats as almost synonymous. You can’t make rules for this and it will very from person to person. It’s easier to see it in its negation, when a wife disrespects or undermines her husband.

    My introduction this whole subject was as follows, in a meeting to discuss door-to-door evangelism, and a long time ago!

    Mrs A let is be known she was taking part in this expressly against her husband’s wishes. Evangelism was more important.

    Mrs B stated in response she had asked her husband if he would agree (which he did) to do the evangelism – much to Mrs A’s consternation. At this point I thought Mrs B had got a screw loose. No-one talks like that these days.

    Mrs B quoted Eph 5 : 22. I’d never heard anything about this before. I had recently been filled with the Spirit the bible had come alive in a way I had not known before, so I immdiately thought ‘if it’s in the bible Mrs B is right to act the way she did’. She later said if anything goes wrong, she will automatically have hubby’s support, rather than ‘I told you it would go wrong’ or something. I was taken aback at Mrs A’s casusl attitude to the NT.

    In my naivety, I couldn’t understand why Mrs A thought the way she did – though I’ve since heard every argument under the sun on this theme.

    As I would now see it, Mrs A was not showing respect for her husband – and that somewhat publically, and she would not have had God’s approval for her attitude and action, whereas Mrs B would.

    My problem with mutual submission is not that spouses should not show each other mutual respect, of course they should, but that this must not be used to negate the husband being the head of the wife.

    One of my motives for posting and thinking about this concept so often is that I’m not sure I have always been a particularly good ‘head’ in our marriage, and it does not harm to reflect on this and do something about it, if necessary. No guilt trip involved. What does it actually entail? I know you like the concept of source, but I can’t let myself off the hook with this – I think responsibility is the prime meaning. It is possible to be too laid back about this. It is possible to abdicate responsibility. And of course we will all give an account one day, and I’m not getting any younger.

    I’ve recently heard testimony in the teaching ministry of both David Pawson (talking about this subject) and Derek Prince (not talking about it) where they have refused ministry and/or God has not answered prayer until wives have acknowledged that the husband is indeed the head of the wife, even if unenthusiastically. Anecdotal, but quite striking.

    I’m quite sure this can work the other way – a husband’s prayers will go unheeded if he is not loving and in particular being considerate to his wife.

    A weak or non-existent head and an unsubmissive wife can make a family spiritually vulnerable, and however we view these concepts should be understood, we cannot negotiate with God about them, tempting as it is sometimes.

  235. Ken wrote:

    My problem with mutual submission is not that spouses should not show each other mutual respect, of course they should, but that this must not be used to negate the husband being the head of the wife.

    You seem to understand the term “head” to mean “in authority over,” but that’s not what it means in the NT.

    “Submit” means to voluntarily yield to someone else; it does not denote being under someone like a staff member or employee, nor that someone is over you in control of you, in power over you, or has final decision making.

    Eph 5.21 says:
    “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ,”
    – it does not say “show each other mutual respect.”
    —–
    Also, as was previously noted,
    —–
    “did you know the word “submit” in Ephesians 5:22 isn’t actually there, it’s inserted by translators carrying over the word from verse 21?”

    And of course they’ll say, “no way, well what does Ephesians 5:21 mean?”

    And then I’ll ask things like, “so, did you know the only passage in the Bible that says husbands have authority over their wives is the same passage that says wives have authority over their husbands?”

    And, I’ll get the deer-in headlights look.

    And then I’ll ask things like, “did you know that almost every gender-specific command in the Bible applies to the opposite gender?” And you get the same look there too.
    —-
    Source:
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/headship-madness-how-do-and-not-do-theology

  236. Ken wrote:

    A weak or non-existent head and an unsubmissive wife can make a family spiritually vulnerable, and however we view these concepts should be understood, we cannot negotiate with God about them, tempting as it is sometimes.

    If we are conservative, we will let Paul’s explanation of what he means by “head” be the meaning he intended. He explains in the immediate context what he means in addition to his use in chapter 4. Actually, I sometimes think we are not too far apart, and then something comes out of left field like the “prone to deception” thing or the non-mutual thing. Even when my views were more complementarian, I would *never* have denied that 5:21 means “one another” when it says “one another” in the context of the preceding text of Ephesians. It is about life in the Spirit, not who is the Leader and who is the Submitter. We should all lead in service to one another and lead in love for one another and submit in service to one another and submit in love for one another. We should all strive to be like Christ who was a leader and a submitter. There is not a female Christ and a male Christ for us to imitate according to our sex. There is only one Christ, the ultimate and perfect image of God who is also God.

    It is good that you desire to provide for and love and nourish and cherish your wife. I would say the same thing to Mrs. Ken. How you do those things for one another will vary according to circumstance. For example, what if you were in an automobile accident and you were severely injured such that you could not be the provider for your family. Would that make you less of a husband? Less of a man? I don’t think so. I don’t think it would make your wife less of a woman or less of a wife if she stepped in to do the things which you now do under your role as “head.” You would not be less worthy of respect and she would not be less worthy of love. Believe me that I know what I am talking about and that this has happened to people we know, and men have struggled with false guilt. Circumstances change. What must not vary, however, is your disposition toward each other which should only and always be mutual love and respect.

    I could tell you an actual story about a woman who is married to an uber-complementarian pastor we know. In our presence, she related a story about her husband and some other men that did not reflect well on them. At all. Made them look like fools. I was astonished. In all my years of Titus2ing of younger women, the inviolable rule for me has been do not humiliate your husband, and especially do not do it via a “prayer request” or a “funny” story. Same for Gramp3 with the younger guys. No “funny” stories or tales of woe that show disrespect or a loss of love for their wives.

    The point is, respect for one’s husband or wife is not a matter of a system of roles to be observed scrupulously but is rather a matter of the heart. Same for love for one’s spouse. Same for *all* of the fruit of the Spirit. The law tree can only ever produce rotten fruit which stinks and produces bitterness of soul. Only the Spirit can bring forth sweet fruit that nourishes the soul.

    Please understand that when you say some of the things that you say about women, it is soul poison to women. And worse, it is not true, and God never said that women need a “head” or a keeper and that we need someone to keep us from being deceived other than the Holy Spirit himself. Men and women need each other, and as Paul said women came from man, man comes from woman, nevertheless *all* come from God. Neither of us has any claim to any kind of superior status or privilege or nobility. We are one in Christ.

  237. Ken wrote:

    A weak or non-existent head and an unsubmissive wife can make a family spiritually vulnerable,

    This is completely unsupportable. That is if you are using the Bible as the foundation for your doctrine. There is nothing that states that following your version of what Paul is saying makes the family vulnerable. It simply isn’t there. Much must be added and subtracted from the text to come up with this.

  238. Ken wrote:

    we cannot negotiate with God about them, tempting as it is sometimes.

    But Ken, we aren’t negotiating with God. We are actually going to what Jesus has said and what Paul has said and have been showing you that your version contradicts the rest of scripture, the words of Jesus and the words of the Apostles.
    Our version agrees with the rest of scripture. So we are not negotiating with God. We are searching for the truth.

  239. David Pawson wrote a book entitled, “Leadership is Male”.
    Derek Prince was a member of the “Fab Five” shepherding movement.

  240. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    I used to be a gender complementarian. I was raised in this stuff.

    I used to be a gender complementarian until I realised my wife was an apostle.

    For this lovely post about your dear wife, I will personally nominate you to the Scottish Florist Society (or whatever they call themselves) for a deep, deep discount on a lovely floral arrangement for Valentine’s Day!

  241. Gram3 wrote:

    what if you were in an automobile accident and you were severely injured such that you could not be the provider for your family. Would that make you less of a husband? Less of a man? I don’t think so. I don’t think it would make your wife less of a woman or less of a wife if she stepped in to do the things which you now do under your role as “head.”

    I just spoke with a friend of mine. Her father has always made the decisions and her mother has always been submissive to his authority over her. The father has dementia and his condition has gotten notably worse over the past few weeks. He still insists on making all of the decisions and doing the driving, and the mother is afraid to usurp his authority, even though his being in control puts both of their lives in eminent danger. My friend is dearly worried about her parents, but has no legal right to take any action to protect either of them and her father will not allow her to “interfere”.
    Where does “male headship” leave this family?

  242. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I used to be a gender complementarian until I realised my wife was an apostle.

    So not in any sense a Junia partner? …

    I’ll see myself out.

  243. Ken wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    I used to be a gender complementarian until I realised my wife was an apostle.
    So not in any sense a Junia partner? …
    I’ll see myself out.

    One rimshot for you. And a belated one for Apostle Nick.

  244. Gram3 wrote:

    Please understand that when you say some of the things that you say about women, it is soul poison to women

    Can I do a quick clarification on the women and deception idea?

    First, there is no intention to insult women as if I were simply to state ‘women are gullible’. That’s not true. I’ve known some extremely discerning women. The ‘sins of the fathers’ and ‘in Adam all sin’ is no insult to men, rather a sober assessment of how men are responsible for passing on the fallenness of the race.

    There is a good argument against the idea that ‘women are easily deceived’ in that is this were true, why did Paul insist older women teach the younger, why commend Timothy’s mother and grandmother, what about Priscilla and Aquila, Phoebe and other co-workers he clearly highly esteemed? He didn’t seem to assume they could easily be deceived.

    Where I do think this (deception) can come into play, and where you will not agree with me, is a combination of male abdication of responsibility or headship or whatever you want to call it, and women filling the vacuum. It’s out of ‘order’. This is where a vulnerability to deception can come in, mini Genesis 3’s. Now I could be wrong on this, but it has certainly played out this way in practice. I don’t think I have ever known it otherwise. And as I’ve said before, there do seem to be some areas where women are particularly prone to deception – inner healing, centering prayer and other varieties of pseudo-christian mysticism, some of which are mind-bogglingly pagan. Sometimes men teach these things, and are the deceivers, often women have a great following teaching them. My disillusionment with the charismatic movement was largely due to the direction it went in, with extra-biblical revelation and non-biblical practices that weren’t anything to do with the ‘gifts’.

    Remember I have attended churches with women in leadership, trying to cultivate a attitude of not getting hung up about the issue, and several times a year still do so, though in no sense a member. It’s not as though this is all just theory. But it’s never worked out, not even very recently when I tried out a church which had until recently been sound, my eldest had greatly benefitted from it. I’m not going back to see if Mrs Pastor is actually going to lead the church into contemplative spirituality, which is bordering on divination, introducing another Jesus and another spirit. She clearly believes in it though, and spent 20 minutes of a sermon, without reference to the bible, on introducing the concept.

    You may at least from this realise why I seem to be so stubborn on believing 1 Tim 2 is still for today. I’ve been willing to ‘sample’ female-led churches despite my misgivings about them. The conditions Paul addressed then are not actually so different from today, with large-scale involvment of so many in occulty-type activities and goddess worship in one form of another.

    Time for shorter posts from now on. Time for a bit of a break! 🙂

  245. @ Ken:

    Your issue seems to be with the Charismatic movement.
    Yet you are trying to rope women into being responsible for it with assumptions and conjecture.

    I was looking to link a cartoon for you but can’t find it so I’ll ask you to picture it.
    It’s done with stick people so it shouldn’t be hard.

    First frame. Two male stick figures. One is doing a math problem at a chalk board – 2+2=5. The other one says to him, “You are bad at math.”

    Second frame. Two stick figures. This time there is a female and she’s the one writing 2+2=5 on the board. And the guy watching says, “Women are bad at math.”

    This appears to be what you are doing.

    If a man does something, it is that guy alone.
    If a woman does the same thing, she represents all women and you use her as a basis for your doctrine.

    Let’s take it further.
    If several men do something, it is just those guy. It doesn’t represent all men.
    If several women do the same thing, they represent all women and universal and/or biblical truth. And you see them as proof of your doctrine.

    What seems obvious to you looks a lot like conjecture to me.
    Take care about assuming that your personal experiences are some sort of undeniable proof.

    So much could be said about the way certain men have led churches and cults. But it would be wrong to limit all men by those who have erred just as you wish to place limits on all women due to the error of a few.

    I need to take a break from making long comments as well.

  246. Mara wrote:

    So much could be said about the way certain men have led churches and cults. But it would be wrong to limit all men by those who have erred just as you wish to place limits on all women due to the error of a few.

    This is what came to my mind as I was reading Ken’s comment. I could easily say that only male leaders lead churches astray because I have only been in churches (that no longer exist) with male leaders – an absurd conclusion to be sure.

  247. Ken wrote:

    Paul addressed then are not actually so different from today, with large-scale involvment of so many in occulty-type activities and goddess worship in one form of another.

    Are you referring to goddess worship during Paul’s age or today?

  248. Ken wrote:

    You may at least from this realise why I seem to be so stubborn on believing 1 Tim 2 is still for today. I’ve been willing to ‘sample’ female-led churches despite my misgivings about them. The conditions Paul addressed then are not actually so different from today, with large-scale involvment of so many in occulty-type activities and goddess worship in one form of another.

    I believe 1 Timothy 2 is for today as well. And, this may shock you, but I think that your experiences with female false teachers demonstrates that what Paul is teaching in 1 Timothy 2 is vitally important. Where we differ is regarding what Paul is teaching.

    I assume that you believe that he is barring women from teaching men because The Woman was deceived which demonstrates a peculiar vulnerability to deception that is somehow genetic. To prove your point, you would need to find supporting evidence that this is what Paul actually believed. Such as any reference in Genesis to such being the case. There is no record of God saying that women are inherently more deceivable. If we chalk Eve’s sin via deception up to her innate vulnerabiliy *before* the Fall, then would we not be saying that God’s very good creation was somehow deficient WRT the Woman? We would also need to show that Paul asserts an innate vulnerability elsewhere in his writings or the other apostle’s writings or in Jesus’ words and actions. However, that evidence is not there, either.

    I believe that Paul is saying that no one should presume to teach before they have learned the truth and that they should not presume the authority to teach on their own without that gift being discerned by the congregation/assembly/body as a whole. My view is consistent with the historical account of Genesis, but more than that, it is more consistent with the entirety of Paul’s teaching on the topic. Further, Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians where he directly addresses the metaphor with Eve and where he gives an explanation for what he means by that supports my view of 1 Timothy 2. Paul uses Eve as an illustrative type of the consequences of being deceived and falling into sin. Paul does not ever use Eve as a determinative type who passes on some genetic deficiency that she had *before* the Fall. It is not sound hermeneutical practice to disregard what someone has said about what they mean when they use a word or phrase or metaphor. Surely we can agree on that?

    Your explanation fails to account for the very many false *male* teachers whereas my explanation accounts for all kinds of false teachers and the people who fall for their deceptive speech, regardless of class, race, or gender. IMO, as I’ve said before, being a false teacher is a crime of opportunity. Most of the false teachers in the Bible were males. Shall we conclude, therefore, that males are more inclined to be false teachers than females? I would say no. Rather males had more opportunity to be false teachers due to social and religious conventions. At Ephesus, apparently, that was not the case, and when women had the opportunity to teach, some of the false teachers were going to be female! I believe the same thing occurs in churches where females are permitted to teach.

    There will be false female teachers just like there are false male teachers. The solution for that problem is not to bar females from teaching, else the solution to male false teachers would be to bar males from teaching. That is clearly ridiculous, and the actual cure is the one Paul prescribes over and over again. Search the scriptures, learn before you teach, listen to others and be open to questioning, faithfully pass on the faith we have received, live lives worthy of emulation rather than lording it over people, etc.

    I believe you are reasoning backward from our culture to what Paul said rather than listening to Paul within his historical and cultural context. Further, I think that, along with Pawson, you are seeing meaning in descriptive language that is not necessarily there, and I strongly encourage you to read Pawson’s writing and question whether the assertions he makes about the text are actually in the text. That is not disregarding the Bible or the authority of God or bargaining with God. It is endeavoring to hear what God is saying to us without pre-judging what he must be saying for whatever our reasons might be.

  249. Mara wrote:

    But it would be wrong to limit all men by those who have erred just as you wish to place limits on all women due to the error of a few.

    You beat me to that while I was typing my overly-long comment. 🙂

  250. Gram3 wrote:

    that he is barring women from teaching men because The Woman was deceived which demonstrates a peculiar vulnerability to deception that is somehow genetic.

    If this were the case, wouldn’t Paul have also banned women from teaching other women, as well as children?

  251. There may be people who are unaware that, once upon a time, the character of adopted children was assumed to be determined by their genetic inheritance. Or that the character of people groups is genetically determined. That was due to a wrong interpretation of the “sins of the fathers” reference. IMO, the “vulnerability of women to deception” idea stems from a similarly faulty interpretation of the biblical record.

  252. Gram3 wrote:

    I believe that Paul is saying that no one should presume to teach before they have learned the truth and that they should not presume the authority to teach on their own without that gift being discerned by the congregation/assembly/body as a whole.

    Whoa. That would certainly throw out a lot of the YRR leaders, I should think, as well as people like Mark Driscoll, who decided to start a church even before he claimed to be a believer.

  253. @ Daisy:
    I didn’t think that what you were saying about a missing word in Ephesians 5:21,22 sounded right, mainly because in my KJV an insertion usually appears in italics and there wasn’t one. So I checked my concordance and Greek New Testament and found that the word “submit” is in both verses.

  254. refugee wrote:

    That would certainly throw out a lot of the YRR leaders, I should think, as well as people like Mark Driscoll, who decided to start a church even before he claimed to be a believer.

    And then realised that he’d better start claiming to be a believer if he wanted to develop a marketable brand.

  255. @ Gavin White:

    Don’t know how much light this will shed on the discussion, but the existence of the word “submit” in Eph 5:22 is not without ambiguity.

    Out of curiosity, I checked the 4 Greek NT’s available on the Bible Gateway website.

     The 1550 Stephanus edition and the 1894 Scrivener edition do have “submit” (actually, of course, υποτασσεσθε) in v 22
     The 1881 Westcott-Hort edition and the SBL Greek New Testament (published in 2010) do not have “submit

    My own Green NT, which is a United Bible Societies third edition, does not have “submit”. I think it’s quite strongly based on the Westcott-Hort edition, so that would make sense. As a general rule of thumb, Westcott and Hort used earlier manuscripts than Scrivener, though he used a larger sample (repeat: that’s a rule of thumb, as a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation in this case).

    Whether the actual word appears or not, I don’t think is important; the context implies it. Submit to one another in the fear of Christ; wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

    Certainly, whatever it is that wives are being instructed here to do to their husbands, is exactly the same as what everybody is supposed to do to one another.

  256. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    People can read the parallel Greek texts at the various online sites and see that there is no unanimity. I agree with your conclusion, however, and I don’t think anyone disputes that the “submitting” is implicit. I do dispute the change from participle to imperative which itself implies a duty for wives that is somehow different from the general deference that believers are to have to one another as they exemplify life in the Spirit. IIRC Philip Barton Payne goes into the history of the various texts, something which is way above my pay grade.

  257. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Whether the actual word appears or not, I don’t think is important; the context implies it. Submit to one another in the fear of Christ; wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
    Certainly, whatever it is that wives are being instructed here to do to their husbands, is exactly the same as what everybody is supposed to do to one another.

    Really!! 🙂 I’m good with that. Always have been . . .

  258. Gram3 wrote:

    People can read the parallel Greek texts…

    … indeed, if they too are curious. Remember:

    We do these experiments so you don’t have to!

  259. @ Ken:

    So you’re reading your personal dislike of some flakey Christian women back into the biblical text and assuming God shares your views on this stuff?

    Not all women are flakey.

    I was not brought up in Charismatic type churches, never into contemplative prayer or the other stuff you mentioned because it seemed hokey to me, even when I was much younger. And I’m a female and never fell for it.

  260. Daisy wrote:

    Not all women are flakey.

    I don’t think that Ken would think that he is saying that all women are flakey.

    But he really is saying that all women have the potential to totally flake out if they don’t fulfill their roles and submit the to protection of their head. Women are teetering on the edge of flakedom if men and women don’t follow his version of the Gospel.

  261. Mara wrote:

    I don’t think that Ken would think that he is saying that all women are flakey.
    But he really is saying that all women have the potential to totally flake out if they don’t fulfill their roles and submit the to protection of their head. Women are teetering on the edge of flakedom if men and women don’t follow his version of the Gospel.

    That again goes back to the fact that not all women can or do meet Ken’s criteria.

    I’m over 40 and have never married, I have no “male head” to keep me from flaking out. But you know, I do just find on my own without a “male head.”

    I have never fallen for the mystical mumbo jumbo he listed in his post above that he said all/most women fall for.

  262. @ Daisy:

    But as far as he knows, you aren’t trying to be a pastor.
    And as far as he knows you can’t be unsubmissive to your husband because you don’t have one. You are in some sort of loop-hole grace-place.

    Believe me, I know what you are saying. The rigid gender gospel he ascribes to cannot be supported. And the fears he has for those not obeying it are unfounded. You are one example of that. But that won’t keep him from trying to explain it away and from trying to explain you away.

  263. Mara wrote:

    And as far as he knows you can’t be unsubmissive to your husband because you don’t have one.

    Funny thing is too, if I’m totally Christian, I don’t have to be submissive to anyone else in the body of Christ, because Eph. 5.21 is-

    -(according to his interpretation, which I find really weird and not supported in the text)-
    for married women only, not men and not un-married women. Hee.

    For more on Ephesians 5:21 / 22, this page gets into it:
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/headship-madness-headship-new-testament

    Anyone can play these games with the Bible.

    You know when Jesus said to “love your neighbor as yourself?” That only applies to men, not to women. God does not expect or want women to love their neighbors.

    The NT passage that talks about feeding a hungry person, not just wishing him warm and well fed? That teaching applies only to 14- year- old, red- headed (not blondes, brunettes or bald) girls and to all divorced women – not to men, grown women, single women, widows, or boys.

    ‘Weeping with those who weep’ applies only to people with blue-colored eyes, so if you have hazel or brown eyes, it’s not for you.

    See, you can make up anything you want to like this, and claim any teaching which is directed at all is really only for ‘Group- Thus- And- So’ and does not apply to anyone of Group X. It’s a very peculiar hermeneutic.

  264. @ Daisy:

    And they think Matthew 20:26 applies to relationships between men, not between men and women.

    It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;

    Men push themselves up over women using Paul’s while disobeying the words of Jesus saying there is some magical footnote that excludes the marriage relationship from this.

  265. @ Ken:
    Plenty of men in the charismatic stream of things not only disseminate very bad ideas, but create them. Case in point: the Ft. Lauderdale Five, their many male pastor fanboys, and the original shepherding/discipleship movement.

    In the charismatic groups that i was part of, it was mrn eho introduced these things, and men who enforced them. In most of those places, women were not permitted to teach or hold any office, with the exveption of Christian ed. (nursery and kids’ Sunday School). The idea of womens’ ordination was beyond the pale.

    I wonder why you feel that things work from the particular to the general in this way? (Serious question; I’m not meaning to be facetious or unkind.)

  266. @ numo:
    Ken wrote:

    I’ve recently heard testimony in the teaching ministry of both David Pawson (talking about this subject) and Derek Prince (not talking about it) where they have refused ministry and/or God has not answered prayer until wives have acknowledged that the husband is indeed the head of the wife, even if unenthusiastically. Anecdotal, but quite striking.

    Don’t know if you saw it, but this is a little snippet of what Ken wrote upthread a bit.
    Derek Prince was one of the Ft. Launder dale Five. David Pawson wrote a book entitled, “Leadership Is Male”.
    For me, this explains everything.

  267. @ Nancy2:

    I had not seen that post of Ken’s. I went back and read the entire comment. I don’t agree with it.

    Men should be responsible and submissive just as women should be. Men should not shirk their responsibilities within their families and neither should women. Women should not disrespect their husbands, nor should men disrespect their wives.

  268. @ Bridget:
    Agreed. In marriage, we should be able to use our strong points, and support weak points in one another. Who cares if those points fit some “roles” defined by men. We should be allowed to just be who we are, instead of being expected to fit in some man-made box.

  269. @ Nancy2:
    Derek Prince’s 1st wife (she was older and he was a widower for a while) felt that he had been sucked in by a cult – referring to the other men in the Ft. Lauderdale Five and yheir oringinal “covenant” with each other (the beginnings of the discipleship movement). Prince was highly intelligent, but intelligence does not equal lack of susceptability to bad practices and creepy groups of any kind. So sad.

  270. @ Ken:
    I’m sorry, Ken, but Prince was very far off in left field. I was in a church that was closely associated with him, and with other members of the Ft. Lauderdale Five, back in the mid-late 80s. I’m not sure how I got outmof there in one piece, to be honest.

    That Church (which kicked me out) also had some Derek Prince partisans in its ranks.

  271. numo wrote:

    I’m not sure how I got outmof there in one piece, to be honest.

    I’m thankful you did. My contact with the Shepherding movement came earlier than yours and with some different people. Oddly enough that is also about the same time I first came in contact with Second Wave charismatics, some of whom were sure they were the only ones with the Holy Spirit. And that was a few years after Gothard became a thing. And a few years later, there were the Recons. Toxic, Toxic, Toxic. And nothing like the Good Shepherd. At all. It is sad that what it was is so clear in retrospect.

  272. numo wrote:

    Derek Prince’s 1st wife (she was older and he was a widower for a while) felt that he had been sucked in by a cult – referring to the other men in the Ft. Lauderdale Five and yheir oringinal “covenant” with each other

    That is interesting in view of the discussion we are having regarding deception.

  273. @ Gram3:
    So did mine. This was group number 3. They all said that they had ditched the shepherding stuff, and I think they believed it. At any rate, this began in the 70s for me.

  274. @ Gram3:
    You know, the other members of The Five got really angry at Prince for remarrying without their express approval.

    I think Lydia (his 1st wife) was on the money.

  275. numo wrote:

    They all said that they had ditched the shepherding stuff, and I think they believed it.

    I can relate to that. IMO sometimes we may think we have left something behind when we have only left the form of the thing and have actually retained the thing itself–a distorted lens. I know of people who left Gothardism and went into Quiverfull. If I were my grandmother, I would say there is a spirit of Power that lies behind all of these aberrant power doctrines.

  276. Nancy2 wrote:

    Derek Prince was one of the Ft. Launder dale Five. David Pawson wrote, “Leadership Is Male”.

    If these are the two men influencing Ken’s doctrine, it’s no wonder his doctrine is screwed.

    Sorry Ken. I’ve also had my run in with the shepherding movement or at least a couple of it’s 2nd and 3rd generation manifestations.
    The depth and distance of wacko produced by this bunch surpasses the goofiness you want to blame a few women for.

  277. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    I learned Greek using the Nestle-Åland version but rely nowadays on the Textus Receptus/Scrivener/Trinitarian Bible Society. I agree that the presence or absence of the word doesn’t affect the meaning of the verse as it is clearly implied. I would disagree that the mutuality of submission is all that the passage refers to, however. I found the discussion of the passage in the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G K Beale and D A Carson quite helpful, probably because I agreed with its conclusions.

  278. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    There was a vein of Gothardism in all of the shepherding groups i was in and/or came in contact with.

    Tonight I finished reading the thread on Derek Prince from back in 2011. What an eye-opener that was since I have not been exposed to the charismatic shepherding version. Definitely Gothardism is shepherding or shepherding is Gothardism. It might be interesting to trace out those connections. One of the commenters on the Prince said there is a spirit of Authority. So I guess that verifies what I suspected my grandmother would say about a spirit of Power behind the things we talk about here. Thanks for that info.

  279. Mara wrote:

    Derek Prince was one of the Ft. Launder dale Five. David Pawson wrote, “Leadership Is Male”.
    If these are the two men influencing Ken’s doctrine, it’s no wonder his doctrine is screwed.

    Now that made me smile!

    David Pawson:

    I became so utterly disillusioned with charismaticism that for a long time I regarded Pawson as probably yet another teacher promoting error. Having come out of the other end of that, I have come to greatly appreciate his ministry.

    He did an excellent series on bringing charismatics and evangelicals together, critiquing both the strengths and weakness of both streams. His critique of Pyro/MacArthur type evangelicalism for down-playing the ministries of the Spirit and being too cerebral is something they very badly need to hear.

    He has also done several series, also published as books, on areas the current church in the UK and abroad is neglecting. In pushing truths that are being neglected if not suppressed I think he sometimes goes a bit too far in the other direction, but perhaps this is understandable. Particular subjcts include divorce and remarriage, the doctrine of hell, the false assurance of ‘once saved always saved’, and an excellent book on the nomal Christian birth, which shows up so much ‘gospel’ preaching to be deficient, giving Christians a bad start. Someone needs to call evanglicals back to their senses and back to the bible.

    He’s also done a tome entitled Unlocking the Bible, giving background to each book of the bible with a view to getting Christians back ito reading it again, and with more understanding. It certainly makes it come alive! The stuff on the early chapters of Genesis is very good!

    He’s not a pope, but I have come to respect a man who is willing to go against the fads and increasingly sinful behaviour of some much pseudo-evangelicalism around today. I’ve read his books and listened to him more recently because I am tired of being presented with a God who is too nice and harmless, the love and grace of God need balancing with his judgment and wrath against sin; a God who should be loved and feared. There is far too much ‘ear tickling’ going on today.

    Those who don’t like neo-calvinism would find in him an articulate opponent of a form of Christianity whose God tends in an Islamic direction. Pawson is unashamedly Arminian.

    It would be silly to write him off because he espouses the traditional teaching on the role of women, yet even there he is not remotely in the MacArthur camp.

  280. Mara wrote:

    Sorry Ken. I’ve also had my run in with the shepherding movement or at least a couple of it’s 2nd and 3rd generation manifestations.

    Derek Prince:

    I am very aware of the Ft Lauderdate 5. Do bear with me in a little foolishness. If I got the notes out and dredged the recesses of my brain, you will find no stronger opponent of the errors of covering, neo-discpleship, shepherding and submission than me. I was involved in a watered-down version of this in the UK, and it did damage. It took quite a while to pump the stuff out by hearing the truth. I’m very aware of the blight this became for so many Christians who ended up ‘submitting’ to an eldership of little Hitlers. I’ve read books on it where the authors have folders full of correspondence from Christians who have been kicked in the teeth over this. I’m very aware of its unbiblical nature – based on truth, it was taken to such an extreme that it became diabolical error. It enslaved rather than liberated. Created children rather than mature adults. Became a control-freaks’ paradise, with carnal men lording over the flock.

    NT apostolic doctrine totally demolishes it.

    afaic in view of the false discipleship teachings I had basically written Prince off, and was bothered when my sister said she was reading some of his books with profit, and she’s no fool. I’ve since discovered he abandonned the shepherding error in the mid-80’s, being the first of the group to do so. I’ve listened to him occasionally recently – initially with some trepidation. On a message on the role of women (topical!) he apologised for the oppression of women that has occurred over the centuries by men who have sometimes done this misusing the bible. Now that surprised me!

    I have not become a fan of his, but do appreciate some aspects of his ministry. I find it interesting how he mellowed with age, and drew back from some of the things he used to teach more dogmatically.

    I don’t think I will ever be able to take on board some of his teachings and practice on deliverance, generational curses in particular (though I have only read refutations of this, in fairness I ought to see what Prince himself has to say about it). Yet this area (demonology) is so neglected in the modern church; if Prince is completely off base on this, I don’t know of anyone who is actually dealing with it, it’s a subject Christians are abysmally ignorant about. I think Prince does overdo it on deliverance, but who else teaches about it so make a fair comparison?

    In the end you can only keep reading the bible and think about it for yourself and see what it actually says. If more Christians had done this, I don’t reckon the shephering error could ever have flourished the way it did.

  281. Ken wrote:

    It would be silly to write him off because he espouses the traditional teaching on the role of women

    Why not? I read some of his writing on Creation Order, and it is the same eisegesis that CBMW does. A great Bible teacher does not read his own thoughts into the text and does not proclaim that the text says something that it never says. Ideologues do that. Exegetes do not. His assumption is that whatever is traditional is better than whatever is new. That may be true, but it may also be false. The Reformation, under that line of thinking, would be a very bad thing because it was rebellion against the established spiritual authority.

  282. Gram3 wrote:

    His assumption is that whatever is traditional is better than whatever is new

    I don’t think you could be more inaccurate. There are masses of evangelical traditions in the form of set doctrines or interpretations handed down uncritically or with accretions from generation to generation that badly need challenging. Fresh thinking, not bound to the past or unwilling to reconsider.

    When Pawson wrote Leaderhisp is Male, a leading UK evangelical said he agreed with the argumentation, but would keep quiet because ‘he didn’t want to lose opportunities for ministry’. Something has gone very wrong when we get to that stage.

    Even if you believe ‘once saved always saved’, trying to suppress teaching that there are some 80 places in the NT that indicate otherwise is unhealthy. With the amount of sin going on in so many churches, this might be something not just Calvinists need to reconsider. The fact it can disturb Christians and make them uncomfortable is no reason to avoid the challenge.

  283. I totally disagree with Piper’s statement about Police Officers. On 6-19-2011 I was coaching a 19 year old and under baseball game and my heart stopped. One of the people who responded was a female police officer. She threw her shoulder out dong compressions on my chest to keep my heart beating until the Paramedics arrived. I thank God for Female Police Officers.

  284. Bob M wrote:

    I totally disagree with Piper’s statement about Police Officers. On 6-19-2011 I was coaching a 19 year old and under baseball game and my heart stopped. One of the people who responded was a female police officer. She threw her shoulder out dong compressions on my chest to keep my heart beating until the Paramedics arrived. I thank God for Female Police Officers.

    Bob M wrote:

    I totally disagree with Piper’s statement about Police Officers. On 6-19-2011 I was coaching a 19 year old and under baseball game and my heart stopped. One of the people who responded was a female police officer. She threw her shoulder out dong compressions on my chest to keep my heart beating until the Paramedics arrived. I thank God for Female Police Officers.

    Amazing story, Bob M. So glad you are with us and a woman cop kept you alive. There are amazing women in every profession, including those once considered *a man’s profession*.

    When I was backpacking in Patagonia, I met scores of very tough Israeli women who had just completed their mandatory 2-years of military service. They and their friends were decompressing by backpacking.
    http://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org/information/background/content.htm

  285. Velour wrote:

    Bob M wrote:

    I totally disagree with Piper’s statement about Police Officers. On 6-19-2011 I was coaching a 19 year old and under baseball game and my heart stopped. One of the people who responded was a female police officer. She threw her shoulder out dong compressions on my chest to keep my heart beating until the Paramedics arrived. I thank God for Female Police Officers.

    Bob M wrote:

    I totally disagree with Piper’s statement about Police Officers. On 6-19-2011 I was coaching a 19 year old and under baseball game and my heart stopped. One of the people who responded was a female police officer. She threw her shoulder out dong compressions on my chest to keep my heart beating until the Paramedics arrived. I thank God for Female Police Officers.

    Amazing story, Bob M. So glad you are with us and a woman cop kept you alive. There are amazing women in every profession, including those once considered *a man’s profession*.

    When I was backpacking in Patagonia, I met scores of very tough Israeli women who had just completed their mandatory 2-years of military service. They and their friends were decompressing by backpacking.
    http://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org/information/background/content.htm

    Oh, and I forgot to say, I am a member of his church. I have previously reported my confrontation of him as regarding C. J. Mahaney