A Compelling Response to the Complementarian Manifesto and Abuse by Nate Sparks

“Often things are as bad as they seem.”~ Sheldon Kopp link

Facebook Nagemeh Abedini

#IBelieveNaghmeh: Victim of Domestic Abuse

(Please pray for Naghmeh. The Gospel Coalition has not written one word about this situation despite their protestation that they are complementarians who are "against domestic violence.)

Recently, the Gospel Coalition published A Complementarian Manifesto Against Abuse by Jason Meyer. It is important to note that the author is a preaching pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church, the home of John Piper. That is why this article bothered me. Read this excerpt and pay attention to the section I highlighted.

One would think this point goes without saying, but sadly it needs to be said. Both groups should oppose domestic abuse with every fiber of their being. (Though I’m mainly discussing spousal abuse here, we should be equally opposed to child abuse.) Who could even conceive of making an argument for how domestic abuse glorifies God?

But sometimes our shrill rhetoric obscures our real agreement on this score. Egalitarians sometimes fail to distinguish between genuine complementarianism and extreme distortions that cease to be complementarian at all. This is a sad feature of many debated points of theology. Something similar happens in debates between Calvinists and Arminians. Arminians think they’re speaking against Calvinism when they’re actually speaking against hyper-Calvinism. Likewise, egalitarians sometimes think they’re speaking against complementarianism when they’re actually speaking against hyper-headship.

He claims to be against hyper headship which is a distortion of the complementarian position.

Hyper-headship destroys that picture. The husband abuses his headship in a self-centered and self-serving manner. He may be self-centered and self-serving in a covertly aggressive way that refuses to do anything to serve his wife or family. Or he may be self-centered and self-serving in a harsh, oppressive, controlling way. Self-serving lordship isn’t Christlike leadership,

He then asserts that egalitarians are not being fair to the complementarians.

When you’re opposing complementarianism, please don’t conflate it with hyper-headship. Represent our views carefully and accurately in a way that maintains the middle instead of excluding it. Represent the real core of what someone believes before responding to it. It’s a matter of integrity.

He goes on to decry domestic abuse but it doesn't ring true to me because he is conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room. An honest man would have addressed it. By the end of reading this treatise, Dee was banging her head on the table. This is a pastor from John Piper's former church.

Frankly, I cannot believe his assertion that complementarians are against the abuse of women or children because of their history of hobnobbing with certain ministries and individuals. One commenter declared:Screen Shot 2015-12-10 at 1.51.23 PM

I believe that a number of the gospel™ complementarians have succumbed to "touch not thy BFF." They decry abuse so long as it is not being done by a Calvinista celebrity or big wig. This is called complicity and this is why I do believe his impassioned edict.  If he is different, then as Eliza Doolittle, that great English theologian, sang:

Nate Sparks has recently started a blog, Sparking Conversation, which I believe will grow to be an important blog in the evangelical world. We will link to it at TWW. Please take the time to read his posts. 

Nate responded so well to this *manifesto* that I knew I could not improve one single word. So, as a followup to our manliness post on 12/9, here is Nate telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the problem with complementarianism. I bet this should stir up some comments. 


"Not All Comps" by Nate Sparks

Recently, I have been puzzled by some of the responses to my posts on Complementarianism.  Some feel I have not presented complementarian belief in an accurate light.  Other’s have insisted that there are good, godly complementarian persons they know who do not believe “like that”.  I have been told, “I used to complementarian, I wasn’t like that though.” However the responses are worded, they can all be summed up with three words: “Not All Complementarians (Comps)!”

These responses raise an important question:

Is “Not All Comps!” an appropriately Christ-like response to the teachings of Complementarian leaders?

To answer this question, we must recognize the issue is not how a single person acts but how an entire culture exists which seeks to denigrate an entire gender and silence those who expose its abuses.

There may very well be very godly and kind complementarian persons.  But there are also a great deal more who spew hate and vitriol and make misogynist claims when their views are challenged.

Consider:

Doug Wilson has verbally attacked and attempted to blackmail people like Natalie Greenfield for speaking up about rape and abuse in his church.  Doug Wilson and his church have even sided with her male abuser in legal proceedings.  Doug and his leadership have openly called Natalie a liar and blamed her and her family for her abuse.  In fact, when someone tried to argue on Doug’s blog that rape victims are not responsible for being raped, Doug Wilson directly stated that this is false.  Of course a rape victim – even a 14 year old girl – bears some responsibility.image

If you consider nothing else.  If you read no other post.  If you hear no other voice.  Listen to Natalie, her voice must be heard, her story must be told.

How Complementarianism Played into my Sexual Abuse Under my Former Pastor Doug Wilson – Natalie Greenfield

Keep in mind, Wilson also questions the legitimacy of marital rape. He says rape statistics are inflated by “feminists” to oppress men.  He calls women who disagree with them “lumberjack dykes”.  And despite all these things, The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and its members have allowed him to write for their blogs and peddled his books.

“Not All Comps!”

Recently, Denny Burk openly stated that 1 Timothy 2:15 means that God created women to perpetuate his salvific purposes through childbearing and homemaking.  He insists women must have separate roles from men because this is god-ordained in Scripture.  Of course they are equal in worth, but they just weren’t created to have equal authority or leadership with men.

“Not All Comps!”

Steve Farrar has also argued that the man must work and make money, he must be the breadwinner and his wife must be the housekeeper.  The man is the absolute head of the home, and he must not abdicate his authority or take on a “feminine” role in the house.*

“Not All Comps!”

Mark Driscoll has even gone so far as to argue stay at home dads are worse than unbelievers.

“Not All Comps!”

I would argue this isn’t the first time this logic has been used.  During the Jim Crow era many people insisted that persons of color were equal in value, but needed to be separate for other reasons.  They weren’t as educated.  They carried diseases.  The list went on.  So they created the concept of separate but equal, a concept we now consider racist and hate-filled.

Yet complementarians use this same logic.  Mark Driscoll states women are more easily deceived.+  John Piper says a woman’s role is to uphold the authority of men and to make them fulfill secure in this authority . No woman should ever be in direct authority over a man, that isn’t what she was created to do.

The Danver’s Statement, the official document defining complementarity penned by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), states that women may be equally gifted, but they are not equally called.  Thus, for a woman to use her gifts in man’s domain is “sin”.  The woman are equal in image, but separate in authority and calling.

“Not All Comps!”

James Dobson tells abused women, whose husbands threaten their lives and repeatedly punch them in the face that divorce is not an option.  He insists their job is to preserve the marriage and redeem their husband.

“Not All Comps!”

Chuck Swindoll pines for the days when men need to be muscular and athletic and women ought wore makeup and look good in bikinis.

wpid-wp-1447782895479.jpg

As quoted in Farrar, Anchor Man, p. 162.

Not All Comps!”

C.J. Mahaney has openly blamed women for the lust of men.  He has told them their bodies are responsible for the sins of their “brothers in Christ”.  Not to mention, Mahaney has been caught up in scandal for not reporting sexual abuses in his church.  Yet he is still supported by prominent complementarian leaders and remains a pastor at Sovereign Grace Ministries.

“Not All Comps!”

Josh Duggar molested children and faced no consequences because Bill Gothard teaches that immodesty of the girls/women in the home causes molestation to happen.  Bill Gothard himself molested over 30 women while teaching them he was beyond question.  He shamed them, told them that what had happened to their bodies didn’t matter.  That bitterness or anger at their abusers would keep them from God.

“Not All Comps!”

Mark Driscoll lost his entire ministry, caused the closing of over a dozen churches because he believed men were God’s chosen ones.  He openly mocked women in his sermons and books.  He told the women under his care to witness to their husbands by submitting fully and in all manners in sex.  He told them if they didn’t give their husband a blow job, they weren’t serving God or obeying Scripture.  He posted misogynist comments on blogs and destroyed the lives and ministries of anyone who questioned him.  He allowed his beliefs to lead to pride and denigration.

“Not All Comps!”

My own church, which has women pastors, defended a sermon in which guest speaker Bishop Walter Harvey claimed the role of a woman to her husband is submissive helper and incubator.  Harvey also stated the way to a happy marriage is for women to meet their husband’s need for “Sex, Sex, Sex”.

Not only did they defend him, they welcomed him back with open arms to speak at a missions conference on reconciliation.  During this conference, he claimed that he disagreed with the theological position of some Pentecostals on female attire because “Some women need makeup”.

“Not All Comps!”

Why does this keep happening?  How can people hear the horror stories, see the damage, and still defend these men?

The answer is fear.  Fear of losing their grounding, fear of admitting complicity.  Most importantly, fear that questioning the status quo will bring a quick descent into post-modernity and relativism.  Fear that to question these teachings is to question the Gospel itself.

This occurs because men like John Piper and Kevin DeYoung argue that complementarianism is the clear teaching of Scripture, necessary to fully understand the Gospel.  Complementarity, they claim, is a necessary protective strategy for ensuring the safety of the Gospel message.  Like Timothy Keller, these men argue that Inerrancy is simply saying Scripture is true and has a clear meaning.  Of course, they insist complementarianism is the clear teaching of Scripture and anyone who rejects this clear teaching is rejecting Scripture itself.  When you question the inerrant teachings they put forth you cannot truly have a moral compass or come to God salvifically.  After all, Jesus taught Inerrancy!

Complementarianism is built into the Foundation Documents of the TGC, claimed as the clear teaching of Scripture.  Many of the members of the TGC were also members of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI).  Many of the members of ICBI are also members at CBMW as well and personally signed the Danver’s statement.

It is no coincidence, then, that the three statements defining Inerrancy penned by the ICBI are distinctly complementarian.  They were designed to be.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in ICBI’s “The Statement on Biblical Application”.  Here the claim is made that biblical truth commands the husband and wife are to be full partners.  Yet, they assert that the man must be the servant-leader and the wife must be the fully submissive helper in the home.  The very Doctrine of Inerrancy to which complementarians appeal was designed to stack the deck in their favor.  It was written as a tool of intimidation and fear to prevent people from questioning the teachings of complementarianism.

It is no wonder the TGC doesn’t question these men – they don’t represent an exception.  These types of abuses are part and parcel of complementarianism.  To expose these men is to expose the abuse and discrimination inherent to the system.  To question these men is to question whether their “clear teaching of Scripture” are actually carefully developed systems for preserving power and privilege built on the backs of others, of women and men who have been denied the basic tools of biblical literacy.

So I am left to wonder:

At what point does defense of an idea become complicity in the abuses inherent to that ideology?

At what point does allowing the voices of the afflicted to be silenced to preserve our own comfort and privilege become an active participation in silencing them?

As Christians, we are not called to defend the ideas of men.  Paul confronts the Corinthian church because they had become disciples of men instead of disciples of Christ (1 Cor 1:10-17).  They allowed certain persons to have primacy and privilege over others (1 Cor 8, 11:17-22) .

In the midst of these accusations, Paul calls them to his Gospel, the Gospel of the crucified Christ (1 Cor 2:2).  This is the same Gospel he used in Philippians 2 to insist that followers of Jesus must emulate his kenosis in our treatment of others.

We must remember Jesus, in his death as the humble, emptied, crucified God exposes the plight of those oppressed, defies the power which denigrates, and opposes systems of discrimination and separation (1 Cor 1:18-31; Gal 3).  The crucified cross of God calls us to take up his cause to uplift the oppressed and love all persons above ourselves (Phil 2:1-12; Luke 9:21-27; Matt 20:20-28, 25:31-46).

Thus, when confronted by the hurt of others at the hands of abusive or discriminatory ideologies our response should not be to insert our own narrative by declaring “Not All Comps”. Instead, like the God who became human, we must immerse ourselves in the narrative of their suffering (Isa 52:13-53:12).

In this way, we are called to practice a cruciform solidarity with the abused.  This solidarity will seek to participate in and understand the suffering they face. It will be willing to offer apology for the times we have been complicit in their sufferings.  It will ensure it shares their words and empower their voices to expose the injustices they face.  And it will be humble enough to silence ourselves that their voices might be heard.

*Steve Farrar, Anchor Man (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000) pp. 61-64, 102-104.

+Mark Driscoll, Church Leadership: Explaining the Roles of Jesus, Elders, Deacons, and Members at Mars Hill, Mars Hill Theology Series (Seattle, WA: Mars Hill Church, 2004).

If you like it, please share it! Grace and Peace!

Comments

A Compelling Response to the Complementarian Manifesto and Abuse by Nate Sparks — 439 Comments

  1. Hey Ken, your post is a nonsequitur–or an answer to a question no one asked. I have no clue. Nate, judging by the incoherent response, you may have put Ken on tilt.

  2. I just posted this comment on Jory Micah’s blog regarding Natalie Greenfield. It is in response to one of DW’s “defenders”. (The irony that such a manly man as DW needs to be defended by a lowly weak woman is not lost on me.)

    “You don’t know our church community or its teaching well.”

    Sheesh. The same could be said about those who opposed Adolph Hitler and the Nazis at the peak of their power. We don’t need to sit in the pew to “know”. We look at the results of their rhetoric and propaganda, I can’t bring myself to call it “teachings”, and see the destroyed lives.

    The skeletons around a toxic water hole are enough to tell me not to drink from it.

  3. This question appears under the title before you click on the article.

    “Nate Sparks disagrees that complementarians are obviously against abuse. I believe that this post will ‘spark’ much discussion.”

    I was wondering if this is the question Ken was answering.
    If not, I haven’t a clue.

  4. Oh yes, Mara, that may be it. Ken may be now treating the subject like a third rail on this forum. Good idea, Ken, advice I gave you months ago.

  5. @ Mara:
    As you will see by the time this appears, I was suffering from moderation sickness. 🙂

    Well done for getting it right though. Too much haste on my part and you end up with a comment that doesn’t make sense …

  6. @ Nate Sparks:
    Have you read any of Ken’s comments in previous thread about complementarianism?
    If you haven’t, we can find some of his comments that will enlighten you concerning his stance on a husband’s God ordained authority.

  7. Goes to get the popcorn, settles in to see how long Ken can hold off 🙂

    (Ken, we’re hard on your view here, but I’m so grateful you stick in at this blog & help us think things through).

  8. He then asserts that egalitarians are not being fair to the complementarians.

    “When you’re opposing complementarianism, please don’t conflate it with hyper-headship. Represent our views carefully and accurately in a way that maintains the middle instead of excluding it. Represent the real core of what someone believes before responding to it. It’s a matter of integrity.”

    Ok Mr. Meyer, fair enough. But then came this:

    “I know some speak against complementarianism as if it were the culprit in domestic abuse. Humble headship breeds domestic abuse, they say.”

    I’ve never seen one single egalitarian argue that “humble headship breeds domestic abuse”. If he has run into this, it would have been helpful if he had linked to it or made a citation.

  9. Regarding Doug Wilson, I consider him a patriarchalist instead of a mainstream complementarian.

    “And despite all these things, The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and its members have… peddled his books.”

    Yeah, speaking of Doug’s books, if you all haven’t been to Rachel Miller’s blog since before yesterday, you might want to take a look. Plagiarism scandal, part deux.

  10. NJ wrote:

    Ok Mr. Meyer, fair enough. But then came this:
    “I know some speak against complementarianism as if it were the culprit in domestic abuse. Humble headship breeds domestic abuse, they say.”
    I’ve never seen one single egalitarian argue that “humble headship breeds domestic abuse”. If he has run into this, it would have been helpful if he had linked to it or made a citation.

    I wonder if he buys into the “abused wives are not submissive enough” doctrine?

  11. I doubt that Nancy2, but all the same, if he wants complete integrity from the other side (nothing wrong with that) he needs to practice what he preaches.

  12. Nate, you said, “[…] the issue is not how a single person acts but how an entire culture exists which seeks to denigrate an entire gender and silence those who expose its abuses.”

    I agree that understanding cultural systems is key to understanding why this continues. I’ve been thinking about how our “mental models” and paradigms shape our theologies, values, organizational systems, cultures, and the ways we do/don’t collaborate. “Ideas have legs,” and there’s a whole paradigm at work here that taints people’s thought life and everyday actions as they walk out these beliefs.

    In my opinion, it isn’t even the principles and practices of complementarianism that are the core issue — it’s an even deeper consistent way of thinking that creates a “guilt-based culture” (which are mostly Western). It constantly divides this from that, black from white, men from women, etc. … all under the guise of specifying right from wrong.

    There is no place in such thinking for paradox where both parts can co-exist. There is no place for failing to analyze any elements and summarily categorize them. There is no place for grace in allowing people to undergo transformation when they are not yet in the box of “perfect righteousness” yet because this is, after all, a matter of right and wrong, isn’t it, so they need to “get right, right now” shouldn’t they? This sort of extreme categorization separates us into tribes of the acceptable versus the unacceptable, and then finger-pointing and punishment meted out to those who are unacceptable.

    But the additional thing that strikes me about your post is the prominence of the words fear and power. Missiology also recognizes “fear-based cultures,” which are most clearly seen in animist societies where people are afraid of spiritual entities overpowering them. Fear-based cultures create pyramids of power, with differing levels of privilege/power (and powerlessness). And fear is about power — creating it and keeping it, or avoiding those who wield it. Who is stronger than me? Who can harm or protect me? How can I resist their influence? It creates classes of overlords and underlings. It segments leaders from laypeople (even if gluing on the modifier of “servant” to “servant-leaders,” as if that somehow spiritually glorifies the unconditional submission of the others).

    Putting these two kinds of cultural paradigms together leads me to a question:

    In practice, are there any complementarian gender theologies that are not also linked to parallel hierarchies in governance of the church?

    As best I can interpret what I’ve observed, they’re intertwined. Yes, all comps … which makes their cultural system susceptible to great evil.

  13. Ok Mr. Meyer, fair enough. But then came this:

    “I know some speak against complementarianism as if it were the culprit in domestic abuse. Humble headship breeds domestic abuse, they say.”

    I’ve never seen one single egalitarian argue that “humble headship breeds domestic abuse”. If he has run into this, it would have been helpful if he had linked to it or made a citation.

    I think I could comb through some threads I have been a part of on this very site and while I could not find that quote word for word, could certainly find the idea behind it. The implication is often made that any kind of headship must breed abuse because by its very nature it is about power on the one hand and subordination on the other.

    So I don’t think Meyer could necessarily find a link to a direct quote but I think there is plenty of evidence that many who oppose comp teaching believe it is a pretty straight line to domestic abuse. I don’t believe his assertion is off the mark.

    By the way, I have the sense that Meyer may be a reader of TWW. I have never met him and do not attend Bethlehem, but both the article on TGC (though criticized here) and his sermon about a year ago at Bethlehem about abuse in the church display a broader understanding of the issues than many of the other YRR who I believe are too quick to totally dismiss what are sometimes real issues. While I sometimes criticize TWW and commenters, I don’t advocate turning a blind eye to legitimate issues.

  14. A couple of thoughts on issues of responsibility and complicity, which are interrelated issues I’ve been looking at the past few years.

    Going back to the idea of a “pyramid of power,” leaders and their enforcers and commenders are at the top, while everyday people who get played as pawns are at the bottom. There’s more responsibility/culpability for those in the penthouse of power, more complicity for those at the base.

    It’s been intriguing to see how dissent, resistance, and activism against abuse can and does come from people at any level in that pyramid. That gives me hope for transformation for even the worst offenders. (Although, in the historical case studies I’ve been looking at, only in exceptionally rare instances does the person at the very top change paradigms and works toward reconciliation and restitution.)

    Complicity is complicated. The word complicity comes from the same root word from which we get accomplice. And not all accomplices get involved in harmful actions with understanding, with malice, and/or with willingness. In terms of complicity with an abusive church system, I believe some people get hooked in and entrapped by their sincerity — they truly believe that God requires the kinds of headship/submission relationships they’ve been fed and led to accept as pleasing to Him. Besides that kind of “spiritual conditioning,” there are many other forms of positive and negative conditioning to keep people glued into the system or afraid to leave it. It’s insidious …

    One of the next few books on my reading list about malignant cultures and complicity has the rather chilling title, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45, by Milton Mayer, first published in 1955. It’s his account of 10 everyday Germans and their testimonies of how they came to believe that Nazism “was good for them” and “gave a sense of belonging.” I have a hunch I’ll find some intriguing thoughts there that apply to the kinds of motivations, disinformation, etc., that get people hooked into being accomplices to evil.

  15. NJ wrote:

    Yeah, speaking of Doug’s books, if you all haven’t been to Rachel Miller’s blog since before yesterday, you might want to take a look. Plagiarism scandal, part deux.

    Given the recent statements by Wilson and Booth, I wonder:

    1.). Did Wilson contribute much, if anything, in the book? Was he just taking half the credit for a book that was written mostly by Booth?
    OR,
    2.). Is Booth taking all of the blame for plagiarism to protect Wilson, or because Wilson commanded him to take the blame?

  16. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    There’s more responsibility/culpability for those in the penthouse of power, more complicity for those at the base.

    Flag Ken has said that he believes husbands have more responsibility than wives and that husbands will be held more accountable at judgement. i can’t quote him word for word, but in one post, he indicated that he is afraid that he may not be taking enough responsibility.

  17. Nancy2, I suspect a combination of 1 and 2. Booth may have done most of the writing/compilation, and he is taking the blame largely to protect Wilson. I wonder if this will force Booth off a certain committee.

  18. js,

    I am well aware of those who do not believe in ecclesiastical authority of any kind or headship in marriage. I’m not out quite that far in my own opinions.

    Nevertheless, I have to wonder if a large part of the problem here isn’t comps continually talking about “headship”, and “leadership”, instead of *responsibility* for those that husbands/fathers are supposed to be caring for.

  19. Can you get into dangerous territory by being “hyper-egalitarian”? No? Well maybe that’s the safest choice for all, then.

  20. Nate, I’m confused by the logic of your argument. Perhaps you didn’t state your real thesis explicitly?
    You didn’t disprove the “not all comps!” claim because that would require showing that there are no (or perhaps even only a very few) exceptions to the pattern of complementarians promoting or protecting abuse. Instead, you gave examples of some who have, and did not address how many there might be who do not do that. You even half-heartedly admitted that “not all comps!” is probably true when you wrote,
    “There may very well be very godly and kind complementarian persons.”
    Of course there are! I have known many. And many of them are women.

    So, what are you really claiming? I will attempt to restate concisely what I think your examples show:

    Many of the most influential and well-known neo-Calvinist complementarian leaders encourage and protect domestic abuse and abusers.

    I think you also claim that such behavior is inherent in complementarian theology, but I do not believe this article proves that extended claim; it only states it.

    Can you clarify whether I have summarized your argument accurately?

  21. @ brad/futuristguy:
    Brad,

    Complementarian theology is built on hierarchy. Denny Burk, Al Mohler, Doug Wilson and Steve Farrar (to name only a small sampling) have all defended directly the term patriarch as a “positive” term and argued that hierarchy isn’t a bad thing.

  22. @ brad/futuristguy:
    These are great thoughts. And the complexity of complicity is why I chose to end with two questions and an open challenge to listen. Because not everyone is intentionally complicit, but neither are they capable of questioning – they have been robbed of the tools to do so by the system itself. Thus, my goal is to provide a space to question, to listen, and to discern.

    If you haven’t read Walter Bruegemann’s Prophetic Imagination, it speaks profoundly on these issues.

  23. @ Nancy2:
    Given that the last time Wilson was accused of plagiarism – his truther book on “Southern Slavery” – his coauthor also took the fall, I’m going to go with door number two.

  24. Beakerj wrote:

    Goes to get the popcorn, settles in to see how long Ken can hold off
    (Ken, we’re hard on your view here, but I’m so grateful you stick in at this blog & help us think things through).

    My first comment was a botched attempt (more haste less speed) at a little self-deprecation in the best British tradition in view of the subject. There are some aspects of this, however, I am more than happy to hold off from though!

    I liked you second sentence, as I really don’t want to be pain in the neck who can’t talk about anything else. I’ve found the hargy-bargy on this subject useful as I suspect this might be another subject I will have my brains picked on over the Christmas holidays.

    Even though I am not an Anglican, I don’t think you can accuse me of indulging in confirmation bias …

  25. @ siteseer:
    You get into dangerous territory by becoming “hyper” with any ideological commitment. Those who are “hyper” tend to base their identity in that ideology. It becomes a point of antagonism where they stop calling others to Christ and start calling them to their “camp”. This creates a competing claim of identity to the cross of Christ and causes the person(s) to live in a state of ” Us vs. Them) where anyone who isn’t “us” isn’t Christian.

    It is for this reason I always point back to the cross, which cuts through ideological idols and the systems of abuse they propogate. The cross brings us back to Christ, which provides a point of unity and respect on which to build dialogue and mutuality even from the depths of disagreement in particularity. (I am riffing on passages like 1 Cor 1-2; Gal 3 here)

  26. Nancy2 wrote:

    Flag Ken has said that he believes husbands have more responsibility than wives and that husbands will be held more accountable at judgement

    That’s a fair summary. Dee got me thinking about this when asking how you get something the husband does – leads – from a discription of something the husband is – the husband is head …

    I like the word responsibility as it expesses what I think and avoids the use of the word authority, which like submission can trigger off responses based on bad experiences.

  27. I’ve read Farrar’s “Point Man”, and there are two specific things that bother me:

    1. His constant talking about “the next generation of masculine men and feminine women”. I don’t think he ever really defines what “masculine men and feminine women” are.
    2. His outright statement that couples who are capable of having children and decide not to are selfish.

    Tim LaHaye, in The Act of Marriage, said something similar: that by choosing not to have children, you were denying a potential child salvation. My answer to that was: How in the world do you know that that child is going to become a Christian?

  28. NJ wrote:

    *responsibility* for those that husbands/fathers are supposed to be caring for.

    Wives/mothers have responsibilities for those that they are supposed to be caring for, more so than husbands/fathers in many instances.

  29. Nate Sparks wrote:

    Complementarian theology is built on hierarchy. Denny Burk, Al Mohler, Doug Wilson and Steve Farrar (to name only a small sampling) have all defended directly the term patriarch as a “positive” term and argued that hierarchy isn’t a bad thing.

    Russell Moore, SBC/ERLC.

  30. To this list I want to add,

    1. the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine

    2. that dreadful article in the CBMW journal from 2004 where some guy argues for all (Christian) women eternally submitting to all men, almost Mormon style

  31. NJ wrote:

    “I know some speak against complementarianism as if it were the culprit in domestic abuse. Humble headship breeds domestic abuse, they say.”

    HUMBLE(TM) as Chuckles Mahaney?

  32. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ brad/futuristguy:
    Brad,

    Complementarian theology is built on hierarchy. Denny Burk, Al Mohler, Doug Wilson and Steve Farrar (to name only a small sampling) have all defended directly the term patriarch as a “positive” term and argued that hierarchy isn’t a bad thing.

    The Great Chain of Being.
    Hold the Whip and use it on those beneath you, Feel the Whip of those above you.
    Boots on faces all the way down.
    And God just has the biggest Boot and holds the biggest Whip of all.

  33. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    P.S. A classic Beetle Bailey strip:

    The General yells at the Colonel.
    The Colonel yells at the Major.
    The Major yells at the Captain.
    The Captain yells at the Lieutenant.
    The Lieutenant yells at Sgt Snorkel.
    Sgt Snorkel yells at Private Bailey.
    Private Bailey kicks the barracks dog.

  34. @ Tina:
    I recently sat down with the founding director of No Regrets Men’s Ministries – which hosts the largest annual multi-cite international men’s conference in the world – and convinced him to drop Anchor Man from their curriculum.

    I showed him one page in the book (162) and he hung his head and apologized. He exact words were, “I’ve raised my daughters to be powerful independent women, they would throw this book in my face”.

    He also said in the 10+ years they’ve used the book, I was the only person he had ever talked to who raised those concerns.

    This, for me, was a powerful reminder of the need to say something, even if you think it’s been said a thousand times before. You never how a few well prepared worda can make a major change.

  35. Dave MacKenzie wrote:

    Many of the most influential and well-known neo-Calvinist complementarian leaders encourage and protect domestic abuse and abusers.

    Until I see the leaders in the comp movement make a real stand against abuse then I will doubt that any of them give a hoot about it. They all seem to piddle around in their bubble. They say that child sex abuse “sucks.” Then they back slap their BFFs.

    Until they name names, they are complicit in this. Gotta love that CJ is speaking at T$G next year,. People continue in those churches and tiptoe around, being humbly and winsomely quiet. Yeah- they’re really concerned.

  36. NJ wrote:

    Nancy2, I suspect a combination of 1 and 2. Booth may have done most of the writing/compilation, and he is taking the blame largely to protect Wilson. I wonder if this will force Booth off a certain committee.

    And Booth falls on his sword to protect The Great One.
    “BY YOUR COMMAND…”

  37. Nate Sparks wrote:

    showed him one page in the book (162) and he hung his head and apologized. He exact words were, “I’ve raised my daughters to be powerful independent women, they would throw this book in my face”.
    He also said in the 10+ years they’ve used the book, I was the only person he had ever talked to who raised those concerns.

    You are awesome!

  38. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    There is no place in such thinking for paradox where both parts can co-exist. There is no place for failing to analyze any elements and summarily categorize them. There is no place for grace in allowing people to undergo transformation when they are not yet in the box of “perfect righteousness” yet because this is, after all, a matter of right and wrong, isn’t it, so they need to “get right, right now” shouldn’t they?

    Citizen Robespierre would agree.

  39. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    There is no place for grace in allowing people to undergo transformation when they are not yet in the box of “perfect righteousness” yet because this is, after all, a matter of right and wrong, isn’t it, so they need to “get right, right now” shouldn’t they? This sort of extreme categorization separates us into tribes of the acceptable versus the unacceptable, and then finger-pointing and punishment meted out to those who are unacceptable.

    This is why I don’the think I would have become a Christian in today’s Christian climate. There would be no grace to grow in the knowledge of God. A grace Jesus offered.

  40. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    There is no place for grace in allowing people to undergo transformation when they are not yet in the box of “perfect righteousness” yet because this is, after all, a matter of right and wrong, isn’t it, so they need to “get right, right now” shouldn’t they

    I used to hear preachers tell people not to worry about cleaning themselves up (morally) before they come to church – just come on in as you are and Jesus will clean you up.

  41. @ Dave MacKenzie:
    Dave,

    First you have missed my thesis entirely. I specifically stated in the beginning of the post that the question isn’t whether godly complementarians exist. It is a matter of systemic problems within it that foster situations of abuse.

    I gave direct, cited quotes from several of the key players/organizations so you could research my claims. I also demonstrated how the systems of the TGC and CBMW are built on the back of Inerrancy – a Doctrine they wrote through a now non-existent council.

    They then use that “Doctrine” to argue their teachings are the only clear teachings of Scripture. Anyone who questions this is labeled non-Christian. Mohler has said it, Piper has said it, DeYoung has said it, Denny Burk has said it, Tim Keller has said it, Russell Moore has said it,etc, etc, etc!

    Like an abusive husband, they convince you the authority is on their side and there is no recourse for appeal. With that, they guarantee your silence time and again when these things happen.

    The Danvers statements claims you don’t believe the Gospel if you deny their teachings. All of these men affirm it. Piper even once stated that complementarity is a necessary safeguard to protect the Gospel, while Keller and D.A. Carson sat beside him and nodded in agreement.

    You can’t have a Gospel message which denigrates persons intentionally and maintains privilege and power based in fear of being an “outsider”.

    I’ve said this many times, I ask it in the post: How many incidents have to occur, how many corruptions of the Gospel must be used to silence victims, and how many times must we defend the systemic issues of abuse in complementarian churches before we become complicit?

  42. NJ wrote:

    To this list I want to add,
    1. the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine
    2. that dreadful article in the CBMW journal from 2004 where some guy argues for all (Christian) women eternally submitting to all men, almost Mormon style

    Yes. ESS sets up the male gender rule as gospel. Also agree patriarchy fits right into Mormonism.

  43. Nate,

    I enjoyed reading this piece. When Dee was in D.C. area and I had dinner we both spoke about your blog and the potential you have. I want to encourage you to keep writing and keep publishing. It’s necessary and it’s refreshing to see some challenging views. I am going to link my blog to yours, I’ll have to remember to do so this weekend.

    The next time I get up to Milwaukee we’ll have to meet! 🙂 Holler if you make it out to the D.C. area.

  44. Ken wrote:

    avoids the use of the word authority, which like submission can trigger off responses based on bad experiences.

    Or, just based on a realistic appraisal of human nature.

  45. @ Ken:
    Ken, I think it is commendable you have chosen to recognize trigger words and sought better ways to express your thoughts. Thank you for your sensitivity in that regard.

  46. Nate, when I was in Crusade in Wisconsin I remember when some of the wives of leadership spoke to women and told them to dress modestly and blamed them for tempting men. In parts of evangelicalism being born a woman is a crime. I’ve been bothered by it, and I don’t understand why this obsession is with complementarism. When I see how many evangelicals act to the changing gender roles or society, its made me wonder how many of these evangelicals would have fared in the time of Nero’s Rome. Many evangelicals are not being persecuted.

    I’ve been busy working on a post about Cru (formerly Campus Crusade) and reading a number of atheist blogs. But when I saw that the Secretary of Defense opened up combat roles to woman I have wondered where will John Piper, Russ Moore and Al Mohler be about that topic.

  47. Eagle wrote:

    I have wondered where will John Piper, Russ Moore and Al Mohler be about that topic.

    Do you think they will be okay with women in combat as long as the women are restricted to Privates First Class?

  48. @ Tim:
    Thanks for that Tim 🙂 Steve Farrar (whose book that quote appeared in) thinks Ward Cleaver is the ideal husband/father image, so the song fits the whole thing very well.

  49. @ Eagle:
    They all hate it. Mohler has written,spoken on it several times since it was first proposed earlier this year.

    If you Google Mohler Combat Women several links pop up.

    The general position is women defend /belong in the home. Leave the man’s work to me.

  50. I’ve been busy working on a post about Cru (formerly Campus Crusade) and reading a number of atheist blogs. But when I saw that the Secretary of Defense opened up combat roles to woman I have wondered where will John Piper, Russ Moore and Al Mohler be about that topic.

    Eagle, I think we know how they’ll respond.

    Now I will say this; with all combat roles being opened to women, I sincerely hope that they never bring back the draft. I would not want either one of my daughters forced into our current military.

  51. @ NJ:
    My position on women in combat is the same as my position on men in combat. I respect them for their bravery, but I will always lament the need for their service. I pray continually for a day when we are truly beyond war and the promise of the angels for Peace on Earth is realized.

  52. HUMBLE(TM) as Chuckles Mahaney?

    WEll HUG, CJ’s version of “humble” sure seems to have perpetuated abuse.

  53. Thanks, Nate, for your elaboration!

    I think maybe I understand your reasoning now: your focus is not on “all complementarians” but the opposite: that statements summarizable as “not all comps” draw attention away from holding accountable complementarian leaders and their teachings which promote, protect, or downplay domestic abuse and abusers.

    To me, your repetition of the “Not all comps!” phrase is an effective attention-getting rhetorical device, but it distracts from your line of argument. It seems like the article is presenting itself as proving one claim (disproving “Not all comps!”) but it is actually marshaling evidence for a weaker claim (comps have systematic problems that foster abuse).

    Am I closer?

  54. “hyper headship”? Could there be such a thing as hyper bodyship? :o)

    Don’t you all just love how they create words or concepts so they can either promote them as something they are not (complementarian) or create them as straw man words to argue against (hyper headship)

    Guys…there is no such thing as “headship” anyway.

  55. “Represent our views carefully and accurately in a way that maintains the middle instead of excluding it. ”

    This is priceless. Some of us have been having this same convo with the YRR for 8 years. There is NO WAY to present their views accurately unless we just agree with them.

  56. “This is priceless. Some of us have been having this same convo with the YRR for 8 years. There is NO WAY to present their views accurately unless we just agree with them.”

    LOL…that sounds exactly like the problem the Reformed world has been having with the Federal Vision guys. Anyone who criticizes their writings has ALWAYS misunderstood what they were saying, or else they would surely agree.

  57. Lydia wrote:

    “Represent our views carefully and accurately in a way that maintains the middle instead of excluding it. ”
    This is priceless. Some of us have been having this same convo with the YRR for 8 years. There is NO WAY to present their views accurately unless we just agree with them.

    Right. There is no “middle”. You must be on one side or the other; for or against.

  58. NJ wrote:

    “I know some speak against complementarianism as if it were the culprit in domestic abuse. Humble headship breeds domestic abuse, they say.”
    I’ve never seen one single egalitarian argue that “humble headship breeds domestic abuse”. If he has run into this, it would have been helpful if he had linked to it or made a citation.

    It is the typical Piperesque speak. And now the comp
    “headships” are victims. You catch that? They are trying to frame it so all debate is within their framework with their concepts as the definitions. It is very effective. I have watched it work for years in comp doctrine and YRR. Oh and call it biblical and the Gospel. Works a lot with folks.

    However, I won’t even get past the definition of “head” with them. IOW, don’t discuss their statement or question as if it has credibility. It doesn’t. Focus on THEIR definition of words and concepts within the question or statement.

  59. @ NJ:
    Which book are you all discussing? I know there were big problems with shoddy scholarship in Black and Tan/Slavery As it Was. Something Piper conveniently forgot to tell his followers about when he was promoting Wilson. But if Piper thinks he is ok, then they do, too.

  60. Ken wrote:

    Well done for getting it right though.

    Thanks.
    You usually make sense even if I don’t agree with some of what you say.
    I knew there had to be a logical explanation.
    Though some try to win arguments by confusing their opponent*, I’ve not seen you use that tactic.

    (If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your B.S.)

  61. @ Dave MacKenzie:

    It is a movement. All movements require leaders that people look to for definition/structure. So we look to the leaders definitions/words/behaviors to understand the movement. We started with the Danvers statement (which one can drive a mac truck through). We look at the signers (Paige and Dot Patterson, for example) and then later the leaders who took on his movement in a big way like Driscoll/Mahaney/Mohler.

    Sorry but that is the way it works. And it does not bode well.

  62. Nate Sparks wrote:

    he Danvers statements claims you don’t believe the Gospel if you deny their teachings. All of these men affirm it. Piper even once stated that complementarity is a necessary safeguard to protect the Gospel, while Keller and D.A. Carson sat beside him and nodded in agreement.

    A variation was added to the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000. Most SBC’ers did not even know there was a BFM! Now it is codified and the big question for whether you are a heretic or not is if one agrees with the BFM.

  63. As a woman, I don’t believe my salvation is determined by my being submissive to my husband or his “headship” or our marriage. It sounds like these guys want to take women back to the age where we didn’t have any rights at all. No voting, no owning property, no jobs, and especially not high paying corporate jobs. I’m sure these men would never see a woman doctor or go to a woman lawyer. For me, it is who is best for the job. But for women it has never been a question of us seeing men in the professional field. That’s what “we” do. Yes, my husband is the head of our household, but most decisions we make jointly when is concerning big things (gasp). Unless I leave it totally up to him. I guess I have been so bad in this post that my husband should now have to control me. I should go and repent right now, don’t you think. (My husband would never do that).

  64. Lydia,

    It’s all on here https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/ as the primary source. A Justice Primer was coauthored by Doug Wilson and Randy Booth. The latter, it seems, did not do his due diligence in checking his notes for proper citations before the book went to press. Some passages were obviously rephrased ever so slightly, others were outright quotes. So far Booth has fallen on his sword, not that that absolves Wilson of any responsibility. Rod Dreher has commented at the American Conservative, Tim Bayly has ridden in to Doug’s rescue, and of course moscow.id.net and CREC memes have had a field day.

  65. @ NJ:

    thanks for the link. This is a new one on me. I cannot believe he has any “writing credibility” after Black and Tan.

  66. @ harley:

    Harley,

    Thank you for sharing. I have been asked many times who the head of my home is. I always answer Jesus. When a difficult decision arises, we seek to be Christ-like – though sometimes we disagree and someone has to compromise. The goal is to be open-minded and humble.

    That being said, I get it wrong sometimes. I can be arrogant. I can be an a$# (ed.). And I need to accept correction and apologize when that happens.

    I think you hit the nail on the head 🙂

  67. Lydia wrote:

    A variation was added to the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000. Most SBC’ers did not even know there was a BFM!

    I have been a member of SBC churches since 1978, and I was not aware of the BFM until 2011 when a man in our church who borders on being a patriarch started pushing it.

  68. @ NJ:
    LOL! I went and read a bit about the book. It seems Wilson is trying to make a case for NO anonymous criticisms/disagreements as that is not “biblical justice”. (Anyone here used to read his blog he would insist on your pastors name and number so he could have you put under their discipline for your comment that disagreed with him)

    Is Wilson familiar with the anonymous book of Hebrews? LOL!

    I don’t know why but he always reminded me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now.

  69. Hey Lydia, how much you wanna bet that next year he’ll rerelease A Justice Primer under a new title, with all the proper citations finally in there?

  70. Eagle wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    Didn’t you know? John Piper is the fourth part of the trinity!

    Surely John Piper and his followers failed all of their math classes.

  71. Nate Sparks wrote:

    I recently sat down with the founding director of No Regrets Men’s Ministries – which hosts the largest annual multi-cite international men’s conference in the world – and convinced him to drop Anchor Man from their curriculum.

    No Regrets is from Elmbrook Church Nate. I’m been frustrated with what they have promoted. They have James MacDonald scheduled to speak this year. I know a couple of people involved in Elmbrook/No Regrets. I still have a lot of ties to Milwaukee :-0

    BTW..I wrote this about Elmbrook earlier this year. They had a horrific situation with child sex abuse and the youth pastor fled to West Baraboo, WI and committed suicide. This happened in 1999, I showed up on he scene in 2001 or so. The situation scared Elmbrook deeply.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/how-i-learned-evangelical-christianity-is-struggling-with-child-sex-abuse-an-incident-at-milwaukees-elmbrook-church-in-1999/

  72. Nate Sparks wrote:

    He also said in the 10+ years they’ve used the book, I was the only person he had ever talked to who raised those concerns.

    This, for me, was a powerful reminder of the need to say something, even if you think it’s been said a thousand times before. You never how a few well prepared worda can make a major change.

    This is the reason why I intend to hammer CJ Mahaney and Mark Dever. A pastor involved in alleged criminal activity and who is enabled by Dever need to be called out. The health of the faith is at stake. That’s why I keep hammering him and will continue to do so. That’s why we need more bloggers and people that challenge. How many times in history have key people been silent and allowed unspeakable acts to commence? Too many…

  73. Regarding “Patriarchy” vs “complementarianism”. If Patriarchy is deemed so positive by TPTB, then why do they not use the word? Is it because they know the word conjures up a certain image in women’s/folks minds of a knuckle dragger?

  74. Shaming men and basing a central gender-training doctrine on a supplied pronoun. That is what Mark and Grace Driscoll are doing by using 1 Timothy 5:8 as their proof-text saying stay-at-home dads are worse than unbelievers.

    The NRSV renders that verse: “And whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

    Do you see anywhere in that translation a mention of a MAN having to provide for his family? It is not there. And it is not there in the original Greek. I know because I checked (Btw, I am an ordained minister and I have a Master of Divinity from Yale).

    In other words, the prooftext MD uses to buttress is rife with his own sub-culture eisegesis. This verse actually is far more supportive of egalitarians than complementarians if you look at the original Greek because the original language makes the support of the family equally the duty of all members.

    Besides the original language, MD only has to read around the verse to realize that it is not about men primarily or only. The author of I Timothy is talking about widows at that time.

    Pastor Tim Keller was a quasi stay-at-home dad according to his book, “The Meaning of Marriage.” Does that mean he was worse than an unbeliever? Thankfully, Keller gets that MD’s interpretation of such roles is bound by culture as well. He gives the insight in the book that our culture values men by money and women by (warped) standards of beauty. MD’s emphatic teaching is simply falling into a worldly culture that values men solely by $.

  75. Eagle wrote:

    I have wondered where will John Piper, Russ Moore and Al Mohler be about that topic.

    I’m sure they will react like Mrs Bennett from Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”

    I am frightened out of my wits; and have such tremblings, such flutterings all over me such spasms in my side, and pains in my head, and such beatings at heart, that I can get no rest by night nor by day.

    Strong men that they are.

  76. Lydia wrote:

    Focus on THEIR definition of words and concepts within the question or statement.

    I think this is a crucial point. A while back, a pastor friend who is a few years older than I am asked me what I thought about the roles of men and women, and about complementarianism. If anyone I know could possibly qualify as practicing “humble headship,” I’d suspect it is him … demonstrates fruit of the Spirit, discernment, kind, gentle in responding to people with problems … So, we talked.

    But not for very long. When I asked how he defined *complementarianism*, he mentioned a few principles and practices. But nothing very comprehensive, or precise — it all seemed a rather “squishy” description (my term, not his). So, there wasn’t much discussion from there, because even he couldn’t really define it.

    And yet, seems so many of the high-profile promoters of this view have elaborate lists and highly specific details about what complementarianism is and how it is to play out in the home, church, and society. I look at some of them and all I can see is double-speak. For instance, what Nate noted:

    The Danver’s Statement, the official document defining complementarity penned by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), states that women may be equally gifted, but they are not equally called. Thus, for a woman to use her gifts in man’s domain is “sin”. The woman are equal in image, but separate in authority and calling.

    To me, that boils down to read as: Women use their spiritual gift by not using their spiritual gifts. Something is really “off” there …

    So, I’ve found it’s important to ask the person what he or she means by the terms used. Because they simply are not self-evident to me, even though they are labeled as “biblical” and thus (if I’m a real Christian or a truly discerning Christian) I should automatically see it their way.

  77. Sorry, forgot add the slash to the closing blockqute tag:

    Eagle wrote:

    I have wondered where will John Piper, Russ Moore and Al Mohler be about that topic.

    I’m sure they will react like Mrs Bennett from Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”

    I am frightened out of my wits; and have such tremblings, such flutterings all over me such spasms in my side, and pains in my head, and such beatings at heart, that I can get no rest by night nor by day.

    Strong men that they are.

  78. @ NJ:
    Gender comp is actually patriarchy. It’s patriarchy under another name, or watered down.

    I just saw an image somewhere recently that went like this:

    Patriarchy to women: Make me a sandwich!

    Complementarianism to women: Please make me a sandwich.

    Egaltarianism to women: Hey, I’m going to make a sandwich for myself, can I make you one while I’m at it?
    ———
    Even complementarian Russell Moore admitted that he doesn’t like the term comp, because patriarchy is more accurate for what he is promoting about women:
    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2008/05/russel-moore-i-hate-term-complementarian

  79. Good posts! Nate, I think siteseer was making an ironic point that we do not see all sort of blogs and books warning of the dangers of “hyper-egalitarians.” I, for one, really enjoyed the stark contrast and hope siteseer will continue posting insightful commments here!

  80. js wrote:

    I’ve never seen one single egalitarian argue that “humble headship breeds domestic abuse”.

    I think the doctrine of male headship can offer perpetuation, a rationale, or cover for men already prone to abuse, and the doctrine makes churches who hold it lax and ineffective in helping women who are in abusive marriages.

    Abuse is not just physical in nature.

    Abuse can also be verbal, financial, emotional, sexual, and relational (i.e., a lot of abusers isolate a woman from her family and friends).

    I wrote of my own abuse via my ex fiancee in one of the last ‘Naghmeh Abedini’ threads, if anyone cares to scroll down the last page of that thread to read it.

    I used to be a gender comp myself. My parents are/were gender comps.

    I used gender comp teachings and values in my relationship with my ex (I was very deferential to him, as comps teach women are to be to men), and, as a result, my ex exploited that and exploited me – emotionally and financially.

  81. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    To me, that boils down to read as: Women use their spiritual gift by not using their spiritual gifts. Something is really “off” there …

    Just like in the OT Temple, women must be segregated and constrained.

  82. Daisy wrote:

    I just saw an image somewhere recently that went like this:
    Patriarchy to women: Make me a sandwich!
    Complementarianism to women: Please make me a sandwich.

    A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. The difference: evidence of the social graces.

  83. @ Eagle:

    I attend Elmbrook, know several of the staff. They have a history of patriarchy and complementarianism. They also have a history of abuse occurring. In my conversations with pastors, I perceive a genuine desire to change/learn and a need to be shown how.

    They have recently promoted numerous women to pastoral positions. They allow women to speak in main services. And, by the end of the fiscal year, they intend to expand the elder board to include several women as full elders.

    I actually went through the No Regrets Study Series at Elmbrook and graduated. Lost a couple friends I made when I launched my blog. There is a lot of good there that gets overshadowed by the bad. But Steve Sonderman – the pastor who launched the series and the conference – has proven very humble in our conversations. He has a genuine desire to listen and improve.

  84. The “Not All Comps” post by Nate Sparks reminds me of this one by another writer, which is also quite good:

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

    Gender comps have set their belief up so that it can never be shown or proven false, no matter how many arguments or examples one marshals to show how flawed and dangerous it is.
    —-
    Other links I shared on one of the last threads about this issue:

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

    Why evangelicals pray for persecuted pastors rather than battered women
    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/why.evangelicals.pray.for.persecuted.pastors.rather.than.battered.women/72803.htm

    Snippet:

    Flawed Application of Gender Roles

    …Rather, patriarchy and views of male headship create an environment where abusers are more likely to receive the support of church leaders and the abused (and their families) to be blamed for negligence rather than addressing the abuser.

    Evangelicals who hold to strict gender roles where a wife is expected to submit to the husband aren’t inevitably abusive per se.

    However, they must grapple with the possibility that this hierarchy can provide manipulative abusers with the key tools they need. In addition, some pastors have asserted that wives should remain in abusive marriages in order to win over their husbands.

    Headship and Abuse
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/04/headship-and-abuse/

    Snippets from the page
    (I would also add misinterpretations of the text to the following – comps often choose to interpret the biblical text in the most sexist of ways, in a way to uphold male primacy):
    ——
    …she [Katharine Bushnell ] argued that the theological basis of men’s cruelty towards women was rooted not in the inspired word of God, but rather in misogynistic mistranslations of the original text.

    …Bushnell explicitly linked the doctrine of male headship to the abuse of women.

    In fact, she went so far as to claim that “subordination was abuse”:
    “Man would feel abused if enslaved to a fellow man,” she insisted, and the same was true of women, even if theologians liked to consider women’s subjugation “the happiest state in which a woman can exist.”

    (She noted, too, that it was “the male theologian and not the female victim who pronounces the state a happy one.”)

  85. @ almost60:
    I wasn’t seeking to correct siteseer, only to treat the question as potentially genuine and offer my perspective. If I came across in an offensive manner, I apologize. I think the comments/questions made were good and hope I haven’t unintentionally disuaded from further engagement.

    Glad you enjoyed the post 🙂

  86. Sorry; I forgot one or two links to the list I made before:
    ——-
    Complementarian Theology is the Rapist’s Wingman
    http://diannaeanderson.net/blog/2015/7/complementarian-theology-is-the-rapists-wingman

    Investigation found that a theology of one-way submission of women to men breeds domestic abuse in S. Carolina
    http://www.postandcourier.com/tilldeath/partthree.html

    Snippets:

    She [Carol Sears Botsch, associate professor of political science at the University of South Carolina] found a male-dominated power structure that often failed to see problems from the perspective of women.
    As a result, public policies were rooted in traditional notions that “simply reinforced women’s subordinate status.”

    …What pastors communicate to their flocks also can fuel the [spousal abuse] problem, if inadvertently: Scripture says women are to be submissive. Suffering is part of life, as Jesus suffered for your sins, on the path to salvation. Divorce is a sin.

    …“The church believes marriage is a godly institution. Nothing should come between a man and wife,” Kennedy says. “It’s a very slippery slope.”

    In churches that did acknowledge abuse, Kennedy says, pastors often compounded the problem by counseling abusers and victims together – and then sending them home with the sting of their shared grievances still fresh.

  87. brad/futuristguy:

    “But not for very long. When I asked how he defined *complementarianism*, he mentioned a few principles and practices. But nothing very comprehensive, or precise — it all seemed a rather “squishy” description (my term, not his). So, there wasn’t much discussion from there, because even he couldn’t really define it.”

    “And yet, seems so many of the high-profile promoters of this view have elaborate lists and highly specific details about what complementarianism is and how it is to play out in the home, church, and society. I look at some of them and all I can see is double-speak.”

    I think what you’ve shown here is the catch-22 of complementarianism. Without a solid definition it’s hard to say what it means to be one or who is one. Yet the minute you try to go beyond Scripture and provide details, the rules get more cultural than Biblical and you’re into legalism. Kind of like the problem with ‘evangelicalism’; nobody seems to definitively know what it is or who is one.

  88. Nate Sparks wrote:

    But Steve Sonderman – the pastor who launched the series and the conference – has proven very humble in our conversations. He has a genuine desire to listen and improve.

    I knew Brian Sonderman who headed up the 20 Somethings at Elmbrook. He left and planted Metro Brook which I think became Brew City? I still have a lot of contacts from Elmbrook today. I went to No Regrets when I lived there in Milwaukee (West Allis)

  89. Nancy2 wrote:

    Flag Ken has said that he believes husbands have more responsibility than wives and that husbands will be held more accountable at judgement. i can’t quote him word for word, but in one post, he indicated that he is afraid that he may not be taking enough responsibility.

    I am a woman who has never been married. Their theology is applicable, really, only to married mothers.

    As a single woman, I do not need a man to be responsible for me or any of my sins. I’m doing just fine on my own.

    If a single (or widowed or divorced) woman does not have a husband to take responsibility for her, or to be a ‘covering’ or to ‘lead’ her, a married one does not need a male covering, male lead, or a male to take responsibility for her, either.

    I’m not seeing the flow of logic here that by sheer virtue of saying “I do” in front of a preacher, all the sudden the rules change for Christian women, as opposd to when she is single, divorced, or widowed.

    That there are two sets of rules (one for married women, one for Non-Married women) tells you right off bat there is something hanky and “off” about gender complementarianism…

    And I think it reveals that gender complementarians have an agenda for themselves, more so than any altruistic motives or concerns about upholding God’s word, and so on.

  90. @ js:
    I appreciate the way you made this comment. To clarify the reason the post was written, it was actually posted to my site before the Fellowship Bible Church abuse came to light.

    When Meyer posted his article, I offered this post (as well as my other work on Complementarianism) to him as a point for discussion. He never replied.

    So, while I do mean it to function as a conversation piece with Meyer’s work, it was not written as a direct critique of that article.

    In relation to Meyers specifically, I would say the thing that bothered me were – as you pointed out – he doesn’t offer any citations for his claims about egalitarian positions. Also, I was bothered that he openly admitted comp teaching places women in a place of vulnerability to abuse but doesn’t offer a meaningful alternative. He says “if we did it right, this wouldn’t happen” but for a “manifesto” it offers no clear vision for a way forward. Lastly, given that the article was written the day after FBC memphis story broke, he did not choose to address sex abuse at all.

    Again, I agree we cannot turn a blind eye. Thank you 🙂

  91. Nate Sparks wrote:

    They also have a history of abuse occurring.

    What other abuse situations have there been?

    They had a doozy one a couple of years back when they had a married couple that had domestic abuse issues. Their names are escaping me as I write this. He was an Iraq war vet and she was a police officer for the city of Wauwatosa. He gave his testimony at No Regrets and talked about overcoming his problem with violence. Then he stalked, waited and gunned down his wife while she was on police duty. The first and only fatality of a police officer in the city of Wauwatosa’s history. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel covered it and they grabbed the transcript of the testimony. Elmbrook quietly removed it from Youtube. I’ve been meaning to write a post about the problems of testimonies and use this as an example to make my point.

    What other problems has Elmbrook had?

  92. @ Eagle:
    I was at Elmbrook for that. It was tragic. I didn’t know they removed the video, but they publically addressed the situation in the service the week after it happened.

    There was a big sex abuse scandal in ’99. Elmbrook confronted abuser as soon as it came to light. He confessed and they called police, but the abuser fled, later committed suicide. I wasn’t there for that,was still in highschool in Indiana (yes I’m that young).

    There were also accusations against Philip Griffin of Spiritual Abuse that led to his exit. Elmbrook was hush hush on it for a while as they sorted it out. Eventually, Elder Board and Scot (can’t think of his last name, former pastor) apologized to congregation. Many people left during that. Many came back under Jason Webb.

    Also, if you read the post “Making Up Church” there was an incident recently of a visiting pastor making sexist remarks. Not as serious as other incidents per se, but pastors received a lot of blow back. We considered finding a new Church over it.

  93. If it requires humble headship to make comp work then from my experience a whole lot of people shouldn’t get married.

    Similar to authoritarian “leadership”, we don’t have angels to fulfill the role, thus history is replete with abuse.

  94. @ Dave MacKenzie:

    Complementarianism is codependency with Bible verses glossed on top.
    Women are usually the greater targets of this teaching in Christianity, in that they are really pressured (more than men are) to practice some of the more common traits of codependency, such as be passive; lack boundaries; do not be assertive.

    Codependency (which the Bible sometimes refers to as “fear of man”), therefore, can make women and girls who have it, to be very susceptible to being targeted for abuse or exploitation by other people.

    Even lukewarm, run of the mill, nice and friendly complementarianism creates these problems for women and girls.

    I’m a woman who was brought up under the ‘warm and fuzzy’ variety of gender comp, and was continually bullied, verbally abused, and taken advantage of by classmates, siblings, and later, as an adult, by a fiancee and bosses, over my life.

    Gender comp robbed me of any way of handling conflict. I was left vulnerable to being pushed around and bullied by others.

    Gender Comp does not instill self confidence, assertiveness, and other such qualities in a person, and those are some of the qualities a person needs to defend herself if mistreated and to escape abusive situations.

    Blog poster Gram3 has done an excellent job in older threads of explaining how gender comp itself, at its core, (not just “hyper headship”) is sexist and/or problematic, and robs women of their agency.

    Gender comp, no matter how much its practitioners try to insist that women are ‘equal in value just not in role,’ really does make women second class citizens.

    There’s no reason to limit certain marriage duties or church functions to one group over another based on a trait a person is born with (such as gender or skin color).

    How many gender comps would argue that black persons should not be permitted to be preachers or teachers, or have a fair say in a marriage, due to their skin color?

    Probably not many, yet, they are fine in arguing those very things concerning women: that women should be barred from these types of things or positions based solely on their sex.

    -And that is the regular, standard, warm and friendly type of gender comp/ male headship teaching, never mind the harsher forms.

  95. NJ wrote:

    So far Booth has fallen on his sword, not that that absolves Wilson of any responsibility.

    I find Booth’s statement to be extremely questionable. His statement on the Canon Press website says, “As a pastor I was drawing on a wide range of materials and notes that I had collected over a number of years to use in sermons or lessons with no intention of publishing that material, thus citations were often missing in my old notes.”

    He is expecting us to believe that he had notes that quoted long passages verbatim from published works without citing sources. Just no.

  96. Nate Sparks wrote:

    Complementarian theology is built on hierarchy. Denny Burk, Al Mohler, Doug Wilson and Steve Farrar (to name only a small sampling) have all defended directly the term patriarch as a “positive” term and argued that hierarchy isn’t a bad thing.

    I gave a link somewhere on this thread, I think, where Russell Moore admitted in some interview that due to egalitarian arguments against comp, which show the weaknesses of comp (ie and eg, egalitarians also believe the genders complement one another), he wants Christians to move to the term “patriarchy” instead.

    He thinks patriarchy is a more accurate term for what he and other comps believe or want to see happen.
    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2008/05/russel-moore-i-hate-term-complementarian

  97. @ Nate Sparks:

    I appreciate what you’re trying to do. Some gender complementarians don’t want to listen or hear or really understand, though, unfortunately.

    They will often discount the personal stories of women such as myself who have been wounded or limited in life or church by their interpretation of the Bible.

    They come across as being more vested with defending their doctrine on this point than in the emotional, physical, health, welfare, and safety of the people who it’s impacting.

    I think they are more quick to want to defend their interpretation of the Bible than to hear what folks who disagree with it have to say.

    Regarding this, they remind me of the Pharisees Jesus talked to here:
    Luke 13:10-17
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2013:10-17

    Gender complementarianism (male rule and hierarchy in jobs, marriages, church) has been the status quo for many nations and in many cultures over the centuries, and it did not create harmony in marriages or societies.

    I have no idea why they think it will magically turn the tide now in 2015 on societal issues that they find troubling.

  98. Ken wrote:

    I like the word responsibility as it expesses what I think and avoids the use of the word authority, which like submission can trigger off responses based on bad experiences.

    Those bad experiences are based on gender complementarianism, Ken. You can change the terminology around all day, but it’s all the same.

  99. Tina wrote:

    Tim LaHaye, in The Act of Marriage, said something similar: that by choosing not to have children, you were denying a potential child salvation. My answer to that was: How in the world do you know that that child is going to become a Christian?

    This sort of talk is also very painful or insulting to people who either cannot have children –

    Such as the infertile, or the circumstantially childless (women or men who wanted to have children but were unable, for whatever reason, not able to marry).

    The Bible really does not command anyone to marry and/or to have children. The New Testament makes that point pretty clear, but a lot of Christians get incredibly hung up on the “be fruitful” comment back in Genesis.

    Paul said it’s better to be single (and childless) than to marry / have kids. He said getting married/ having kids is fine, but there are advantages and less trouble with being single/childless.

    Anyway, that is just bizarre, to shame or guilt people who choose not to have a kid based on the idea that a non-existent kid will never be saved. That doesn’t make any sense.

    Someone who never exists is not a someone. They are not there to experience or not experience salvation or anything else.

  100. NJ wrote:

    2. that dreadful article in the CBMW journal from 2004 where some guy argues for all (Christian) women eternally submitting to all men, almost Mormon style

    If that were true, and if there a Heaven and I go there, and I die tonight (a never married lady), all you married ladies spending eternity fetching a pipe and sandwiches serving your husband may be quite jelly of me.

    I’ll be skipping around, plucking tulips, sipping on a pina colada, enjoying myself, while y’all are making coffee and submitting to your husbands because I won’t have someone I’m supposed to submit to. Hee hee. 🙂

  101. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    …The Lieutenant yells at Sgt Snorkel.
    Sgt Snorkel yells at Private Bailey.
    Private Bailey kicks the barracks dog.

    That sounds like my sister. She would be Pvt. Bailey, and I would be the barracks dog in that last line.

  102. NJ wrote:

    Regarding Doug Wilson, I consider him a patriarchalist instead of a mainstream complementarian.

    Regarding Doug Wilson, I consider him a Cult Leader in the Jim Jones tradition.

    Just his shtick is veddy veddy Anglophile, bowler hats and all.

  103. NJ wrote:

    Yeah, speaking of Doug’s books, if you all haven’t been to Rachel Miller’s blog since before yesterday, you might want to take a look. Plagiarism scandal, part deux.

    Just like Marky-Mark?

    (And if there’s book juicing in the mix, scratch the “Jim Jones tradition” off my previous comment and replace it with “Elron Hubbard tradition”.)

  104. Tina wrote:

    Tim LaHaye, in The Act of Marriage, said something similar: that by choosing not to have children, you were denying a potential child salvation.

    Or denying a ManaGAWD like LaHaye a potential Tithing Unit/Cash Cow?

  105. Eagle wrote:

    I’ve been bothered by it, and I don’t understand why this obsession is with complementarism. When I see how many evangelicals act to the changing gender roles or society, its made me wonder how many of these evangelicals would have fared in the time of Nero’s Rome.

    Considering THIS was what was Normal in the surrounding culture (NSFW):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhP-OUt1Eos

  106. Eagle wrote:

    But when I saw that the Secretary of Defense opened up combat roles to woman I have wondered where will John Piper, Russ Moore and Al Mohler be about that topic.

    I was just asking about that on another thread here the other day. Most complementarians are already against women being in combat, and some are against women being in the military at all.

    John Piper quibbles with unmarried women working as police officers, for pete’s sake, so you can imagine what his take would be on women in combat roles.

    I see a lot of my fellow conservatives on political blogs are opposed to women being in combat roles.

    They tend to view any changes made in society in regards to women as being a result of, or done directly by, leftist feminists / being politically correct.

    Therefore, their automatic tendency is to howl in protest at women being allowed to do anything new, like be in combat roles.

  107. Lydia wrote:

    It is the typical Piperesque speak. And now the comp “headships” are victims. You catch that?

    Isn’t the most common sign of a Sociopath the ability to reverse the blame and play the Poor Poor Innocent Victim?

  108. Lydia wrote:

    I don’t know why but he always reminded me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now.

    “The Horror… The Horror… The Horror…”

  109. @ Daisy:
    That is why I don’t try to change the world, I try to engage people who will listen. If they don’t want to listen/engage/discuss, there is little I can do about

  110. Nate Sparks wrote:

    The general position is women defend /belong in the home. Leave the man’s work to me.

    I wonder why comps so easily forget about examples in the Bible of women like Jael, who drove a tent peg through the head of an enemy of Israel? Or Deborah, a judge mentioned in the Old Testament, I believe, who led Israel’s army?

    I really think these gender comp men shoot themselves in the foot on this.

    I think God intended for woman to be an equal, stand- along- side- of- man- warrior- companion, which would make life’s burdens easier on men.

    If you keep insisting that you, the man, are the 100% in charge guy at all times or in major life choices, you’re relegating yourself to a lot of stress and ulcers in life.
    If, however, you allow women to step up to the plate and help carry the same loads and tasks, it makes life easier for you.

    Under Gender Comp, man becomes overly responsible for women – he becomes a Messiah figure.

    As a woman, I’ve had very emotionally needy female friends before, and it’s exhausting, because someone who looks to you as a Savior figure can really drain your time,morale, or energy.

    This is why gender comp does to men, I guess married ones above all – you tell women to lean on the husband too much, as though the husband is her personal Jesus. That can result in an exhausted husband, I would think.

  111. Lydia wrote:

    “Represent our views carefully and accurately in a way that maintains the middle instead of excluding it. ”
    —-
    (Lydia said)
    This is priceless. Some of us have been having this same convo with the YRR for 8 years. There is NO WAY to present their views accurately unless we just agree with them.

    I also find this hypocritical, because plenty of gender complementarians keep arguing things about egalitarians and other Non-Gender Comps that is not true.

    Gender comps sometimes misrepresent what Christian mutualists/ egalitarians believe.

    One of gender complementarians favorite, recurring straw men is to say that any Christian who disagrees with Gender Comp has been swayed by secular feminism.

    Tied in with that, or coming right after that idea is, if you disagree with Gender Comp, you must not take the Bible literally or seriously.

  112. Nancy2 wrote:

    Right. There is no “middle”. You must be on one side or the other; for or against.

    I used to have those sorts of conversations with Calvinists.

    I don’t consider myself either Calvinist or Arminian, but that does not compute with Calvinists I’ve talked to. They cannot conceive that there is a third position or way of looking at something.

    In their minds, you either have to be an Arminian or a Calvinist.

  113. Daisy wrote:

    js wrote:
    I’ve never seen one single egalitarian argue that “humble headship breeds domestic abuse”.
    I think the doctrine of male headship can offer perpetuation, a rationale, or cover for men already prone to abuse, and the doctrine makes churches who hold it lax and ineffective in helping women who are in abusive marriages.
    Abuse is not just physical in nature.
    Abuse can also be verbal, financial, emotional, sexual, and relational (i.e., a lot of abusers isolate a woman from her family and friends).
    I wrote of my own abuse via my ex fiancee in one of the last ‘Naghmeh Abedini’ threads, if anyone cares to scroll down the last page of that thread to read it.
    I used to be a gender comp myself. My parents are/were gender comps.
    I used gender comp teachings and values in my relationship with my ex (I was very deferential to him, as comps teach women are to be to men), and, as a result, my ex exploited that and exploited me – emotionally and financially.

    Just to be clear, that’s not my quote but come from the Jason Meyer article on TGC

  114. Nancy2 wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    I just saw an image somewhere recently that went like this:
    Patriarchy to women: Make me a sandwich!
    Complementarianism to women: Please make me a sandwich.
    ————
    (Nancy2 said):
    A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. The difference: evidence of the social graces.

    Yes, kind and sweet complementarism is still harmful and sexist, just like harsher complementarianism is, or what these guys are dubbing “hyper headship”.

    It’s akin to benevolent sexism.

    The Problem When Sexism Just Sounds So Darn Friendly…
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/benevolent-sexism/

    Even the “warm and fuzzy” variety of gender comp or sexism ends up penalizing women.

  115. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Oh. You had me fooled.

    I clicked on your You Tube link, thinking it was going to be to Jack Schaap’s “Polish the Shaft” sermon.

    Jack Schaap is a complementarian. He has some pretty sexist views about women he’s made known while in the pulpit.

  116. @ Mara:

    I was reading a secular book by a – I think it was a psychiatrist – that discusses related issues.

    As these books get into, a lot of women, even Non-Christian ones, mistakenly assume the best or only way to hold on to a man permanently is be subservient to him and cater to his every whim (act like a gender complementarian wife or girl friend, in other words).

    The psychiatrist whose book I read recounted one male client she had who admitted to her that he was tired of being in control of women in his relationships.

    He was always the one making all the demands and choices. To a point, he said he got off on, and enjoyed, mistreating women on purpose to see how much he could get away with, because some women are so desperate for a man, they will put up with anything.

    But then he told his counselor he realized all the sudden how all alone in life he was.

    He said wanted a true life partner to sit next to him and help him in life, which he cannot have if he keeps choosing very submissive, passive women who allow him to jerk them around and boss them around.

    I also read a billion case studies in various books that showed that most men get very bored with submissive women, the very sort of behavior that gender comps pressure women to have!

    In many of those examples I read about, the men have affairs on their submissive wives, or else divorce them for another woman, for a woman who does not play the part of “little miss submissive.”

    Normal, mentally healthy men (who have no desire to control a woman and be abusive), want to be challenged and called out by their girlfriend or wife, according to a lot of the case studies I saw. They don’t find that in a gender complementarian, submissive partner, however.

  117. Eagle wrote:

    FYI…it appears as if Doug Wilson has engaged in serious plagiarism. What is it with these guys and plagiarism?
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/doug-wilson-serial-plagiarism/

    Ach, laddie! It just be “some few sentences” according to Wilson buddy Tim Bayly:
    “Canon Press has pulled their recent book, Justice Primer, from their list, issuing an apology for some few sentences which were unattributed to their original authors. Doug Wilsons’ co-author, Randy Booth, has acknowledged he is the guilty party, and the father-rule haters are gleeful at their success in humiliating Doug.”
    See?!? Just those gleeful father-rule haters humiliating poor victim Doug!

  118. I love the 'no true comps' fallacies. One is " It's always been this way because that's what the bible sez. No, it hasn't always been that way. I never heard a word growing up in the 60s and 70s that women and girls were not just as called or competent as men and boys. If anyone had told my mom that she couldn't be the family handyman because "omg, a women and a hammer", our house would have fallen down.

    Like many others, I've lived long enough to know that 'always' began in the early 1980s as women began to advance in the work world. This cr#p (ed.) intensified after the 2008 recession as more men lost their jobs at first than did women.

  119. Given this is the second time he has been shown to have committed significant plagiarism, and twice has wthdrawn a book, he has no excuse, and would be bounced from any legitimate university… Period.. Any Christain group still promoting him is guilty by association…..

    Eagle wrote:

    FYI…it appears as if Doug Wilson has engaged in serious plagiarism. What is it with these guys and plagiarism?
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/doug-wilson-serial-plagiarism/

  120. @ Nate Sparks:
    When it comes to JD Hall there is a consistent long term pattern (even after his big repentence show) of cruel rotten fruit. I encourage people to avoid him. In a quest to be fair to Hall, it is often at the cost if someone feeling his boot on their neck. I am more concerned for them.

  121. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Private Bailey kicks the barracks dog

    Technical nitpick: the dog (a bulldog named Otto) belongs to Sarge, displays the same rank insignia, and behaves as Beetle’s superior. There was an old Beetle Bailey cartoon in which the Pentagon accidentlly promoted it to lieutenant.

  122. Question: Is there a litmus test for “humble headship”? Do the “heads” decide what is humble? Anyone remember the humble head, CJ? Piper?

  123. All this makes me think of Archie Bunker singing, “Girls were girls and men were men….”

    “He [Mark Driscoll] told them if they didn’t give their husband a blow job, they weren’t serving God or obeying Scripture.”

    Okay–I confess to mixed feelings about this teaching, but at any point, does it ever occur to people in these churches that things have gotten really, really weird? What was the reading for that day–“Open thou our lips…”?

    But the larger point is, granting the existence of a certain number of flakes and predators, at what point do they reach a kind of “critical mass,” so that the group as a whole becomes unsalvageable? The Catholic Church with its pedophile problem, Christianity as a whole (as the atheists sometimes argue), Islam and terrorism, Hinduism with its various ills, the US Republicans, Wal-Mart…virtually every government, political party, business, and religion is guilty of systematic abuses of some sort, and there were reformists even among the Nazis. At what point should we write the whole group off? We can hardly avoid affiliation with complex human institutions. And even if I were to quit, say, Buddhism over the atrocities in Burma, I wouldn’t be justified in regarding all Buddhists as evil. I do realize that this boils down to a judgement call, and that some groups (among which I would number the complementarians) are more of a lost cause than others.

  124. @ Lydia:
    Hall has never responded to me, in fact he chose to block me rather than engage my work (which I’m fairly certain he has read). And I am not apologizing for calling him out. Only for an unfortunate rhetorical mistake which I recognize – regardless of how hateful and unChrist-like he may be – does not excuse my use of a Straw Man.

  125. Lydia wrote:

    When it comes to JD Hall there is a consistent long term pattern (even after his big repentence show) of cruel rotten fruit. I encourage people to avoid him. In a quest to be fair to Hall, it is often at the cost if someone feeling his boot on their neck. I am more concerned for them.

    He was in a dust up on social media. Julie Anne discussed at on her Spiritual Sounding Board blog.

    Hall was throwing a hissy fit over a pastor’s wife who nicely pointed out an error in one of his blog posts. Hall ended up telling her husband to shut her up.

    This is yet another problem on display in complementarianism: women are not treated as human beings in their own rights, but as a piece of property to be ordered around by husbands or other men. It’s very demeaning.

  126. Lydia wrote:

    Question: Is there a litmus test for “humble headship”? Do the “heads” decide what is humble? Anyone remember the humble head, CJ? Piper?

    The Humble Head is preceded by liveried flunkies blowing long trumpets to announce how HUMBLE(TM) He is.

  127. roebuck wrote:

    If you look at the comments, you’ll find that Canon Press is a Wilson-Family owned vanity press.

    Why am I not surprised?

    Booth took a bullet for DW. What’s going on?

    Inferiors and flunkies always take a bullet/fall on their sword to protect The Great One.

    Involuntarily if necessary; the Great One cannot be inconvenienced.

  128. roebuck wrote:

    What’s going on?

    I read from one of Wilson’s opponents (I think it was moscowid.net bit will try to find) that Booth is much obliged to Wilson for helping Booth’s son out of some legal difficulties back in the day). And, at least before this scandal broke, Booth was heading up an inquiry as to whether or not the Kirk could have room for improvement in handling sex abuse cases.

  129. Daisy wrote:

    Yes, kind and sweet complementarism is still harmful and sexist…

    And Sociopaths are masters at turning on the Kind and Sweet charm.

    Remember the family/friends/co-workers/neighbors when a serial killer gets popped?
    “But he was such a NICE man!”

  130. Dave A A wrote:

    roebuck wrote:
    What’s going on?
    I read from one of Wilson’s opponents (I think it was moscowid.net bit will try to find) that Booth is much obliged to Wilson for helping Booth’s son out of some legal difficulties back in the day). And, at least before this scandal broke, Booth was heading up an inquiry as to whether or not the Kirk could have room for improvement in handling sex abuse cases.

    Good Lord, the muck just gets deeper and deeper…

  131. The 4 December 2015, vol 350, issue 6265 p 1137 of SCIENCE has an article “Gender overlaps in human brains”. The full article is available at: http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds
    The lead paragraph: “In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain. But a new study finds that human brains do not fit neatly into “male” and “female” categories. Indeed, all of our brains seem to share a patchwork of forms; some that are more common in males, others that are more common in females, and some that are common to both. The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender.”
    This suggest that gender based brain differences don’t provide a basis for complementarism.

  132. I wonder if Doug Wilson and Booth cheated in high school and college. It had to start somewhere. You don’t just start using another person’s work, without having a history of it. Gives you a lot to think about what they both say and write about. Personally, I wouldn’t believe anything they wrote nor would I read it.

  133. Quoting Doug Wilson:
    “How much grooming does a criminal have to do before a 14-year old girl has absolutely no responsibility?”

    Quoting from: “‘Setting ’Em Up’: Personal, Familial and Institutional Grooming in the Sexual Abuse of Children” by Anne-Marie Mcalinden
    http://sls.sagepub.com/content/15/3/339.short

    “The term ‘grooming’ has been used to describe the offender’s actions during the preparatory stage of sexual abuse.

    Current discourses also neglect other important facets of the sex offending pattern. They fail to consider that offenders may groom not only the child but also their family and even the local community who may act as the gatekeepers of access.

    They also ignore what can be termed ‘institutional grooming’ – that sex offenders may groom criminal justice and other institutions into believing that they present no risk to children.”

    Quoting from: Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming: Legal and Societal Responses
    By Suzanne Ost

    “It is possible that community grooming can conceal a successful child sex abuser’s offending since, if a child does subsequently expose the abuse, the community may have become so convinced that the abuser is a trustworthy individual that he is more likely to be believed than the child.”

    Quoting from: ‘Grooming’ and the Sexual Abuse of Children: Implications for Sex Offender Assessment, Treatment and Management by Anne-Marie McAlinden
    http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/118.html

    “…and what I have termed ‘institutional grooming’ (McAlinden, 2006) where sex offenders may seek to exploit organizational features or relationships in order to minimize the perceptions of others about potential risk.

    This concept has emerged from my own previous work (McAlinden, 2006) and from anecdotal conversations with professionals in the field. The notion can be used to convey the grooming of children within an institutional context, where sex offenders make use of the unique features of the organizational environment- such as power, anonymity, secrecy, opportunity and trust – to facilitate abuse and avoid exposure.

    These include delays in disclosure, initial disbelief of victims, ‘the conspiracy of silence’ and denial and minimization of allegations(McAlinden, 2012: 157-59).”

    End Quotes.

    Perhaps we could get Doug to explain Jamin’s extradinary success in grooming Doug, Doug’s school, and Doug’s elders?

    Doug and fellow church members provided written support to the court for the sexual abuser, sat with the sexual abuser during the sentencing procedure, promulgated the sexual abuser’s lie that this was a ‘courtship,’ and believed the sexual abuser’s gaming repentance.

    So…

    How much grooming did the sexual abuser have to do before our 60+ year old theologian, pastor, faculty member, author and speaker Doug had absolutely no responsibility?

  134. I like your article, Nick Sparks, but you forgot to mention a few other’s in the Complimentarian Camp. Such as…..Paige Patterson. Remember when he thought nothing of a wife in his congregation being beat by her husband. Instead of reporting the abuser to the law, he told the wife to go back to the abuser and pray by the bedside as her husband was going to sleep.

    And then there’s Bob Jones University, another Camp of Complementarians. Female students who were sexually molested on campus were counseled to the effect that they were partly to blame for their rape. The college wanted to keep the lid on it and protect the male students who had committed the rapes, which was all about image and damage control.

    Oh, and what about the Bayly Brothers? They want nothing to do with CBMW because they claim they’re too soft on their stance when it comes to women’s roles in marriage and the work place. And they insist that Patriarchy is the word Christians should actually use, and that any church which does not teach Patriarchy has rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Somehow I think the Comp/Pat camp that insists that loyal Complementarians faithful to Comp teaching cannot be abusive reminds me of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Somehow, they always have an excuse that the Comp/Pat person who is abusive isn’t a True Complementarian. I would say that problem is that the system of Complementarianism, and by extension Patriarchy, is the root cause of the abuse. I would posit that those Christians who claim to be in the Complementarian Camp, but who do not mistreat or abuse their wives, are in effect living as Egalitarians.

  135. BL wrote:

    Perhaps we could get Doug to explain Jamin’s extradinary success in grooming Doug, Doug’s school, and Doug’s elders?

    You and the article say ‘grooming’ and I don’t disagree with that term. In fact I think it is quite appropriate.

    But another term also comes to mind.
    Doug, his school, and his elders have also been played. And Doug is so proud that he won’t admit he’s been played or groomed. Instead he’ll point his finger at a 14 year old scapegoat to take the blame for his bumbling ignorance.

  136. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ Tina:
    I recently sat down with the founding director of No Regrets Men’s Ministries – which hosts the largest annual multi-cite international men’s conference in the world – and convinced him to drop Anchor Man from their curriculum.

    Anchor Man? What in the world is Anchor Man?

  137. Well now, this is interesting. In regards to Calvinism versus hyper-Calvinism, there is no appreciable logical difference. This has been pointed out at length among the modern philosophers, because apparently it is an interesting case study in how the reductio is often just the ding an sich. Is there a similarity with Complementarians? Possibly. Not that logic or critical thinking is really closely associated with the movement. But if we do choose to use the tools of logic on the movement, the findings might be interesting. One problem with any ideology, religious or otherwise, that tries to defend its adherents is that modeling sets in the real world requires significantly complex equations. In fact, the simplest math we have requires three differential equations on the imaginary number line. But even in laymen’s terms, it is a fairly simple fact that humans are a complex mixture of inputs, outputs, and learning (which is why every field of human study, given a long enough timeline, is ultimately recursive). A very simple model might be to test the correlation between a given behavior and an ideology to see if the correlation is statistically significant. A more accurate measure might be a differential describing the delta between the correlation with one ideology and the correlation with its counterpart. So, if anyone has access to big data on domestic abuse and religion, it might be interesting to see the difference in abuse frequency between comps and egals. Not that facts would matter anyway, when one’s beliefs are not determined by the noble “do good to all” or even the benign “do no harm”, but rather the “submit to my interpretation of a given holy book”.

  138. @ OldJohnJ:

    I posted links on a previous thread to news stories about that new study which says that male and female brains are very similar.

    Brains Not Distinctly Male or Female
    http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0100007MGT2E

    I can’t recall if it is that study or a similar one I read about near a month ago that says what gender differences you do see between men and women are not due to biological factors but often times social conditioning.

  139. @ BL:

    I would add that some pedophiles are exploiting the gender complementarian teachings about women and girls, marriage, gender roles and the rest of it to make girls and women easier to target.

    It’s explained here (someone already cited it, but here it is again):
    How Complementarianism Played Into My Sexual Abuse Under My Former Pastor, Doug Wilson (by Natalie Greenfield)
    http://www.jorymicah.com/how-complementarianism-played-into-my-sexual-abuse-under-my-former-pastor-doug-wilson-by-natalie-greenfield/

  140. Nancy2 wrote:

    Eagle wrote:
    I have wondered where will John Piper, Russ Moore and Al Mohler be about that topic.
    Do you think they will be okay with women in combat as long as the women are restricted to Privates First Class?

    While I am not a Complementarian in any way, I don’t think I have to defend women in combat roles to prove it. If women are going to vie for fighting in war just as men do, then they had better be qualified to do it. That means passing the same regimen of tests and qualifications. I’ve heard from various sources, those who have been part of the military, that often times women are given a pass from having to complete all the necessary and strenuous training during boot camp.

  141. Darlene wrote:

    Somehow, they always have an excuse that the Comp/Pat person who is abusive isn’t a True Complementarian. I would say that problem is that the system of Complementarianism, and by extension Patriarchy, is the root cause of the abuse.

    Yep. I’ve been repeating these very points ad nauseum to Flag Ken on older threads, but he wants to believe it’s how complementarianism is executed that is the problem, not comp itself. Though comp is the problem.

  142. Darlene wrote:

    Anchor Man? What in the world is Anchor Man?

    I too wondered about that but didn’t ask. I was also curious about the specific quote Nate mentioned but did not repeat.

    When I hear “anchor man,” I think of Ron Burgandy:

    Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0357413/

    From the IMDB page:

    Ron Burgundy is San Diego’s top rated newsman in the male-dominated broadcasting of the ’70s, but that’s all about to change for Ron and his cronies when an ambitious woman is hired as a new anchor.

  143. Daisy wrote:

    @ OldJohnJ:
    I posted links on a previous thread to news stories about that new study which says that male and female brains are very similar.
    Brains Not Distinctly Male or Female
    http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0100007MGT2E
    I can’t recall if it is that study or a similar one I read about near a month ago that says what gender differences you do see between men and women are not due to biological factors but often times social conditioning.

    Remember, these pronouncements are made on the basis of fMRI scans. The headline should have been ‘fMRI reveals no significant difference between male and female brains’.

    Male and female brains are certainly socialized differently. But they also develop in fairly radically different hormonal environments. It’s all one big package – nature/nurture. And for sure, it generates a whole continuum of ‘brain styles’.

    In other words, none of this is to say that men and women shouldn’t do whatever their strengths lead them to want to do. I just get leary of the current trend to take an fMRI study and say ‘see! no difference!’ or whatever over-simplified sound-bite. fMRI measures what fMRI measures.

  144. Daisy wrote:

    I posted links on a previous thread to news stories about that new study which says that male and female brains are very similar.

    I believe both articles refer to the same study. Thanks for reminding me of your earlier comment on this.

  145. Daisy wrote:

    This is yet another problem on display in complementarianism: women are not treated as human beings in their own rights, but as a piece of property to be ordered around by husbands or other men. It’s very demeaning.

    It is definitely not demeaning, according to the CBMW, TGC, T4G, and the SBC! A wife should feel honored to always be at the bottom of the food chain !

  146. Darlene wrote:

    you forgot to mention a few other’s in the Complimentarian Camp. Such as…..Paige Patterson.

    And Paige’s wife, Dorothy, who said that she always submits to her husband, even when he’s wrong. He will be held accountable!!!

  147. Grooming plays into complementarianism, too. Children are taught that men do theses things and women do those things. Men don’t cook and women don’t shoot firearms ……..

  148. Darlene wrote:

    I’ve heard from various sources, those who have been part of the military, that often times women are given a pass from having to complete all the necessary and strenuous training during boot camp.

    The same thing has been done on occasion in order to meet minority quotas.

  149. @ Darlene:
    I hear you on all the others I could have included (and it’s Nate, no relation to Nick Sparks 🙂 ).

    I chose the one’s I did for the exact reason you highlighted at the end – the No True Scotsman. Can’t do that when the examples are central leaders to the biggest comp organizations in the world.

  150. @ Darlene:
    I hear you on all the others I could have included (and it’s Nate, no relation to Nick Sparks 🙂 ).

    I chose the one’s I did for the exact reason you highlighted at the end – the No True Scotsman. Can’t do that when the examples are central leaders to the biggest comp organizations in the world.@ Darlene:

    Anchor Man is well fairly well known, commonly used text on Biblical manhood written by Steve Farrar – a founding board member of CBMW.

  151. @ Daisy:
    I didn’t require it because the first time I quoted it it was a picture attached to the post it says page 162 of Steve Farrar anchorman under the picture it is in the section on Chuck Swindoll

  152. Anchorman was a great movie! (Much better than Sparks’ weepy romantic ones that my wife makes me watch.) We can learn a lot from it about gender relations.@ Nate Sparks:

    Anchorman was a great movie! (Much better than all those weepy romantic Sparks movies that my wife makes me watch.) We can learn a lot from it about gender relations.

  153. WTW poll: Would it be frowned upon if I wore a sweater that said “On the Naughty List” to a complementarian ugly Christmas sweater party? Because I am doing it, and I will enjoy the irony of it.

  154. I think it was HUG who referred to Doug Wilson as being like the Marlon Brando character in”Apocalypse Now”. Actually Doug has some sort of phony film out called “The Free Speech Apocalypse”–he just seems to want to head in the apocalypse direction!! Also maybe some energetic soul should undertake to run other books he has written thru the plagiarism machine. Going once, going twice, going three times or more?

  155. Tina wrote:

    I’ve read Farrar’s “Point Man”, and there are two specific things that bother me:
    1. His constant talking about “the next generation of masculine men and feminine women”. I don’t think he ever really defines what “masculine men and feminine women” are.
    2. His outright statement that couples who are capable of having children and decide not to are selfish.
    Tim LaHaye, in The Act of Marriage, said something similar: that by choosing not to have children, you were denying a potential child salvation. My answer to that was: How in the world do you know that that child is going to become a Christian?

    But see, if you subscribe to “checklist christianity” (even as you deny it, as the people we used to hang out with did), your children will grow up to be christians. ‘Cause the word is inerrant, and it says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” So even if a child strays away, you have assurance he’ll return, so it doesn’t matter if you throw him out on the streets after he decides not to obey you any more, or argues with you, or challenges some of your beliefs… He’ll come crawling back some day, licking your boots and begging to be forgiven.

    Forgive the bitter tone. I’ve heard about too many teens getting thrown out on the streets lately, by “fine,” “upright,” patriarchal families. Probably heartbroken as well. But sticking to their guns. ‘Cause, you know, the Promises only apply to those who are faithful. (And follow the checklist.)

  156. NJ wrote:

    To this list I want to add,
    1. the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine
    2. that dreadful article in the CBMW journal from 2004 where some guy argues for all (Christian) women eternally submitting to all men, almost Mormon style

    Sounds like it’s better not to be a (christian) woman, then. Although it might lead to a dearth of multi-generational christian families, cause if women decide not to be “christian” in that sense, anymore, then those patriarchal men won’t find anyone to marry, and won’t raise up patriarchal children (at least, the ones who don’t walk away).

  157. Tim wrote:

    The description of men as leaders and women looking good in bikinis in the good old days reminds me of Archie and Edith’s line in the song “Those Were the Days” –
    And you knew who you were then
    Girls were girls and men were men.
    For your nostalgic viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d8FTPv955I

    I never noticed that before. It reminds me, now, that women were “girls” but men were always “men” (unless, of course, you were talking about the “old boys club” or “boys will be boys” or “night out with the boys”).

  158. @ Tina:
    In Point Man – in the chapter Raising Masculine Sons and Feminine Daughters – Farrar explicitly states that if your son grows up to be gay its because the father was a passive, unbiblical man who allowed his son to be overmothered. Regardless of your views on LGBTQ, that is a horrible and disturbing thing to say.

  159. @ Nate Sparks:
    My grandma wouldn’t use the word “disturbing” in reference to Farrar. She’d say he’s kinda touched in the head.

    I wonder what he thinks about farm girls (like me and my daughter) who were raised spiking tobacco, splitting wood, shooting varmints, butchering hogs, and shoveling cow and horse manure with the boys?

    I wonder if he thinks the sons of mothers who are widowed while the children are still young will more than likely be gay if the mothers do not remarry? My father-in-law was an only boy with 6 older sisters and his father died when he was very young.

    I have strong military connections, where fathers (and sometimes mothers) are often away as much as they are at home with their children. What does he think of children who grow up in that world?

    Why aren’t we all homosexuals?

  160. @ Nancy2
    As I often say, when you define yourself against an other in pursuit of power, privilege, and “normativity” you have utterly abandoned the Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified. Rather than defining ourselves in Christ, as members of his body where particularity becomes mutuality, we seek an “other” that makes is the “right”, ” normal”, “godly”. Evangelicalism has ceased to be the weeping tax collector and become the proud Pharisee. Or, to adapt an analogy from Walter Bruegemann’s Prophetic Imagination, we have ceased to be the resistance movement of humble origins (Israel) and become the static, institutionalized religion of the order of the day (Egypt).

  161. Daisy wrote:

    Or Deborah, a judge mentioned in the Old Testament, I believe, who led Israel’s army?

    I’ve had a number of comps tell me, with straight faces, that Deborah’s judgeship was God’s judgment on Israel. Like it was some sort of disgrace, or something.

  162. Nate Sparks wrote:

    I have been asked many times who the head of my home is. I always answer Jesus.

    Good attitude! This whole “head of the house” is such a perversion of what Paul was really teaching. Like I’ve said before, you have to reconcile Paul’s writings with Christ’s teachings in order to get Paul right. Then, there’s the whole context of the book, chapter, etc. So, looking at Ephesians 5:21 (mutual submission), the following verses are just Paul giving an example of how to love one another. It just drives me crazy when the sinful culture contaminates these verses and turns them into “the man is the boss and has the final say,” etc. Do complementarians even realize that the Bible never addresses how decisions should be made in a marriage?

  163. Nancy2 wrote:

    Why aren’t we all homosexuals?

    Oh, but we are. The only thing keeping *some* people on the straight and narrow is the efforts of those in TGC and CBMW (or whatever the acronym is) and all those other YRR organizations.

    If they were to relax their vigilance for a *moment*, society would go to pieces.

  164. @ Nate Sparks:

    “In Point Man – in the chapter Raising Masculine Sons and Feminine Daughters – Farrar explicitly states that if your son grows up to be gay its because the father was a passive, unbiblical man who allowed his son to be overmothered.”
    +++++++++

    steve farrar, will you please join in and tell us on what basis you made such an assertion? will you explain to us how it is that you don’t see this is as devastatingly hurtful?

  165. @ patriciamc:
    Jesus is extremely inconvenient. If one is not interpreting Paul with a Jesus filter, it becomes a perversion of Christ, what He was all about and what He modeled.

  166. nancyjane wrote:

    Also maybe some energetic soul should undertake to run other books he has written thru the plagiarism machine.

    Huh. That’s some interesting food for thought. I can’t do it, though. I recycled all his books when we left our old church. They’re paper pulp now, made into something else, like maybe recycled toilet paper.

  167. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ Tina:
    In Point Man – in the chapter Raising Masculine Sons and Feminine Daughters – Farrar explicitly states that if your son grows up to be gay its because the father was a passive, unbiblical man who allowed his son to be overmothered. Regardless of your views on LGBTQ, that is a horrible and disturbing thing to say.

    Ever heard of “I have Problem X, SO EVERYONE ELSE MUST ALSO HAVE PROBLEM X”?

  168. Daisy wrote:

    ep. I’ve been repeating these very points ad nauseum to Flag Ken on older threads, but he wants to believe it’s how complementarianism is executed that is the problem, not comp itself.

    “This time we WILL Achieve True Communism because this time the RIGHT people will be in charge!”

  169. patriciamc wrote:

    So, looking at Ephesians 5:21 (mutual submission), the following verses are just Paul giving an example of how to love one another.

    I see you have not read posts by Flag Ken (gender complementarian guy) on older threads. LOLOLOLOL. Good times.

    You and I realize that Eph 5.21 is preaching mutual submission, but not gender complementarians. They somehow try to deny it by saying that male headship trumps mutual submission, so that Eph 5.21 does not REALLY MEAN* that husbands should submit to their wives. LOLOLOLOLOL.

    *(All caps for emphasis, not yelling.)

  170. THANK YOU FOR THIS:

    ” We must remember Jesus, in His death as the humble, emptied, crucified God exposes the plight of those oppressed, defies the power which denigrates, and opposes systems of discrimination and separation (1 Cor 1:18-31; Gal 3). The crucified cross of God calls us to take up His cause to uplift the oppressed and love all persons above ourselves (Phil 2:1-12; Luke 9:21-27; Matt 20:20-28, 25:31-46).

    Thus, when confronted by the hurt of others at the hands of abusive or discriminatory ideologies our response should not be to insert our own narrative by declaring “Not All Comps”. Instead, like the God who became human, we must immerse ourselves in the narrative of their suffering (Isa 52:13-53:12)

    In this way, we are called to practice a cruciform solidarity with the abused.”

    Wow, just wow . . . but would people like Piper and Wilson and Driscoll ever be able to comprehend the gospel at this depth ??? I doubt it. They are too full of themselves.

  171. elastigirl wrote:

    will you explain to us how it is that you don’t see this is as devastatingly hurtful?

    I don’t think the effect of his words is even on his radar – as long as it is ‘God’s truth’ (as they see it) the effects, no matter how bad, are utterly irrelevant & are just part of God’s ordained ways. I imagine the more hurt it causes the more true they think it is, godly words bringing part of God’s judgement on sin.

  172. Daisy wrote:

    Yes, they sometimes claim she’s an exception, that God really wanted to use a man but had to settle for a woman.
    Deborah and the “no available men” argument

    Yeah, right. Moses and Jonah weren’t exactly rearin’ to go! Now, were they?

  173. Beakerj wrote:

    I don’t think the effect of his words is even on his radar – as long as it is ‘God’s truth’ (as they see it) the effects, no matter how bad, are utterly irrelevant & are just part of God’s ordained ways. I imagine the more hurt it causes the more true they think it is, godly words bringing part of God’s judgement on sin.

    If distraught parents commit suicide, oh well, it was God’s will.

  174. @ Christiane:
    You are welcome. I have tried reaching out to Piper a few times, no dice. I reached out to Wilson several times, only person who responded was his daughter-in-law Heather. Doug eventually blocked me on social media. Heather emailed me to tell me this post is all lies. I sent her the articles I link in the article, asked for her take and she never responded.

  175. Dec. 8, 2015:

    “Quoting Bible passages from Ephesians and First Timothy, Ray described a “divine hierarchy in marriage,” in which the wife is to submit to her husband “in everything.”

    “Some people say, ‘Oh, now that we’re Christians we’re all elevated to the same level,’” Ray commented. “Well, that’s true. We’re all to be submissive to Christ and we’re all to be submissive to one another, but you see Adam’s headship was not a result of the fall. It was before the fall, and then Paul said that the woman was deceived. That’s not putting the woman down, that’s saying that the man was to lead.”

    – See more at: https://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/30731-pastor-cites-feminist-rebellion-in-moral-decline#sthash.Lzpfg3FZ.dpuf

  176. Note – this is totally off topic, but I was watching the news last night, and noted that the funeral for a local police officer who was struck and killed by a drunk driver is being held at Covenant Life Church. Don’t know if he was a member, but sad either way.

  177. I don’t think I understand how complementarianism works today. Our great grandmothers weren’t sitting around: they made bread and all the food every day, washed laundry on a board, gardened, canned, sewed and mended clothes by hand…So today a woman is supposed to sit at home and put the clothes in the machine? Is working out of the home much harder than the work these women did in the home? I think marriage requires shared responsibilities no matter how you define it.

  178. Beakerj wrote:

    I don’t think the effect of his words is even on his radar – as long as it is ‘God’s truth’ (as they see it) the effects, no matter how bad, are utterly irrelevant & are just part of God’s ordained ways. I imagine the more hurt it causes the more true they think it is, godly words bringing part of God’s judgement on sin.

    Appalling, isn’t it?

    After all, observation/experience are the primary methods by which we learn what is. Truth cannot be known otherwise. We also need words. Yet, these guys believe that reading a book, and considering those words only, leads them to all truth.

    Declaring big-T truth to be a set of words with only a loose relationship to Creation, has been a cause of terrible things done by humans. Words need pinning. They require the specificity of reality or they can sail into complete delusion.

    Gah

  179. Nancy2 wrote:

    Beakerj wrote:

    I don’t think the effect of his words is even on his radar – as long as it is ‘God’s truth’ (as they see it) the effects, no matter how bad, are utterly irrelevant & are just part of God’s ordained ways. I imagine the more hurt it causes the more true they think it is, godly words bringing part of God’s judgement on sin.

    If distraught parents commit suicide, oh well, it was God’s will.

    “IN’SHAL’LAH… EH, KISMET?”

  180. Irene wrote:

    I don’t think I understand how complementarianism works today. Our great grandmothers weren’t sitting around: they made bread and all the food every day, washed laundry on a board, gardened, canned, sewed and mended clothes by hand…So today a woman is supposed to sit at home and put the clothes in the machine?

    “What do they want me to do? Spend all my time at the Mosque in Prayer while my wife sits in her locked harem at home? What?”
    — Iraqi blogger about the “Real True Islam” factions running around in the chaos

  181. refugee wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Or Deborah, a judge mentioned in the Old Testament, I believe, who led Israel’s army?
    I’ve had a number of comps tell me, with straight faces, that Deborah’s judgeship was God’s judgment on Israel. Like it was some sort of disgrace, or something.

    Well, they certainly don’t know their Bible, do they? I find that complementarians are bad about reading things into the Bible, things that simply aren’t there!

  182. Daisy wrote:

    I see you have not read posts by Flag Ken (gender complementarian guy) on older threads. LOLOLOLOL. Good times

    Oh yeah, yeah I have….

  183. Lydia wrote:

    Jesus is extremely inconvenient. If one is not interpreting Paul with a Jesus filter, it becomes a perversion of Christ, what He was all about and what He modeled.

    Amen!

  184. When you’re opposing complementarianism, please don’t conflate it with hyper-headship. Represent our views carefully and accurately in a way that maintains the middle instead of excluding it. Represent the real core of what someone believes before responding to it. It’s a matter of integrity.

    I have one question for the guy who wrote this: when you oppose egalitarianism, do you say egalitarians don’t respect Scripture, that we’re simply unwilling to obey God’s clear command, or that we’re capitulating to secular culture? Do you say our argument isn’t with you but with God and the Bible? If you answer “yes” to any of the above, then you need to take the log out of your own eye. Good day, sir.

  185. Nancy2 wrote:

    Dec. 8, 2015:
    “Quoting Bible passages from Ephesians and First Timothy, Ray described a “divine hierarchy in marriage,” in which the wife is to submit to her husband “in everything.”
    “Some people say, ‘Oh, now that we’re Christians we’re all elevated to the same level,’” Ray commented. “Well, that’s true. We’re all to be submissive to Christ and we’re all to be submissive to one another, but you see Adam’s headship was not a result of the fall. It was before the fall, and then Paul said that the woman was deceived. That’s not putting the woman down, that’s saying that the man was to lead.”
    – See more at: https://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/30731-pastor-cites-feminist-rebellion-in-moral-decline#sthash.Lzpfg3FZ.dpuf

    This is not new. Adam blamed Eve, too. This guy is just telling us that God approves of blaming women in general.

    What surprises me is how many people sit there and believe it because a guy on stage with a title says it. That is scary.

  186. @ Lydia:

    I’m a little confused on his point.

    Does he / do they define the Fall (sin entering humanity/ the world) only at the point Adam and Eve literally put their mouth on the forbidden fruit and bit the fruit?

    Could sin have actually happened before their teeth physically hit the fruit, could it have been prior to that, when Adam already decided in his heart to eat the fruit – the motivation to disobey was already there?

    If you look at the teachings of Jesus, Jesus taught that sin is more than just action, it can be in your motivations or your thought life.

  187. @ Nancy2:
    Pastor Ashley Ray comes oh so close to saying that women is just man’s appendage.
    Now, excuse me while I go vomit, and then run down to PetCo to get a collar and a muzzle so that I will be appropriately attired for church tomorrow!!

  188. Daisy wrote:

    Does he / do they define the Fall (sin entering humanity/ the world) only at the point Adam and Eve literally put their mouth on the forbidden fruit and bit the fruit?

    If I understand this sexist pastor, the fall happened when Adam allowed Eve to have authority over him. If men would stop allowing women to have control over anything, everything would be just hunky-dory!!! If women would submit to men in absolutely everything, including the decisions made in the “women only “areas of life, we would all live happily ever after.

  189. Nancy2 wrote:

    If I understand this sexist pastor, the fall happened when Adam allowed Eve to have authority over him.

    I thought the text explains that the sin is that the man and woman disobeyed God’s command not to eat the fruit.

    It had nothing to do with Eve supposedly exercising authority over Adam.

    The reading comprehension by some comps is dismal.

  190. Daisy wrote:

    I thought the text explains that the sin is that the man and woman disobeyed God’s command not to eat the fruit.

    Nowhere does scripture say Eve disobeyed rather she was deceived. I think the serpent convinced her that they would “surely not die” because the Tree of Life was there in the midst along with the tree of good and evil. That was the deception imo. No one gets deceived intentionally.

    Adam, on the other hand, disobeyed and blamed both God and “the woman” for his transgression.

  191. Victorious wrote:

    Adam, on the other hand, disobeyed and blamed both God and “the woman” for his transgression.

    Which would explain why man has God-ordained “headship”????

  192. Please compare this information
    (via Mashable .com, from a December 2015 article entitled “Women in Saudi Arabia are voters and candidates in elections for the first time”) to my post on TWW, linked to below these snippets:

    From “Women in Saudi Arabia are voters and candidates in elections for the first time”
    – source: Mashable, author: Liza Hearon

    Snippet:
    ——-
    Women candidates can’t address men directly, so have had to speak through male relatives or supporters, or speak from behind a partition
    ——————
    Please compare that Islamic treatment of women speakers, or women in general, to American Christian gender complementarian treatment of women Christians I mentioned here:

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/11/20/naghmeh-abedini-wife-of-imprisoned-pastor-abedini-is-a-victim-of-domestic-abuse-while-owen-strachancbmw-reports-that-complementarians-handle-abuse-really-well/comment-page-2/#comment-229892

    Tell me if you can’t spot those parallels.

    From that same article at Mashable:

    As one man, Abdullah Al-Maiteb, went to the polls in Riyadh, he told the Associated Press that women should stay at home.

    “Her role is not in such places. Her role is at home managing the house and raising a new generation,” he said. “If we allow her out of the house to do such business, who is going to take care of my sons?”

    Doesn’t that also sound like the average American Christian gender complementarian?

  193. Nancy2 wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    Adam, on the other hand, disobeyed and blamed both God and “the woman” for his transgression.
    Which would explain why man has God-ordained “headship”????

    Absurd notion, is it not???

  194. Daisy wrote:

    If you look at the teachings of Jesus, Jesus taught that sin is more than just action, it can be in your motivations or your thought life.

    I see it a bit different. In the narrative God warns Cain about sin at his door. I get the notion that the goal is not to ‘act’ on anger/evil/bad thoughts. Not that we have them. Thinking is God’s design of our brains. We are also to train our minds as we grow in wisdom. I think this is affirmed clearly by Jesus Christ right off the bat in Matthew speaking to the Jews. We are to take those thoughts captive and not act on them.

    If our thoughts are sinful and condemn us without any accompanying actions then imputed guilt is correct. We are born sinning and our very existence is sin. We cannot escape it. That makes death good. We then are just as guilty as if we murdered. This just serves to make evil normal. It desensitizes us to it.

    IMO, The sermon on the Mount was not a recipe for being a doormat. It was not taught so that Jews would take evil from each other. It was meant to teach the Jews how to reflect God to their pagan occupiers. Something they were supposed to do all along but failed constantly. He got in the face of the Pharisees who were using people and placing unnecessary burdens on them. What is interesting, to me, are His interactions with the Romans He came across.

    I dont read Genesis as a science text on creation so tend to take a largoutside. Humans made choices outsude of God’s wisdom that had severe consequences yet God provides rescue.

  195. Lydia wrote:

    I get the notion that the goal is not to ‘act’ on anger/evil/bad thoughts. Not that we have them.

    Regarding the difference between passing thoughts and the cultivation thereof, leading to intentions, leading to action… There is an old Jewish proverb that goes something like this: “You can’t help it if a bird flies over your head, but can stop it from building a nest in your hair”.

  196. I pine for the days of Jesus. Jesus taught equality in a time of unbelievable inequality. Comps teach inequality in a time when the world is working towards equality. I wonder why? Could it be that comps pine for the days BC (before Christ).

  197. It’s a sad testament to the power of this teaching that I’ve met a woman from Malawi and a Japanese women who teach it through their blogs. The latter actually had to coin a few words in Japanese to teach the concepts because there is no word or idea she can base it on already in her language. I wish they would look at the damage that’s done before they leap head first into it.

  198. @ Victorious:
    I’ve been examining the ten (actually eleven) reasons why Wayne Grudem believes headship existed before the fall. He’s so busy looking for reasons to give authority over Eve to Adam that he fails to consider what headship would look like without Christ’s servant leadership, without Christ, and without the NT verses he uses to support his claims: nonexistent … not even a shadow of what he teaches.

  199. @ Jamie Carter:

    But if you ask him to provide even one…even one verse from scripture where a husband is commanded to have authority over his wife, you’ll begin to hear a litany of sweeping assumptions from small premises. If there is such a thing as “headship,” and if it has the importance comps attach to it, we should find such a command from God. The scripture twisting is amazing.

    Following the fall, the repercussions in the form of prophetic words from God as to the conditions Adam and Eve will experience outside of the garden are all adverse, negative circumstances. Comps have removed one of the negative prophecies spoken by God and made it not only a positive, good thing, but one that was ordained as necessary! Apply that line of reasoning to the other adverse conditions and the error becomes obvious.

  200. @ Lydia:
    I agree here, mostly. It is not merely thought that is sin. However, there are types of thoughts that can be sinful. For instance, harboring thoughts of uncontrolled lust or hatred are sinful because they tend to lead to actions. They represent a rejection of God’s call to love neighbor and imitate Christ and operate in the assumption that people are a means to our own ends. These types of thoughts objectify people as intended for our own pleasure and vilify those who fail that purpose, thus they create a condition of the heart which tends to reject Christ and seeks to squash or diminish the imago Dei in those we consider “other” to our own normative identity.

  201. Nate Sparks wrote:

    Because I believe in transparency when we fail to be Christ-like, I want to share this regarding an exchange with some of JD Hall’s faithful followers.
    https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/antagonism/

    As I see it, what Hall wrote was a double entendre. If he didn’t mean it, then he was being careless with his words. Maybe he reads MRA material. Maybe he’s just naive and mean-spirited. Who knows?

    I had many similar situations with my ex. He’d say something awful to me. Sometimes I heard meanness that he insisted wasn’t there (uhuh). Sometimes I said something inflammatory back. And I’d apologize for the supposed misunderstanding or the inflammatory retort. every. single. time.

    The problem was that my apology ended our communication. I’d wait for an apology for his cruelty but it never came. Instead my ex would walk away with satisfaction on his face. He saw it as a battle which he won by my giving over on a small part. Even when I pointed this out to him, nothing changed.

    I’m not saying your apology shouldn’t have been given. Just keep in mind that when dealing with abusers, normal rules of engagement don’t work. For eg, there will often be a tendency to over-apologize—an attempt to try to fill in the gaps, to help clear the air. I suspect you did this, a little. I did that a lot and it served no purpose but to make me feel very tired.

    FWIW, Nate. :-}

  202. Patrice wrote:

    Instead my ex would walk away with satisfaction on his face. He saw it as a battle which he won by my giving over on a small part. Even when I pointed this out to him, nothing changed.

    Have you ever read “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” by Patricia Evans?

    I’m related to a verbal abuser. Your husband (or he’s an ex?) sounds like one. Verbal abusers don’t view relationships the way normal people do.

    It’s all about having power and control over the other person, and verbal abusers use their mouths to accomplish it. They view every verbal tangle as a battle, where there has to be one winner and one loser. They are not interested in compromise or mutual solutions.

    The book I mentioned categorizes that different types of verbal abuse; verbal abuse is not just raising the voice, using insults, or screaming profanity.

    You might find that book helpful. I know it helped me to understand my verbally abusive sister more or better.

    I can’t change her, but I no longer knock myself out blaming myself, wondering what I could’ve done or said to make her treat me better. That’s one thing I learned. I stopped trying to understand why she goes on angry tirades and treats me like an enemy – giving that up is very freeing.

  203. Lydia wrote:

    I dont read Genesis as a science text on creation so tend to take a largoutside. Humans made choices outsude of God’s wisdom that had severe consequences yet God provides rescue.

    Nor do I see an angry God at the fall. One whose anger must be assuaged and placated. I see a heartsick and horrified parent at the evil forces set in motion by an honest mistake.

  204. @ Patrice:
    Patrice,
    This is very wise advice borne of hardship. Something I will remember. As I considered writing the post my thoughts were three-fold.

    (1) I can’t let other people diminish my pursuit of Christ-likeness. Someone in the world, who has to some extent placed them self in the public eye, needs to have the integrity to say when they have failed.

    (2) It wasn’t about me. However unintentionally, I colonized a space in which there was real abuse of real victims and used words which distracted from that. I allowed people to glossover JD’s actions and my apology was designed to put the focus back where it belongs by heading off the sideshow.

    (3) I have set high standards for myself. It would be disingenuous to pretend I didnt violate those standards by going to the “quick kill” rather than making a well-reasoned argument that would have been more persuasive while making the same point. Failure to apologize would have – for me in this instance – been an wctof actof pride which made everything I have endeavour to do a façade to distract from my own sin.

    There are people who point out specks to avoid their own planks. I’m not one of them.

    In this instance, I was not the abused and I had a responsibility to the abused to be careful in my confrontations. I was not and allowed others to delegitimize the abuse.

    Thank you for sharing from your experience. I have experience with verbal, emotional abuse as a child. You are brave and admirable to use your pain to help others. I am honored you would take the time to help me gain perspective.

  205. Lydia wrote:

    @ roebuck:
    Love it!

    Yes, that’s a beauty, isn’t it? 🙂 So much packed into a pithy little proverb…

  206. BL wrote:

    offenders may groom not only the child but also their family and even the local community who may act as the gatekeepers of access.

    Excellent quotes and very applicable!

    DW bought his tale hook, line and sinker because it flattered him and made him feel important.

  207. Jamie Carter wrote:

    I’ve been examining the ten (actually eleven) reasons why Wayne Grudem believes headship existed before the fall. He’s so busy looking for reasons to give authority over Eve to Adam that he

    …invents them out of whole cloth.

  208. Daisy wrote:

    It’s all about having power and control over the other person, and verbal abusers use their mouths to accomplish it. They view every verbal tangle as a battle, where there has to be one winner and one loser. They are not interested in compromise or mutual solutions.

    “The winner is never asked whether he has won fairly — only that he has Won!”
    — Adolf Hitler, Fuehrerbefehl to the Army upon the invasion of Russia, June 1941

  209. numo wrote:

    @ Patrice:
    He sounds like he’s part of MRA/manosphere to me.

    Didn’t the Santa Cruz Shooter leave behind an online MRA/Manosphere Manifesto along with thousands of uploaded Selfies?

  210. Muff Potter wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    I dont read Genesis as a science text on creation so tend to take a largoutside. Humans made choices outsude of God’s wisdom that had severe consequences yet God provides rescue.
    Nor do I see an angry God at the fall. One whose anger must be assuaged and placated. I see a heartsick and horrified parent at the evil forces set in motion by an honest mistake.

    And I cannot imagine that Genesis was written with gender roles/creation order in mind–for crying out loud! The things we read into it are ridiculous in light of the genre. It would be like me saying we must mine all our literal truths about life, creation, gender out of the details of poetry.

    But because we went that way with Torah, we miss the most beautiful overarching truths- God’s wisdom and His provision of rescue.

  211. I’m not really sure who the Assoc. of Biblical Counselors is, but just from glancing this one page of their site over, I agree with a lot of what I’m seeing on it:

    How do we Help a Woman Become More Like Christ?
    https://christiancounseling.com/blog/identityroles/how-do-we-help-a-woman-become-more-like-christ/

    Snippet:

    by Leslie Vernick
    When conservative Christians are asked to describe the qualities of a godly woman, most describe her using traditionally feminine traits. We say a godly women would be humble, submissive, trusting, vulnerable, compassionate, and a helper.

    These are important and wonderful biblical qualities, but they don’t make a complete or mature person nor are they only for females. A woman who has only these traits is lacking important Christian virtues that are necessary for her to embrace for Christ to be fully formed in her.

    In fact, what often happens when a Christian woman displays more masculine traits then we’re used to, especially in marriage or with other men, she may be labeled anything but godly.

    If she is bold, or assertive, or persistent, or direct, or courageous or confrontational—she is often seen in a negative light, as if she doesn’t know her place as a good Christian woman.

    That thinking is restrictive and unbiblical.

  212. Daisy – thanks for the info on the Abusive Relationship book. I am going to order it. Maybe I’ll understand my mom better.

  213. harley wrote:

    Daisy – thanks for the info on the Abusive Relationship book. I am going to order it. Maybe I’ll understand my mom better.

    You’re welcome. The weird thing I learned from the book (but it is also pretty freeing) is that you’ll never really understand why verbal abusers go into their tirades, nor will you be able to make sense of the content of their tirades.

    The author does explain that at the root of the problem why verbal abusers abuse – one “why” is that they use verbal abusers to control people in their lives – but at the end of the day, the nasty behavior is never really going to make sense.

    The author says too many victims try to make sense of the garbage yelled at them by their verbally abusive family member or partner, but the abusive behavior is itself irrational. She says trying to make sense of it is futile, a waste of time.

    All you need to know is that such behavior is not right, and you shouldn’t have to put up with it.

    On another level, you learn that verbal abuse is a deliberate choice the abuser makes.

    One tip-off of that is you will notice your verbal or emotional abuser will seldom be nasty to you in front of other people, usually only in private. They can control when and how they are nasty to you. They are able to control it so that they don’t do it front of company.

    Once you realize all that, you’ll stop trying to walk on egg shells with your abusers.

    You will learn there is nothing you can do to change or placate your abuser. Being nicer to them won’t work. Trying to reason with them, or ask them to play fair, or explain why you did what you did won’t work.

    That may sound hopeless, but that can be liberating as well. In my own case, I now realize my own family member’s verbal abuse is all completely on her. It doesn’t have anything to do with me, even though I am the target of her nasty behavior on occasion.

    I don’t waste time anymore trying to figure it out, nor do I blame myself for her angry outbursts and put downs.

    Anyway, I thought it was a very helpful book. I hope you find it helpful too.

    The author of the book (The Verbally Abusive Relationship) also explains that verbal abuse is not just overt stuff, like name calling, screaming, using profanity, but it comes in other, less obvious forms.

  214. @ Daisy:

    Another reason is they don’t want to take responsibility for themselves so lashing out is how they handle that. The verbal abuse is really about blaming others/defending themselves. It is hard to see that because it does not make sense to the one being verbally abused.

    If they talk loud enough and long enough–they win.

  215. Patrice wrote:

    I’d wait for an apology for his cruelty but it never came. Instead my ex would walk away with satisfaction on his face. He saw it as a battle which he won by my giving over on a small part. Even when I pointed this out to him, nothing changed.

    I’ve lived through this type of $hit too. Those kinds of people cannot ‘feel’ others by way of empathy and consideration. So they do ‘unto others’ not caring whether or not the action causes pain to the ‘other’. The only ‘ouch’ factor they can feel is their own, completely unconnected from others.

  216. @ Lydia:

    Yeah, that is another aspect of it, the book gets into that, too.

    The author said for the verbal abuser to stop the abuse, they’d have to deal with their own insecurities, demons, flaws, maybe go into therapy. They would have to admit they are being a bully, but they won’t admit that.

    The abuser would need to do a lot of self-inventory, and get honest with themselves, all of which they are too lazy or afraid to do.

    My sister has often treated me like I’m an enemy, which I find strange. I’ve never regarded her or treated her as an enemy.

    The author also brings that up. She says a lot of abusers will view you or treat you as their enemy, even if you are a spouse, best friend, sibling, or however close, and you have the abuser’s best interest at heart.

    Verbal abusers view relationships as being based in win/lose terms, and want power and control over someone else (concepts that are all foreign to me).

    I’m more about trying to find mutually satisfying resolutions in a dispute, not steam rolling over the other person and getting my way, or intentionally making them feel like dirt.

    Verbal abusers, though, are the total opposite of that. It’s hard for me to wrap my head around how they view relationships, arguments, and everything else.

    One thing I find very sad about this is that I finally learned and accepted through reading this book (and just life experience) that I can never have a close relationship with my sister (which is something I always wanted), because SHE does not really want one.

    She doesn’t view us as equals. I’m an enemy to be trampled on, yelled at, put down, etc. I’ve had to learn to keep her at arm’s length.

    I can’t view her as a confidant, either, because she uses any personal stuff you share with her as ammo to beat you up with later. The book also mentions that too – some verbal abusers use your personal information against you.

  217. Speaking of complementarians and abuse, Warren Throckmorton has posted how Mark Driscoll has incorporated a church here in Phoenix. No idea on when it’s going to launch or where. If the mailbox is any indication, it’s likely to be in Northeast Phoenix or Scottsdale, a very rich area of town.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/12/13/mark-driscoll-listed-as-director-of-newly-incorporated-the-trinity-church-in-phoenix/

    We don’t need Driscoll’s brand of crazy here in the Valley of the Sun.

  218. mirele wrote:

    Mark Driscoll has incorporated a church here in Phoenix. No idea on when it’s going to launch or where. If the mailbox is any indication, it’s likely to be in Northeast Phoenix or Scottsdale, a very rich area of town.

    I had not thought wealth was a counter indicator of intelligence. How come wealthy are taken in by these well known frauds?

  219. The fruits of the spirit and the whole armor of God are not divided into man parts and woman parts.

  220. mirele wrote:

    Speaking of complementarians and abuse, Warren Throckmorton has posted how Mark Driscoll has incorporated a church here in Phoenix. No idea on when it’s going to launch or where. If the mailbox is any indication, it’s likely to be in Northeast Phoenix or Scottsdale, a very rich area of town.

    Follow the money.

  221. Daisy wrote:

    Leslie Vernick
    We say a godly women would be humble, submissive, trusting, vulnerable, compassionate, and a helper.

    If she is bold, or assertive, or persistent, or direct, or courageous or confrontational—she is often seen in a negative light, as if she doesn’t know her place as a good Christian woman.

    A succinct articulation of putting someone in a box. My observation is the modern pharisees, many professional “pastors”, put all of us into the same box.

  222. Lydia wrote:

    And I cannot imagine that Genesis was written with gender roles/creation order in mind–for crying out loud!

    Your statement summarizes my thoughts reading through the comments. It sounds like a Rorschach test, sort of similar to when I return from a backpack trip everything looks like a bacon cheeseburger. Apparently they have an obsession with gender roles/male supremacy, yeah I know, duh.

  223. I don’t know what it says about me, but it took me less than 20 minutes to come up with 12 reasons why Mark Driscoll shouldn’t pastor again–with links–and post them to my Twitter. I helpfully copied them to Driscoll. What it says about Driscoll is that if some woman in Arizona who has a lot of things on her mind can quickly cough up a list of a dozen reasons why Driscoll is unfit to pastor, then maybe there is really something there.

  224. Darlene wrote:

    I’ve heard from various sources, those who have been part of the military, that often times women are given a pass from having to complete all the necessary and strenuous training during boot camp.

    That might happen in some places; I don’t know. The more recent claim is that women have been allowed to sign up, at the last minute, for elite endurance testing in programs for which male troops have had months of formal training. Women in these circumstances might pass about as often as a walk-on player joins a Division I football team. Overall the military adjusts well to changes in eligibility, when training is appropriate.

  225. Muff Potter wrote:

    I’ve lived through this type of $hit too. Those kinds of people cannot ‘feel’ others by way of empathy and consideration. So they do ‘unto others’ not caring whether or not the action causes pain to the ‘other’. The only ‘ouch’ factor they can feel is their own, completely unconnected from others.

    As someone described it, “Exquisite Sensitivity towards any slight to themselves (real or imagined), coupled with Utter Indifference as to how they might slight or harm others.”

  226. Daisy wrote:

    One tip-off of that is you will notice your verbal or emotional abuser will seldom be nasty to you in front of other people, usually only in private. They can control when and how they are nasty to you. They are able to control it so that they don’t do it front of company.

    “Not any Heavenly virtue, but Hellish Respectability.”
    — one of the Father Brown Mysteries

  227. Daisy wrote:

    “Her role is not in such places. Her role is at home managing the house and raising a new generation,” he said. “If we allow her out of the house to do such business, who is going to take care of my sons?”

    This does call to mind those good Christian American wives who have decided not to vote anymore, because their husbands should represent them to the government.

  228. Bill M wrote:

    How come wealthy are taken in by these well known frauds?

    In my region, quite a few fancy megachurches have set up shop among the fancy mansions. No need to view the greasy poor on Sundays. Of course, all of that valuable land, owned by the megas, contributes no taxes. That part does upset some of the locals, who would like to have a police force, fire department, libraries, parks, schools, etc. I do not favor taxing the church, but this situation is one of those unintended consequences.

  229. Daisy wrote:

    The author said for the verbal abuser to stop the abuse, they’d have to deal with their own insecurities, demons, flaws, maybe go into therapy. They would have to admit they are being a bully, but they won’t admit that.

    The abuser would need to do a lot of self-inventory, and get honest with themselves, all of which they are too lazy or afraid to do.

    Thanks for sharing Daisy, it’s a help. I have Patricia Evans’ book but yet to read it – will get cracking on it. Same for Lundy Bancroft’s work. I’ve forwarded your comments to a relative who is struggling at the moment.

  230. @ Haitch:

    Let me know if I can be of anymore help.
    The Patricia Evans book pertains to verbal abuse in marriages, but I was able to apply what she wrote to my sister, who is a verbal abuser.

    I’ve come across blog pages that convey a lot of the same information as the Evans book that are pretty good, such as this one (which addresses one aspect of verbal abuse, its irrationality):

    Why You Can’t Reason with a Verbally Abusive Partner
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mysteries-love/201504/why-you-can-t-reason-verbally-abusive-partner

  231. Friend wrote:

    I do not favour taxing the church…

    I realise there are large congregations, and there are large congregations. But your observation provoked two thoughts at this end…

    1) Jesus doesn’t tax the church, if I understand matters aright – but the management structures of a significant number of megachurch corporations do – the tithes and offerings they levy from their people, who are of course the Church, are a tax in all but name.

    2) Many profit-making pyramid marketing organisations trade under the label of “church” (or related brand-labels such as “gospel” used as an adjective). I’m all in favour of taxing them.

  232. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ Tina:
    In Point Man – in the chapter Raising Masculine Sons and Feminine Daughters – Farrar explicitly states that if your son grows up to be gay its because the father was a passive, unbiblical man who allowed his son to be overmothered. Regardless of your views on LGBTQ, that is a horrible and disturbing thing to say.

    I know of a family who has a gay son, and the father in that family is *far* from being passive and unbiblical.

  233. @ Nate Sparks:
    My parents both love Jesus, and I have never doubted their love for me. I grew up in a wonderful family, and if the comparatively minuscule flaws in their parenting could make me gay, then how does anyone explain how the majority of humankind managed to turn out straight?

    All I will claim with regard to your point is that I do try to live in accordance with Jesus’ example, as best as I can, and as best as I understand it. Never minding that, the fact that I don’t repudiate my orientation and inflict reparative therapy upon myself would be enough to disqualify me from ever being considered “godly” in the eyes of some of the Christians whom I know (even if I swore that I’d be 110% celibate forever).

  234. @ Josh:
    Thank you for sharing. I agree the way Christians often set up absurdist categories to keep certain persons defined as “outsiders” is unacceptable. It breaks my heart. I have no doubt you are exponentially more Christ-like than many of the people who seek to denigrate you.

  235. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    Hall has never responded to me, in fact he chose to block me rather than engage my work (which I’m fairly certain he has read). And I am not apologizing for calling him out. Only for an unfortunate rhetorical mistake which I recognize – regardless of how hateful and unChrist-like he may be – does not excuse my use of a Straw Man.

    Nate, you read Hall’s words the same as I did. (I have to think, we aren’t alone.)

  236. Patriciamc wrote:

    refugee wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Or Deborah, a judge mentioned in the Old Testament, I believe, who led Israel’s army?
    I’ve had a number of comps tell me, with straight faces, that Deborah’s judgeship was God’s judgment on Israel. Like it was some sort of disgrace, or something.

    Well, they certainly don’t know their Bible, do they? I find that complementarians are bad about reading things into the Bible, things that simply aren’t there!

    Not to mention reading out what they don’t want to deal with.
    A guilty conscience is a funny thing…..

  237. rhondajeannie wrote:

    I pine for the days of Jesus. Jesus taught equality in a time of unbelievable inequality. Comps teach inequality in a time when the world is working towards equality. I wonder why? Could it be that comps pine for the days BC (before Christ).

    That’s a scary thought, but I have to say, it could very well be true….

  238. Nate Sparks wrote:

    I have extended the invitation before, and it stands, you are welcome on my site any time and you would prefer a 1 on 1 conversation, you are always welcome to email me.

    Thanks for the invite. I may or may not take you up on this, but if I don’t it’s more because of time than anything else, and partly that like predestination and freewill this subject can be argued to an impasse.

  239. patriciamc wrote:

    Like I’ve said before, you have to reconcile Paul’s writings with Christ’s teachings in order to get Paul right. Then, there’s the whole context of the book, chapter, etc. So, looking at Ephesians 5:21 (mutual submission),

    If egalitarians want to persuade complementarians that their view is wrong, they will never achieve this by setting Paul against Jesus. Paul (and Peter) were apostles commissioned by Christ, and their writings are in evangelical theology as much the word of God as the actual sayings of Jesus recorded in the gospels.

    I’ve discussed whether submission is mutual in the context of Eph 5 more than once with Daisy, and have given some 6 reasons why in this passage it is not mutual. This she has simply ignored, so I continue to think this.

    I used to think it was mutual here incidentally, it was re-reading the passage more carefully recently that made me change my mind.

  240. Daisy wrote:

    Have you ever read “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” by Patricia Evans?

    ….You might find that book helpful. I know it helped me to understand my verbally abusive sister more or better.

    I’ve not read Patricia Evan’s book, which I hear is very good. I sorted out my verbally-abused brain with a lovely therapist a while back and am ok now, thank goodness.

    I’m glad that you’ve cut those strings to your sister. Letting it all go is a slow process. It took me a long time. And yesss, the freedom is wonderful!

  241. @ Nate Sparks:
    Ok, Nate. I thought the twitter apology was exactly right. Just don’t forget that bit about not throwing pearls to swine.

    BTW, I very much appreciated your post on logical fallacies. Wish it would be posted everywhere. It could improve online debate a great deal. (Although that knowledge apparently hasn’t done a thing for Wilson and Company, who indulge all of them while accusing others of same, willy-nilly.)

  242. Muff Potter wrote:

    I’ve lived through this type of $hit too. Those kinds of people cannot ‘feel’ others by way of empathy and consideration. So they do ‘unto others’ not caring whether or not the action causes pain to the ‘other’. The only ‘ouch’ factor they can feel is their own, completely unconnected from others.

    It took me forever to come to the same conclusion. Arg.

  243. Twice pulling a published books for significant plagorism indicates that true integrity and truth is not really I,portent to him….. His power is most important… Sure signs cult leadership direction

    zooey111 wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Regarding Doug Wilson, I consider him a Cult Leader in the Jim Jones tradition.
    Too true!

  244. Muff Potter wrote:

    I’ve lived through this type of $hit too. Those kinds of people cannot ‘feel’ others by way of empathy and consideration. So they do ‘unto others’ not caring whether or not the action causes pain to the ‘other’. The only ‘ouch’ factor they can feel is their own, completely unconnected from others.

    Because in their Cosmos, NOTHING exists except “MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”

    “His universe has room only for himself.”
    — Mercedes Lackey, referring to the main Bad Guy in one of her fantasy novels

  245. @ Ken:

    What about 1 Peter 5:5? The word “subject” there is from the same word rendered “submit” in Ephesians. Is any believer excluded from the submission called for in 1 Peter 5:5?

  246. Ken wrote:

    This she has simply ignored, so I continue to think this.

    I’m actually using your own rule: taking the Bible as it’s plainly written. Eph 5.21 does not contain a clause saying,”this verse does not apply to husbands.”

    Also IIRC, the word “submit” is not in Eph 5.22 but was carried over from v. 21.

    What About Submission and Headship?
    Chapter 6 from her book…………….

    http://godswordtowomen.org/krupp.htm

    Snippet:
    ————–
    The pivotal verse is verse 21, the one that is so often omitted when quoting the portion in Ephesians 5 having to do with the submission issue.

    It says, “. . . be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” One simply can not single out one portion of society, that is, one-half of the human race, and say that this Scripture tells them, and them alone, to submit.

    Rather, Paul is saying there needs to be a general spirit of submission to one another on every level: wives to husbands, husbands to wives; children to parents, fathers to children; and slaves to masters, masters to slaves.

    To quote Ephesians 5:22-33 without including verse 21 is a gross exegetical error (Rule #3, Rule of Context, p. 49).

    Furthermore, to quote verse 22 in its original state would not make sense without verse 21, because the verb in the Greek text was not included in verse 22.

    The original text of verse 22 actually reads, “wives to your own husbands as to the Lord.”
    So when most of our translations say, “Wives, (be subject) to your own husbands,” they’re having to insert words that are not in the original in order to make a complete sentence.1

    When quoting this portion in Ephesians, verse 21 must be included to give true integrity to the subject.

  247. @ Patrice:

    I do still have some contact with her, but I keep her at arm’s length now and no longer confide in her about deeply personal issues.

    I did block her from one of my social media accounts earlier this year for picking fights with me on there (which I have never done with her) and leaving me catty comments. I recently unblocked her on that social media account. As long as she doesn’t start in being mean to me again, she’s welcome to be friends with me on there.

    But anyway yes, concerning abusive persons, really the only solution I see put forward in most books by therapists, psychologists, etc, is to either remove yourself entirely from them, or put limits on how much you contact or visit them.

    I had really wanted to have a close relationship with both siblings, but that doesn’t look possible, especially not with my sister.

    Reading books and blogs about abuse has been very educational and informative. I certainly find them more helpful than usual Christian advice (like, just read your Bible more, pray for the person, etc).

  248. As a white, 55 year old male, that is married, I have always wondered why Eph 5:22-23 is quite often cited without 5:21….

    Daisy wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    This she has simply ignored, so I continue to think this.
    I’m actually using your own rule: taking the Bible as it’s plainly written. Eph 5.21 does not contain a clause saying,”this verse does not apply to husbands.”
    Also IIRC, the word “submit” is not in Eph 5.22 but was carried over from v. 21.
    What About Submission and Headship?
    Chapter 6 from her book…………….
    http://godswordtowomen.org/krupp.htm
    Snippet:
    ————–
    The pivotal verse is verse 21, the one that is so often omitted when quoting the portion in Ephesians 5 having to do with the submission issue.
    It says, “. . . be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” One simply can not single out one portion of society, that is, one-half of the human race, and say that this Scripture tells them, and them alone, to submit.
    Rather, Paul is saying there needs to be a general spirit of submission to one another on every level: wives to husbands, husbands to wives; children to parents, fathers to children; and slaves to masters, masters to slaves.
    To quote Ephesians 5:22-33 without including verse 21 is a gross exegetical error (Rule #3, Rule of Context, p. 49).
    Furthermore, to quote verse 22 in its original state would not make sense without verse

    21, because the verb in the Greek text was not included in verse 22.
    The original text of verse 22 actually reads, “wives to your own husbands as to the Lord.”
    So when most of our translations say, “Wives, (be subject) to your own husbands,” they’re having to insert words that are not in the original in order to make a complete sentence.1
    When quoting this portion in Ephesians, verse 21 must be included to give true integrity to the subject.

  249. Ken wrote:

    If egalitarians want to persuade complementarians that their view is wrong, they will never achieve this by setting Paul against Jesus. Paul (and Peter) were apostles commissioned by Christ,

    If Complementarians want to be Biblically accurate and to stop making up new doctrines, then they need to stop making Paul and Peter say things that directly contradict and violate the words of Jesus.
    Egals are NOT setting Paul against Jesus.
    Egals are pointing out that one MUST see the words of Paul being built on the Bedrock of Jesus.
    Comps build the words of Paul on the bedrock of the traditions of men. They are the ones who have thrown away the words of Jesus in order to support their aberrant doctrine based on misunderstanding Paul. Comps are the ones that CANCEL OUT the words of Jesus in order to make Paul say the things they want.

    Neither the words of Jesus nor Paul should be cancelled out.
    However, if there is ever a contest between either one, I’m sorry, but Paul loses.
    He shouldn’t have to.
    But the dynamic that Comps set up make it one (Paul) OR the other (Jesus) never both, something that should not be happening.
    So it is the Comp doctrine that sets the words of Paul against and opposed to the words of Jesus. And it is Comp doctrine that sweeps away the words of Jesus in order to support their misunderstanding of Paul.

  250. @ Ken:
    No worries either way Ken. I enjoy a good dialogue and you seem to widely respected here for your ability to maintain one in a respectful fashion.

    Peace to you

  251. Daisy wrote:

    I do still have some contact with her, but I keep her at arm’s length now and no longer confide in her about deeply personal issues.

    ….But anyway yes, concerning abusive persons, really the only solution I see put forward in most books by therapists, psychologists, etc, is to either remove yourself entirely from them, or put limits on how much you contact or visit them.

    It took a while for me to understand that respect also means giving others the freedom to act badly, if that’s what they choose. After all, if God doesn’t force goodness down our throats in this life, then certainly a finagling approach by another small creature like me won’t work.

    It also took a while to apply that same respect/acceptance towards myself. We are obliged to eventually withdraw from those who insist on acting poisonously. It’s that bit about ‘loving others as self’, yah?

    It sounds like you are being careful and sensible about your sister. Daisy, I’ve been reading your comments for a couple of years now. You are very open about your sorting/processing, and IMO, you’ve been doing it beautifully.

  252. @ Ken:
    Ken,

    I agree with you in terms of how you responded to your reading of Patrice’s comment. It is a mistake to put Jesus and Paul (or Peter, etc.) at odds. But I didn’t read her comment that way.

    Perhaps I’m seeing what I want to see. But i read her comment to mean we must recognize that the words of Jesus can provide a helpful interpretive framework for some of Paul’s writing and ignoring these things can cause us to be clumsy in oir hermeneutic. That is o say, I have discussed these passages with quite a few people who wish to read them as isolated, one-off proof-texts without considering any intertextual treatments.

    Hermeneutically speaking I consider that dangerous.

  253. Patrice wrote:

    It sounds like you are being careful and sensible about your sister. Daisy, I’ve been reading your comments for a couple of years now. You are very open about your sorting/processing, and IMO, you’ve been doing it beautifully.

    Thank you. It’s been tough. I’m doing a lot of this stuff alone – IRL. I do get the occasional supportive comment from someone on the internet, such as yourself, so thank you 🙂

  254. Ken wrote:

    If egalitarians want to persuade complementarians that their view is wrong, they will never achieve this by setting Paul against Jesus. Paul (and Peter) were apostles commissioned by Christ, and their writings are in evangelical theology as much the word of God as the actual sayings of Jesus recorded in the gospels.

    Most people who reject comp, whether they go the egal label or not, are not arguing to ignore Paul altogether but suggesting that comps need to filter Paul through Jesus,
    but comps tend to ignore Jesus or filter Jesus through Paul.

  255. Ken wrote:

    I’ve discussed whether submission is mutual in the context of Eph 5 more than once with Daisy

    This is a Part 2. I did one post above to you addressing this.

    This is one ramification of your teaching of one way submission:
    Investigation found that a theology of one-way submission of women to men breeds domestic abuse in S. Carolina
    http://www.postandcourier.com/tilldeath/partthree.html

    Additionally, the Bible teaches Christians over and over there are to be no authority over, no hierarchies, but in arguing for male headship,

    (even slapping pretty labels on it, such as “servant leadership”), you are in fact arguing for hierarchy among Christians, not equality.

    The NT teaches equality for all, not any one group to have power, authority over another, and the Bible says not to play favorites.

    But you want to believe that God wants all Christians to show favortism to males. It teaches no such thing.

    Gender comp male hierarchy teachings violate the spirit of the whole New Testament. You are laser focusing on one or two verses while ignoring the overall theme and backdrop of the rest of the NT, Jesus’ teachings, and Jesus example of how to treat others.

    Galatians 3.28 – there is neither male nor female in Christ, and that means no authority over, that verse is not talking about equality of salvation.

    Jesus said his followers are not to lord authority over one another, but you are arguing that husbands can and should lord authority over a wife.

  256. Nate Sparks wrote:

    I would dare say (brace yourself) that a godly father could raise a godly son wh0 also happens to be gay.

    Yep ! I slaughtered another sacred cow over the weekend – I stated in godly company that it was possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (I then ducked for cover).

  257. @ Daisy:
    Daisy – you’re on fire ! Word. You express yourself powerfully (Haitch copies these words of yours and emails to a friend who has suffered abuse in her ‘Christian marriage’ – abuse that was justified using Paul’s words)

  258. Haitch wrote:

    Nate Sparks wrote:
    I would dare say (brace yourself) that a godly father could raise a godly son wh0 also happens to be gay.
    Yep ! I slaughtered another sacred cow over the weekend – I stated in godly company that it was possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (I then ducked for cover).

    Thing about evolution is, it is nothing to a God who exists in all time, who is unbounded by it, who is absolutely nothing like us in the sense of us passing through time like travelers. To a God who is the Alpha and Omega, who is not waiting to see what happens in the future but already there, as well as being there in the past, being everywhere all times, all places, all dimensions, all universes (if there are others besides ours) what difference is it to such a God whether He creates us in billions of years or one microsecond? It’s all the same to such a God, one has to think. I am not saying I worship at the altar of macro evolution, for all I know nothing whatsoever existed prior to 6,500 years ago when God created the Universe, who knows? All we think we know about science could be wrong, what are we but little ignoramuses? But, to the people who say one cannot believe in evolution and be a Christian, their God is too small, their God is made in their image.

    I am almost to the point where I’m wondering if one can be a Christian and insist that one cannot be a Christian except by believing in a 6,000 year old Earth.

  259. Law Prof wrote:

    I am almost to the point where I’m wondering if one can be a Christian and insist that one cannot be a Christian except by believing in a 6,000 year old Earth.

    Creation: did God actually mean a 24 hour day with 60 minutes in each hour and 60 seconds in each minute, or was He just using the word ” day” to describe the steps in creation, where time as we define it has no relevance???

  260. Haitch wrote:

    Yep ! I slaughtered another sacred cow over the weekend – I stated in godly company that it was possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (I then ducked for cover).

    That’s nothing. I used the phrase “all kinds of shyte” in a prayer meeting. Though, to be frank, the risk was minimal as we were in pretty broad-minded company.

  261. Nancy2 wrote:

    Creation: did God actually mean a 24 hour day with 60 minutes in each hour and 60 seconds in each minute, or was He just using the word ” day” to describe the steps in creation, where time as we define it has no relevance???

    Point 1 of 2

    Since he didn’t make the sun etc until the fourth day, he clearly wasn’t running to solar time on the first three.

    Point 2 of 2

    Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters…

    … for how long, I wonder? And I know I’m not alone in wondering.

  262. Haitch wrote:

    Yep ! I slaughtered another sacred cow over the weekend

    Save a New York strip steak for me, medium well, please!

  263. @ Daisy:
    I hear you, more than you know. Is there any chance you might be able to work with a good therapist/counselor on some of these issues? It all takes time, but the kind of objective feedback plus suggestions that can come from a good counselor are priceless.

  264. Wow. What a tour-de-force of a post. This hit me straight in the gut! I have read it, re-read it and thought about it. I was debating whether to post an opinion. You know the adage, “If you can’t say anything nice…” We have seen example after example of how the Bible has been used to subjugate. How women and children have been harmed by these patriarchal attitudes. How abuse has been allowed to flourish in the legalistic controlling atmosphere fostered by a narcissistic leadership. Where church attendees are compared to dumb barn animals. But to hear it all in one place….stunning.

    One of the last church services I attended featured a message from James Dobson regarding the “homosexual agenda”. It was the most fascistic screed that I had ever heard with my own ears outside of old recordings of Adolf Hitler. I said to my wife “I have to leave…now”. I got up, walked out and waited in the car. My wife thought I was ill..and I was. The kicker is that this church would probably be considered moderate by evangelical standards.

    It seems that many churches are pulling a bait and switch. The Sunday services are filled with folks who really don’t follow this crap. It was explained to me that “We take what’s good and leave the rest”.

    However the deeper you go down the rabbit hole the more you realize you aren’t in Kansas anymore.
    Hearing Driscoll, reading Piper, hearing Mahaney for the first time with regarding men’s lust is the fault immodestly dressed women – this sounds like something from Saturday Night Live! It would be a funny but given the damage being done – it’s not.

    Those same ill feelings came over me as I read and listen to the information detailed here.

    And here’s something interesting in Mr. Sparks post

    “My own church, which has women pastors, defended a sermon in which guest speaker Bishop Walter Harvey claimed the role of a woman to her husband is submissive helper and incubator. Harvey also stated the way to a happy marriage is for women to meet their husband’s need for “Sex, Sex, Sex”.

    Not only did they defend him, they welcomed him back with open arms to speak at a missions conference on reconciliation. During this conference, he claimed that he disagreed with the theological position of some Pentecostals on female attire because “Some women need makeup”.”

    This would no longer be “my church”, this would be my “ex-church”. I’m only going by the optics that I see here – I don’t know if Mr. Sparks spoke out as a member – but there are many who don’t. Who tut tut but still tithe tithe. What do you think your money supports?

    The secular world is right in this case. Men & women are equal. Period. That statement got me rebuked in a previous post but I stand by it. I would sooner my fate be Hell than go to a Heaven to hang out with these bullies for all eternity. I don’t get the complementarian worldview and I never will. I feel bad for their wives and children, I feel bad for the young men forced into the “manly” role during these economic times – when you need to be a full partnership now more than ever! The pressure they must feel!

    There’s a reason we don’t want to go to church anymore. Rational people listen to this garbage and cringe. If the Church won’t stand up to these “men”, then there is no hope for the church. And no chance I would be attending.

    Mr. Sparks post is a clarion call for reform.

  265. Haitch wrote:

    Yep ! I slaughtered another sacred cow over the weekend – I stated in godly company that it was possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution (I then ducked for cover).

    Way to go! 😀

    As a gay Christian who is an evolutionary creationist, an egalitarian, and who believes in inspiration but not necessarily inerrancy as defined by most modern evangelicals, I tip all of the sacred cows. All of them. It’s a slippery slope, I tell ya! 😉

  266. To Daisy – i ordered the book. Can’t wait to read it. Hopefully I will learn a lot and share with others like you do.

  267. Daisy wrote:

    Jesus said his followers are not to lord authority over one another, but you are arguing that husbands can and should lord authority over a wife.

    I can almost guess Ken’s answer to this. He’d say that men have a more difficult responsibility to be “servant leaders” — I’m not sure if he’d go so far as to say servant leadership/headship is actually more difficult than submitting is, but I’ve heard that implied by other comps. (Maybe that’s why so many men in comp marriages “fail” at it.)

  268. What if the focus isn’t about who is the boss or who should submit? What if it is just about giving ourselves to each other the way Jesus described in John 17?

  269. @ numo:
    I can’t afford professional therapy, but I’ll consider it it if become possible. 🙂

    Just reading some of these books and blogs has been really eye opening for me. I wish I could have known when I was younger what I know now.

  270. @ harley:

    Another good book I learned about from another poster here (I think their screen name is Victorious?? -apologies to that person if I got the name wrong) is “Tired of Trying to Measure Up,” by Jeff VanVonderen.

    That person saw that book featured on Wade Burleson’s blog.

    I have ordered a copy of that for myself, it has not shown up in the mail yet.

    I have read sample chapters of it, for free, in the meantime on Google books:
    Tired of Trying to Measure Up by Jeff VanVonderen.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=7G9W21sgiSAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    I think that book could be good for just about anyone and everyone, but especially for people who are now in, or who were at one time in, abusive relationships or families, or families where you were shamed and criticized quite often.

  271. @ Dave MacKenzie:
    I’m sorry I somehow missed your comment until just now. I’ll admit, I’m not used to the comment traffic here. At my blog, I am lucky to get a couple comments on any given day as I am still a very small outfit. I tried to keep up, unfortunately yours fell through the cracks.

    That being said, you are getting close. I chose the phrase “Not All Comps” as a play on a hashtag that circulated a year or two ago, “Not All Men”. It became common for men to insert themselves into conversations of sexual harassment, abuse, rape, and other forms of assault. Rather than attempting to hear the voices of the victims, to consider the ways in which they may empower abusers by creating a “boys will be boys” culture (among other things) these guys would attempt to negate the pain and catharsis of these women, many of whom were finding the courage to speak up by shifting the focus onto themselves. They would say “Not All Men” as a way of trying to talk about how they would never do that. In reality, whether or not I have ever sexually assaulted someone has nothing to do with the pain another person feels. If I assert myself into a conversation and intentionally work to delegitimate their pain, to silence their voice, I am part of a system which enables and protects the abusers.

    So, after a conversation with an egalitarian who told me I was conflating, that I needed to stop pointing out the abuses because it was alienating a potential part of my audience, I wrote this post as a reflection on that comment. It isn’t intended to provide a solid answer. It is intended to ask difficult questions: Where do we draw the line? How many influential leaders need to make inflammatory and derisive statements, how many need to work to actively silence victims while supporting their abusers openly, before we call it a systemic problem?

    Now, when Weaver wrote his post, I offered my already published post as a rebuttal – of sorts. Weaver took an approach which admitted that complementarianism can lead to problems of gross abuse. But he turned around and denied that this is a theological problem, he says it is a “sin” problem. What he, in my opinion, failed to do was reflect honestly on the fact that sin is, primarily, a problem of systems in Scripture.

    Jesus doesn’t often condemn an individual. Instead, he condemns the systems of oppression, denigration, privilege, and power they promote. He recognizes the Pharisees desire to serve God, but calls them out for doing so by setting themselves up as unquestionable authorities and making laws which serve to enslave and keep people down.

    In the same way, I have researched and carefully quote and/or cited the views of a largely influential representative sampling of Complementarian leaders. And I have then placed a series of statements they have made because of their theological commitments. I chose to do this in a style similar to one the apostle Paul uses. I present the dissenting opinion, then present a counter argument. Thus, my hypothetical dialogue partner – representing conversations I have had – makes their assertion. I counter with an example that points to issues of abuse from a prominent leader. And we go back and forth, they deny the problem even as each leader seems to only perpetuate the problem.

    In the end, I ask that we use this as a case study. Yes it is about complementarians, but the same would apply to any faith commitment which becomes an internalized system competing with our claim to primary identity in Christ. It asks at what point we are preserving a desire to be “normative” even if that means using the Gospel to keep people out, when we end up at war with the body of Christ itself. And it asks at what point even good, God-fearing people can become part of the problem by their unwillingness to stand up and say “Enough!”

    I’m not sure how you’ll feel about the subject matter, but to understand a bit about how I dissect arguments, and why I seek to target ideological systems and not specifically individuals, this post might be helpful. Would love to hear your thoughts.

    https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/rhetorical-questions/

  272. I think James Dobson was misrepresented. Have you read is “Love must be tough”? If so you wouldn’t put him in the camp these other boys are in. He talks about Tough love. Take a look at it and you’ll see what I mean. Hardly blind stupid submission

  273. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    That’s nothing. I used the phrase “all kinds of shyte” in a prayer meeting

    I’m convinced you can get away with saying just about anything if it’s said in a Sco’ish accent. I’ll only partly forgive you if you still have an English inflection…

  274. BC wrote:

    I think James Dobson was misrepresented. Have you read is “Love must be tough”? If so you wouldn’t put him in the camp these other boys are in. He talks about Tough love. Take a look at it and you’ll see what I mean. Hardly blind stupid submission

    Um, sorry to jump in, but a call out to anyone – this raises a topic I was just thinking of on the weekend. I’m looking for some good critiques of Dr Dobson and his foundations’ ideology/philosophy/theology/impact etc. Any recommendations appreciated.

  275. Jack wrote:

    Hearing Driscoll, reading Piper, hearing Mahaney for the first time with regarding men’s lust is the fault immodestly dressed women – this sounds like something from Saturday Night Live!

    Actually, sounds like something from Saudi, Talibanistan, or the World Caliphate of ISIS.

  276. bonnie knox wrote:

    What about 1 Peter 5:5? The word “subject” there is from the same word rendered “submit” in Ephesians. Is any believer excluded from the submission called for in 1 Peter 5:5?

    Glad you asked!

    In context Peter as a elder is exhorting the elders of the church to tend/shepherd the flock, not as domineering but being examples. He then adds an instruction to the younger in the church Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. He finishes off with Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another.

    The young need to respect the responsibility the elders have to oversee the church, and arguably the wisdom of the elderly in general in the church if they are mature Christians with decades of experience under their belt. The submission here is not mutual, not reciprocal. The elders are not told to submit to the younger. Be subject to one another out of reverance for Christ does not mean everyone submits to everyone, but one person or group submits to another person or group as the case may be in context.

    Peter says one thing to the elders, another thing to the younger, and finally addresses all of them to have humility; now that is reciprocal. You cannot simply apply all these differing sets of instructions to everyone.

    This pattern occurs earlier on in the epistle in chapter 3. First he addresses wives, then husbands, then all of you (v 8 and note humility again). You can’t swap these around or mix and match. I take Paul in Eph 5 the same way. When he addresses wives, he means wives, and similarly with the word to husbands.

    I was struck by the repetition of the call to humility. I suspect when this goes wrong in a marriage or church, the underlying reason is pride; either men who are too proud to lay down their lives for their wives thinking themselves superior, or wives (or young people) who are too proud to submit to anyone else. I hope you notice pride is an equal opportunities employer!

    The problem then is not the NT writers and their doctrine: it’s in us. It’s why we need to corporately go on being filled with the Spirit to have any real hope of getting this right.

  277. Mara wrote:

    Neither the words of Jesus nor Paul should be cancelled out.

    I agree, but setting Paul against Jesus is surprisingly common. OT against NT as well. It’s nearly always the saying ‘you are not to lord it over each other like the Gentiles’ that is quoted. But Paul never says anything that would remotely negate this. Peter repeats the instruction when talking to elders.

    The gospels, Acts, the epistles and finally Revelation all form a composite whole. It’s not just what Jesus said in the gospels. It’s all in Romans. No it isn’t. It’s all beautifully balanced. Each part, each genre needs to complement the rest. Sorry, couldn’t think of a different word! 🙂

  278. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Since he didn’t make the sun etc until the fourth day, he clearly wasn’t running to solar time on the first three.

    The next three days could be the same length as the preceding three days …

    Or, as the earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly one, the ‘days’ of the week in Genesis 1 are a heavenly copy of the normal earthly week. The precise length of these divine days is unknowable if God hasn’t revealed it, in which case it is not something anyone should be arguing about. It is not an article of the faith. That God created everything is. We are here by choice, not chance.

    The one things we can say about the end of this week is that the final day was not one of 24 hours.

  279. @ BC:
    Did you read the link attached to Dobson. Telling a woman in an abusive situation shadow she doesn’t have grounds for a divorce is a terrible thing. He also tells her that in order to get her church and friends on her side she needs to biblically provoke him. This was a husband who choked her, punched her in the face repeatedly, and threatened to kill her.

    He shakes single mothers by claiming that boys who don’t have a strong male role model (one who won’t curb their “aggression”)are likely to grow up and “choose a sinful, homosexual lifestyle”.

    He also (3 years ago today) called the death of 26 kindergartners at Sandy Hook God’s wrath on America for same-sex marriage.

    He has a history of hard complementarian teaching. He adheres to the “love and respect” principles. He argues that a man must be the final authority in his home.

    People tend to idealize Dobson more than others b/c there are a lot of positive things that Focus on the Family has done. But the reality is Dobson always has been and probably always will be a gender complementarian.

  280. Nate Sparks wrote:

    People tend to idealize Dobson

    I listened to him back in the 80s when I was a teen. Back then I thought he had something to say.
    In the 2000s I’ve screamed his radio show down till I turned the rancid program off. I screamed things like, “I tried that, over and over and over, and it doesn’t work!” and “How much longer am I supposed to do this when it hasn’t worked after 20 years?” and “You have no clue what you are talking about! You never have!”

    You will know them by their fruit.
    Dobson has had many years to prove his worth.
    But what he’s peddling produces bad fruit. And that fruit has remained.
    With all the years he’s been on the radio and written books with people listening and reading, if his method worked, then the divorce rate among Christians would have had to go down. It hasn’t. It has gone up.

    Dobson has been wrong all this time.
    Many people have suffered for it.

  281. Ken wrote:

    But Paul never says anything that would remotely negate this.

    You are right. Paul doesn’t.
    But Comp doctrine interprets Paul’s words to negate the words of Jesus making the husband lord over the wife. It is the Comp doctrine that betrays Jesus in order to twist Paul after its own heart.

  282. Mara wrote:

    You are right.

    Not very often I get to see that …

    The thought occurred to me that Jesus is Lord – this is the historic confession of the church. Now if anyone in all creation has absolute authority, it’s him, and indeed he does have this, yet in line with his instruction to us not to ‘Lord it over each other’, he desists from this himself. What I mean is his requirements of us both individually and corporately are clear and not up for negotiation, yet he does not compel obedience.

    He commands us to repent, for example, multiple times in Revelation and in one sense we have no choice, yet we are not forced to, he seems to want obedience to stem from a willingness of heart, not outward conformity to a religious standard of behaviour done grudgingly.

  283. @ Jack:
    Thank you! I don’t blame you for walking out. And, to answer the implicit question, both my wife and I have spoken up. My wife wrote a post called Making Up Church which she sent to the entire pastoral staff of our church. While reception has been mediocre, she continues to regularly email our senior associate pastor (who happened to somewhat lend an ear) with articles and ideas about why such incidents are dangerous and abusive.

    Also, I discussed this in another comment, but my church is the site of No regrets ministries/conference – the largest multisite international men’s conference in the world. I know the founding director and recently sat down with him to discuss some of their discipleship series curriculum. I handed him a printed page of my thoughts on the book in question (Steve Farrar’s Anchor Man) then handed him the book and told him to turn to page 162 (see above quote under Chuck Swindoll in post). He hind his head in his hands and apologized to me. He recognized why the words are harmful and said “My daughter’s would throw this book in my face”. The ministry is now in the process of revising their materials and removing the book.

    Here’s the kicker for me. The director told me that, in the over ten years since they added that book, no one has ever said anything to him about it. Hundreds upon hundreds of men have gone through that curriculum and remained silent, but it took one voice to affect change. You will be rejected and rebuked sometimes, Lord knows I have been for supporting same-sex marriage. But bold voices speaking grace and love need to be heard and the willingness of persons – both individually and collectively – is key to changing anything.

    This is why my wife and I feel that, for us (being descriptive not prescriptive) believe God is calling us to remain and seek change. We may one day feel released. Until then, we make our voices heard when necessary.

  284. BC wrote:

    I think James Dobson was misrepresented. Have you read is “Love must be tough”? If so you wouldn’t put him in the camp these other boys are in.

    Are you sure?
    I think I remember A Cry For Justice blog doing a few posts that when Dobson was with Focus on the Family, he taught very victim-blaming stuff.

    Here was one example I could find (I found this linked to from A Cry for Justice’s Facebook page, it is on HA’s site):
    JAMES DOBSON ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: WOMEN “DELIBERATELY BAIT” THEIR HUSBANDS
    http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/05/06/james-dobson-on-domestic-violence-women-deliberately-bait-their-husbands/

    The title appears in all caps on the HA site, that was not my doing.

    I’m pretty sure ACFJ blog did one or two posts on their own site criticizing some of Dobson’s comments about marriage and domestic abuse?

  285. Haitch wrote:

    I’m looking for some good critiques of Dr Dobson and his foundations’ ideology/philosophy/theology/impact etc. Any recommendations appreciated.

    I left a link to Homeschools Anon a post or two above that criticizes some view of Dobson’s.

    ACFJ has this:
    A “Gauntlet Down” Challenge to James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Other Christian Ministries of Fame
    http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2015/11/13/a-gauntlet-down-challenge-to-focus-on-the-family-and-other-christian-ministries-of-fame/

  286. Josh wrote:

    As a gay Christian who is an evolutionary creationist, an egalitarian, and who believes in inspiration but not necessarily inerrancy as defined by most modern evangelicals, I tip all of the sacred cows. All of them. It’s a slippery slope, I tell ya!

    I’m trying hard to think of another tick box but I’m stretching my brain on this one. Carbon footprint/earth protectionist? (I bet you drive an eco-car in a town of Hummers or something…) Gun abolitionist? Non-carnivorous? Ok, I stop now!

  287. Daisy wrote:

    Here was one example I could find (I found this linked to from A Cry for Justice’s Facebook page, it is on HA’s site):
    JAMES DOBSON ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: WOMEN “DELIBERATELY BAIT” THEIR HUSBANDS
    http://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/05/06/james-dobson-on-domestic-violence-women-deliberately-bait-their-husbands/

    I remember that posting.
    Here’s my contributions to the comment thread:

    1. Dobson is right in only one VERY limited respect: Baiting a physically-stronger victim IS a known tactic for a passive-aggressive abuser. When the victim blows up from the constant teasing and baiting and emotional/verbal abuse, previously-groomed third parties will then blame the victim (the one who actually got physical) and the abuser can then play the poor poor innocent victim.

    THAT is the only dynamic where Dobson’s claim could possibly apply.
    But Dobson, with the arrogance of Divine Right, makes his claim Universal in all Times, in all possible Situations.

    2. In Christianese AM Radio in the Seventies, he was the Fourth Person of the Trinity — right up there with Hal Lindsay.

    Then he moved to the Christianese Redoubt in Colo Spgs, went into his Bunker and hasn’t come out since.

    “Remember James Dobson? Did a lot of good things before fear of homosexuals drove him off the cliff with most of his constituency in the car.”
    — Internet Monk circa 2008

    3. I think Dobson is suffering from a serious case of “Hardening of the Attitudes”.

    Plus, remember when he peaked during the Reagan Years. Invited to the White House, one of many Christian Kingmakers for the GOP. Then came the Clinton Years when he was on the outs with Billary. (No overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom for him…) Then Bush 43 and Kingmaker Once More. Then the Obamanation of Desolation enthroned and on the outs again. In, Out, In, Out… No wonder he started losing it. From GOP Kingmaker to Nobody to GOP Kingmaker to Nobody…

  288. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    … for how long, I wonder? And I know I’m not alone in wondering.

    I suspect a lot of the YEC, antievolution and controlling partisans don’t want to deal with a God big enough to create a universe as vast and as old as present science indicates it is. They seem to prefer One limited by their own understanding, a gentle, tame god (CS Lewis?).

    As for me, in the hereafter, if I am ever in the position to ask a question it will be why did You create such a vast universe if you were only in the goings on for a few thousand years of a minor planet circling a very ordinary star?

  289. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    He also retired but would not leave. Hee hee.

    But then my belief is don’t take comprehensive advice about children from people whose kids are under 30. Dobson found a niche and milked it.

  290. OldJohnJ wrote:

    I suspect a lot of the YEC, antievolution and controlling partisans don’t want to deal with a God big enough to create a universe as vast and as old as present science indicates it is.

    I don’t think YEC persons are anti-evolution per se.

    I think they acknowledge evolution occurs, but get into differences between Macro vs Micro.

  291. Daisy wrote:

    I think they acknowledge evolution occurs, but get into differences between Macro vs Micro.

    After a long while all the micros can add up to a macro. However, evolution is a very slow process and having only 6000 years or so of existence helps argue against macro evolution.

    I also acknowledge that YEC and evolution are secondary issues, or at least should be, and are not salvation related.

  292. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t think YEC persons are anti-evolution per se.
    I think they acknowledge evolution occurs, but get into differences between Macro vs Micro.

    That’s sometimes true. But I’ve also heard vehement affirmation of a public figure’s recent statement that evolution is “of Satan,” which is an anti-evolution position, no matter how you parse it.

    Lydia wrote:

    But then my belief is don’t take comprehensive advice about children from people whose kids are under 30. Dobson found a niche and milked it.

    Dobson’s at least married, right? I mean, it could be worse, like, you know, Bill Gothard… Yet, people took advice about parenting from a guy who was neither married nor had children.

  293. (In my previous comment, I did not intend to imply that I thought Dobson had anything worth saying about family… I already know that he’s full of it with regard to LGBT people, and it’s clear from what some of you have shared that he’s out there in terms of family issues as well – something I can see even as a single, childless person.)

  294. Daisy wrote:

    I think they acknowledge evolution occurs, but get into differences between Macro vs Micro.

    I have ONLY heard the word “Macroevolution” used by Ken Ham-level YECs.

  295. OldJohnJ wrote:

    I suspect a lot of the YEC, antievolution and controlling partisans don’t want to deal with a God big enough to create a universe as vast and as old as present science indicates it is. They seem to prefer One limited by their own understanding, a gentle, tame god (CS Lewis?).

    A Punyverse with a puny god they have All Figured Out (like Calvin).

    Never mind that no matter how deep the time, how deep the space, how big and old the universe gets, how much bigger and older God has to be, God remains on a one-to-one human scale through the Incarnation.

  296. @ Josh:
    I was stunned to learn that former lesbians who worked at FoF were required to wear dresses, skirts and panty hose! No pants!!!!

  297. Josh wrote:

    That’s sometimes true. But I’ve also heard vehement affirmation of a public figure’s recent statement that evolution is “of Satan,” which is an anti-evolution position, no matter how you parse it.

    I guess it depends on how you’re viewing the subject.

    You are aware that atheists use evolution to argue that all humans appeared out of nowhere and/or evolved out of slime or from apes, right?

    You have some Christians who believe in something called “theistic evolution,” who believe that God used evolution.

    But depending on the context, I can see how some Christians might want to slap a derogatory label such as “satanic” on evolution, yes.

    Just like most of the folks out there who hate YEC like to slap insulting labels on YEC such as red neck, anti science, anti God, superstitious, ignorant, yokels, etc.

  298. Daisy wrote:

    I guess it depends on how you’re viewing the subject.
    You are aware that atheists use evolution to argue that all humans appeared out of nowhere

    Actually, I’ve never seen anyone who accepts evolution say that they believed that.

    and/or evolved out of slime or from apes, right?

    Evolutionists would say that we share a common ancestor with apes, though saying that people came from apes / monkeys is a common misconception among people of average scientific knowledge, as well as a means by which some YECs attempt to mock evolutionists (while showing that said YECs don’t actually know much about the evolution they reject). The bit about slime is close, I suppose, in that the premise is that all life forms today evolved from primordial single-celled organisms. Where those organisms came from, as far as I can tell, is still somewhat of a matter for debate.

    You have some Christians who believe in something called “theistic evolution,” who believe that God used evolution.

    Uh, yeah, that’d be me. Go ahead and throw tomatoes. I’m good at ducking.

    But depending on the context, I can see how some Christians might want to slap a derogatory label such as “satanic” on evolution, yes.

    I’m not saying they should stop… I mean, making unsubstantiated claims that are simply incorrect (men from monkeys) along with baseless ad hominems and well poisoning (evolution is / Charles Darwin was satanic) just helps people who are undecided more quickly see the truth about the leaders behind the YEC movement. I can only hope that Christians who come to this realization also realize that they can reconcile their faith with science through something like evolutionary creation instead of thinking that they have to proceed straight to atheism (though if they take the latter path, I’m not going to oppose them; I know what it’s like to take flak for not being able to hold to the party line in every minute detail).

  299. Mara wrote:

    If Complementarians want to be Biblically accurate and to stop making up new doctrines, then they need to stop making Paul and Peter say things that directly contradict and violate the words of Jesus.
    Egals are NOT setting Paul against Jesus.
    Egals are pointing out that one MUST see the words of Paul being built on the Bedrock of Jesus.
    Comps build the words of Paul on the bedrock of the traditions of men. They are the ones who have thrown away the words of Jesus in order to support their aberrant doctrine based on misunderstanding Paul. Comps are the ones that CANCEL OUT the words of Jesus in order to make Paul say the things they want.

    Exactly. I’ve always thought that complementarians pay lip service to worshipping Christ, but in their actions, they worship Paul. I don’t think that Peter, Paul, etc. can create doctrine; only Christ can do that. The othes can explain Christ’s teachings and show us how to apply them. I think of Paul’s letters and the other books as commentaries on Christ. Now, after saying that once, I had one person throw at me the verse about how all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching. Very true, but that person didn’t realize that Paul was talking about the OT books since the NT wasn’t even created yet.

  300. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ BC:
    Did you read the link attached to Dobson. Telling a woman in an abusive situation shadow she doesn’t have grounds for a divorce is a terrible thing. He also tells her that in order to get her church and friends on her side she needs to biblically provoke him. This was a husband who choked her, punched her in the face repeatedly, and threatened to kill her.
    He shakes single mothers by claiming that boys who don’t have a strong male role model (one who won’t curb their “aggression”)are likely to grow up and “choose a sinful, homosexual lifestyle”.

    Dobson also admitted to beating his dachsund with a belt. Peachy, huh.
    He also (3 years ago today) called the death of 26 kindergartners at Sandy Hook God’s wrath on America for same-sex marriage.
    He has a history of hard complementarian teaching. He adheres to the “love and respect” principles. He argues that a man must be the final authority in his home.
    People tend to idealize Dobson more than others b/c there are a lot of positive things that Focus on the Family has done. But the reality is Dobson always has been and probably always will be a gender complementarian.

  301. Josh wrote:

    Go ahead and throw tomatoes

    In answer to your request … evolution in the descended from single ancestor(‘macro’) sense is believed by unbelievers with such relish for the very reason that it is an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing that doesn’t need a God. More than that, it’s chaotic, random nature betrays a lack of purpose, of intelligence at the back of it.

    Consequently when Christians claim to believe in theistic evolution, your average atheist sees this as a kind of equivalent of ‘servant-leader’ – sounds good, but is a contradiction in terms when you think about it. They would cite it as an excellent example of faith being something you believe for which there is no evidence, or even in spite of the evidence.

    However difficult or even impossible you may think it is to square YEC with modern science, it is very difficult to square theistic evolution with the bible.

  302. Ken wrote:

    However difficult or even impossible you may think it is to square YEC with modern science, it is very difficult to square theistic evolution with the bible.

    My uncle who was a bona fide rocket scientist and Christian would have told you to stop trying to read Ancient Hebrew narratives, poetry and such as a treatise on science. It is a distraction and leads people away from science which has cured diseases and improved life.

    Is there wacky science for political agendas? You bet and they are just as bad.

    But You guys do more to kill the beauty of scripture than anything else you think you achieve. And in the process miss the most important message in the narrative.

  303. Ken wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Who gets to decide who is mature, wise and bumble?

    Well, modesty forbids …

    Actually my question makes the point you tend to miss….a lot….when you constantly harp on authority/submission.

  304. @ Ken:
    Have you actually studied any of the sciences, Ken?

    Because your reply makes me think that yhe answer is “no.”

  305. @ Nate Sparks:
    It’s good that you and your wife are advocates for change and are not afraid to speak up when needed. I’m only basing this on the people that I have met in my life who are church goers (many evangelicals) and believe there is a large majority that truly doesn’t believe in the comp point of view. Many that I know are tolerant and open people (and as some are very close such as my wife and her family – I don’t think they fake it for my benefit). They want to do the right thing and want to worship God in a community. But there seems to be something that keeps them from speaking out to criticize the leadership. The evangelical church I went to kept the message pretty positive in the Sunday service but the mask would slip in little ways. For example the pastoral staff nicknamed one of their pastors “Asian Joe” because of his mixed asian-Canadian heritage. He didn’t stay with that church. But there were other promotions that gave me a sense that the “feel good” veneer was just that. Promise Keepers was heavily promoted, Ken Hamm from the Creation Museum was heavily promoted (in fact Young Earth Creationism has always been referred to as “our Christian viewpoint” – implying to believe otherwise would be “unchristian”. For me it became a clash of personal philosophy that I could no longer reconcile. But you would only find this out after attending multiple services over quite a while. Likewise the only female pastor who has stayed on staff for any length of time was the lead pastor’s daughter (conflict of interest anyone? ) Seems a little disingenuous.
    It sounds like your church leadership will at least listen – so to stay and advocate change is worth it to you. I am a little surprised that the founding director of the men’s ministry was unfamiliar with the course material. No one mentioned it in 10 years? My opinion is this highlights an unwillingness to make waves and challenge the leadership – or there’s a lot of guys buying into this – however I like to think the best of people so probably the former.
    The bottom line is that I applaud your courage to stay and advocate change. I wish you much success as it will only inspire others to speak out and I firmly believe only a grassroots revolution from the pews is Christianity’s only hope.

  306. numo wrote:

    Have you actually studied any of the sciences, Ken?
    Because your reply makes me think that the answer is “no.”

    Life is too short to get into the level of science necessary to critique theories of origins, and the subject doesn’t interest me that much. I’ve hardly dabbled in this.

    What I have done is read atheists on this and had some interaction with them and various agnostics. I’ve read a reasonable amount of Dawkins. You could hardly miss the belief that evolution and the bible are incompatible, especially YEC but not confined to that.

    I haven’t read the most sophisticated exponents of YEC from a scientific point of view, and it’s pretty obvious many critics of this position haven’t either. No-one ever seems to get beyond Ken Ham and AiG.

    I think Dawkins despises theistic evolutionists more than YEC devotees, because the latter must involve the supernatural activity of a God, whereas the former although claiming to believe in creation then espouse a system that in the minds of it exponents pretty well eliminates God. At best there might be a deistic, and therefore irrelevant God.

    If you prefer: Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly seen and understood in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. They specifically deny this, they say the opposite is the case; and that if God should prove to exist after all, they will have a defence for their unbelief. Dawkins has said he would ask God why he didn’t make his existence more obvious.

  307. Lydia wrote:

    Actually my question makes the point you tend to miss….a lot….when you constantly harp on authority/submission.

    A top down hierarchy – not just God-ordained, but God-commanded.

  308. Ken wrote:

    However difficult or even impossible you may think it is to square YEC with modern science, it is very difficult to square theistic evolution with the bible.

    I do not agree.

  309. Ken wrote:

    However difficult or even impossible you may think it is to square YEC with modern science, it is very difficult to square theistic evolution with the bible.

    just so there are o misunderstandings please define exactly what you mean by theistic evolution.
    Thanks in advance.

  310. Nancy2 wrote:

    A top down hierarchy

    We won’t go into the constantly-harped-on-about subject, but there is no secret that I believe in a strongly hierarchical universe. Moreover, we as creatures are in no position to change this. This is now a presupposition of mine.

  311. @ Jack:
    Thank you Jack. I don’t pretend to have answers for others in difficult church environments as no two churches are truly alike. Thank you for your encouragement in my endeavors.

  312. @ Ken:
    When 2 people, person A and person B, work for a company, and person A is given more responsibility and held to a higher degree of accountability than person B, would you say that person A is of greater value to the company than Person B?

  313. numo wrote:

    @ Ken:
    Like the so-called Great Chain of Being???!

    The Lord in his palace and the Serf in his mud hut, Ordained by God and Unchangeable.
    Who Holds the Whip and Who Feels the Whip, Commanded and Predestined by God.
    (Milord Says So!)
    Always Know your Place.
    Always Remember your Place.
    (And you might get Pie in the Sky when you Die.)

  314. Nancy2 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Actually my question makes the point you tend to miss….a lot….when you constantly harp on authority/submission.

    A top down hierarchy – not just God-ordained, but God-commanded.

    Just like Southern Planters justified their Peculiar Institution regarding certain Animate Property.

  315. Patriciamc wrote:

    Dobson also admitted to beating his dachsund with a belt. Peachy, huh.
    He also (3 years ago today) called the death of 26 kindergartners at Sandy Hook God’s wrath on America for same-sex marriage.

    Trying to pre-empt Fred Phelps or Flutterhands Piper?

  316. Lydia wrote:

    @ Josh:
    I was stunned to learn that former lesbians who worked at FoF were required to wear dresses, skirts and panty hose! No pants!!!!

    And definitely not Comfortable Shoes(TM).

  317. Are you guys off topic or what? Is it argue about everything or nothing or what? I have had jobs (secular professional) where it was expected to wear a dressy dress, nylons and hi heels ( not a burka and then not for Bruce Jenner). Who cares? Creationism… none of you were there and know for a fact but you have a right to an opinion but is this the time or place for that discussion. What is the point?

  318. Ken, I don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, but the egalitarian view is that Peter and Paul’s words can never be taken independent of Jesus’s. If they were, then we’d be treating them as if they were equal to God, which they aren’t. Their function in their writings is to explain Christ’s teachings. Another question, and this is just for you to ask yourself, is why do you as a man feel so strongly that it’s the man that must be in charge? Do you get your self-esteem from this? Ken wrote:

    patriciamc wrote:
    Like I’ve said before, you have to reconcile Paul’s writings with Christ’s teachings in order to get Paul right. Then, there’s the whole context of the book, chapter, etc. So, looking at Ephesians 5:21 (mutual submission),
    If egalitarians want to persuade complementarians that their view is wrong, they will never achieve this by setting Paul against Jesus. Paul (and Peter) were apostles commissioned by Christ, and their writings are in evangelical theology as much the word of God as the actual sayings of Jesus recorded in the gospels.
    I’ve discussed whether submission is mutual in the context of Eph 5 more than once with Daisy, and have given some 6 reasons why in this passage it is not mutual. This she has simply ignored, so I continue to think this.
    I used to think it was mutual here incidentally, it was re-reading the passage more carefully recently that made me change my mind.

  319. Ken wrote:

    No-one ever seems to get beyond Ken Ham and AiG.

    There are much better works on the subject out there for anyone who is serious in seeking information.

  320. Mara wrote:

    Comps build the words of Paul on the bedrock of the traditions of men. They are the ones who have thrown away the words of Jesus in order to support their aberrant doctrine based on misunderstanding Paul.

    It is not even as simple as Jesus vs Paul, because they also deny the bulk of the teachings of Paul that contradict their understanding of these few verses.

  321. siteseer wrote:

    they also deny the bulk of the teachings of Paul that contradict their understanding of these few verses.

    Absolutely.

    And they refuse to see/acknowledge/understand the violence they do to the scriptures in order to come to the conclusions that they want and try to push onto others.

  322. numo wrote:

    Like the so-called Great Chain of Being???!

    Never heard of it! But having been reconciled to google … not really.

    I have in mind some teaching by Roger Price a long time ago setting out the differing ‘ranks’ within creation, in a context that had nothing to do with wives and husbands or church leaders.

    I’ve re-visited it recently, as I’m likely to be asked soon about the whole Christians and deliverance subject – not my favourite either – and I’ve had to read up on this again. Try avoiding the extremes on this!

    There is a hierachical pattern woven into the NT in particular, and once you have seen this it can make otherwise enigmatic verses like because of the angels in 1 Cor 11 make sense.

  323. Patriciamc wrote:

    … but the egalitarian view is that Peter and Paul’s words can never be taken independent of Jesus’s. … why do you as a man feel so strongly that it’s the man that must be in charge

    I’ve read enough links trying to persuade me of the egalitarian viewpoint to see there are many who do indeed set Paul in particular against Jesus. It’s usually a crass misunderstanding that Paul is teaching husbands to lord it over their wives, a gross distortion of what Paul and Peter actually have to say on this.

    I don’t feel particularly strongly that a man must be in charge, what I do feel strongly about is setting aside chunks of the NT because it sits uneasily against modern cultural assumptions. Even more I don’t think the Christian faith exists to help us build our self-esteem. In the sense in which I understand this kind of self love, it is actually sinful.

  324. OldJohnJ wrote:

    please define exactly what you mean by theistic evolution.

    This is just my understanding of it garnered from non-Christians. It’s the standard common descent evolutionary argument, one in which by definition God’s hand is not detectable, being used by Christians to try to reconcile a scienific theory that they hold to be correct with the text of Genesis 1 & 2.

    A kind of God of the gaps, with little left for God to do except start the thing off in the first place. Now that, imo, is some gap!

    Now I understand that God could have used an evolutionary mechanism to bring about our existence, but it’s random nature argues against this. This certainly how unbelievers view this. They don’t see any purpose; they see Dawkins’ blind pitiless indifference.

    When it comes to mankind, even if you accept an old earth view of Genesis (not unreasonable in my opinion), to me it is impossible to reconcile man as evolved from other humanoid creatures with the special creation in Genesis. Even if ‘man’ was formed from the dust over long ages, the creatíon of woman from his side becomes impossible, even as metaphor.

    Since By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear if you don’t have faith you never will understand how God could have created everything.

  325. @ OldJohnJ:
    Under general discussion? This theme is drifting away from the original post! Unless of course you think complementarianism is a result of evolution … 🙂

  326. Patriciamc wrote:

    (part 1)
    Ken, I don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, but the egalitarian view is that Peter and Paul’s words can never be taken independent of Jesus’s.
    If they were, then we’d be treating them as if they were equal to God, which they aren’t. Their function in their writings is to explain Christ’s teachings.

    (part 2)
    Another question, and this is just for you to ask yourself, is why do you as a man feel so strongly that it’s the man that must be in charge? Do you get your self-esteem from this?

    Totally agree with Part 1, and Part 2 is an interesting question.

  327. Ken wrote:

    We won’t go into the constantly-harped-on-about subject, but there is no secret that I believe in a strongly hierarchical universe. Moreover, we as creatures are in no position to change this. This is now a presupposition of mine.

    The Bible doesn’t teach there is to be hierarchy among believers, all are equal in Christ…

  328. Josh wrote:

    Evolutionists would say that we share a common ancestor with apes, though saying that people came from apes / monkeys is a common misconception among people of average scientific knowledge, as well as a means by which some YECs attempt to mock evolutionists (while showing that said YECs don’t actually know much about the evolution they reject).

    That came across as pretty condescending and was very unnecessary.

    My point is that atheists love evolution because in their view, it makes belief in a god unnecessary.

  329. Josh wrote:

    I’m not saying they should stop… I mean, making unsubstantiated claims that are simply incorrect (men from monkeys) along with baseless ad hominems and well poisoning (evolution is / Charles Darwin was satanic) just helps people who are undecided more quickly see the truth about the leaders behind the YEC movement.

    Well, your side does that with YECs by slapping labels on them such as “anti science” or depicting them as being narrow minded, ignorant about science, and so on.

    The tone of your entire post was reeking with it.

    I don’t even really care if people want to believe in an old earth or in evolution – where I take objection are the ad hominems atheists and supporters of theistic evolution (such as yourself) frequently take against YECs.

    I also don’t dig how atheistic evolutionists claim evolution is all sciencey, when it’s more of a philosophical way of looking at things – based on naturalistic preconceptions where they decide a priori there is not deity, no supernatural. That might even be OK if they would just admit it, but no, they usually do not.

  330. Patriciamc wrote:

    Exactly. I’ve always thought that complementarians pay lip service to worshipping Christ, but in their actions, they worship Paul.

    I’m not sure that’s even fair to Paul. 🙂

    I think Paul believed that women could be leaders, teachers, and apostles to men – he thanked several women in the New Testament for holding such positions, after all-

    -But rather, gender complementarians choose to go with the most sexist and distorted interpretations of Paul’s writings that is the problem.

  331. numo wrote:

    Have you actually studied any of the sciences, Ken?
    Because your reply makes me think that yhe answer is “no.”

    I don’t think that’s entirely fair.

    I had to read about and study evolution in high school and in college and didn’t find it convincing.

  332. @ Ken:

    There are a few reasons I have a difficult time taking Dawkins seriously, this is but one:

    Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
    http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

    Snippet:

    Intelligent Alien Design? You can’t be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, arguably the world’s most famous champion of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, has recently been discussing the possibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.

    Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an “intriguing possibility”.

  333. Nancy2 wrote:

    When 2 people, person A and person B, work for a company, and person A is given more responsibility and held to a higher degree of accountability than person B, would you say that person A is of greater value to the company than Person B?

    Good question.

    It won’t do to argue that Persons A and B are of equal value here.
    That is the complementarian escape trick, to use the “equal in worth just not in role” shtick. 🙂

  334. Ken wrote:

    (part 1a.)
    I’ve read enough links trying to persuade me of the egalitarian viewpoint to see there are many who do indeed set Paul in particular against Jesus.

    (part 1b.)
    It’s usually a crass misunderstanding that Paul is teaching husbands to lord it over their wives, a gross distortion of what Paul and Peter actually have to say on this.

    (part 2a.)
    I don’t feel particularly strongly that a man must be in charge, what I do feel strongly about is setting aside chunks of the NT because it sits uneasily against modern cultural assumptions.

    (part 2b.)
    Even more I don’t think the Christian faith exists to help us build our self-esteem. In the sense in which I understand this kind of self love, it is actually sinful.

    Regarding Part 1a.

    It is complementarians who contradict the teachings of Jesus (and how Jesus treated women) by incorrectly applying (or else mis-interpreting) a few selected verses of Paul, which has the effect of canceling out Christ’s words and examples.

    part 1b.
    You said,

    “It’s usually a crass misunderstanding that Paul is teaching husbands to lord it over their wives”

    Then you are arguing for the egalitarian interpretation of some biblical passages or words, such as “head”.

    All complementarians I have come across view the word “head” (as it is used in one or two spots of the NT), as well as words as “submit”, to argue that men (or specifically husbands) should have some kind of authority or boss stature over women (or a wife) in some way, to some degree.

    Referring to that as “servant leadership” does nothing to change the fact that what “SL” means is “men should rule over women” (which the Bible does not teach).

    If you believe that men are to serve women and the Bible is not teaching men are to be in power, control over, or authority over women, then you are adhering to a more egalitarian interpretation of those passages.

    So why even call yourself a complementarian?

    Part 2a, you said,

    “what I do feel strongly about is setting aside chunks of the NT because it sits uneasily against modern cultural assumptions.”

    You are ironically reading 21st cent. Western cultural ideas about men, women, and marriage back into the Biblical text.

    You are also failing to take into account that in some instances, Paul was addressing a specific culture 2,000 years ago, and particular problems they were having at the time.

    Not everything he wrote was meant to apply in 2015, or not to be applied across the board, or in the same way for all other Christians and churches down through the ages.

    part 2b.
    You said,

    “Christian faith exists to help us build our self-esteem. In the sense in which I understand this kind of self love, it is actually sinful.”

    The Bible says you are to ‘LOVE YOURSELF as you love your neighbor.’
    (All caps for emphasis, not yelling)

    The Christian faith absolutely exists in part to teach people they have worth and value, and which is shown by mere fact Christ was willing to die for humanity, knowledge of which can and should lead to self esteem.

    It’s actually false teaching and distorting the Scripture to tell people it’s “sinful” for them to want self esteem, or try to figure out how to get it, or to object to the entire concept.

    I just finished reading a copy of the book someone on this blog recommended to me about a week ago:
    Tired of Trying to Measure Up,” whose Christian author spends a few chapters explaining how and why your view on this particular topic is really not biblical.-

    -But is rather un-biblical, and has the possibility of keeping Christians on a “try harder” treadmill (where they remain stuck in shame and try to earn God’s and people’s approval by doing good works, etc), rather than resting in the finished work of Christ and basing their worth and value in Christ.

    I would encourage you to pick up a copy of that book and read it for yourself. You can read a few chapters of that book for free on Google Books.

  335. I’m not sure if Flag Ken ever saw this news story or not (I posted it higher up the page):

    Investigation found that a theology of one-way submission of women to men breeds domestic abuse in S. Carolina
    http://www.postandcourier.com/tilldeath/partthree.html
    —————–
    Gender complementarian men who abuse women use the same interpretations, and misinterpreted and cherry picked Bible verses as excuses to abuse women, as Non-abusive GCs use to say that men are heads of wives, and women should not preach, etc.

  336. @ Daisy:
    I did not paint all YECers with that brush, just the ones who do what I was talking about, but I guess my mistake was in thinking that a nuanced description of this issue was possible. Just saying, I won’t hold you responsible for Ken Ham’s gaffes if you won’t hold me responsible for what Dawkins says (he and I aren’t even on the same planet… I’m a Christian for one, whether you’ll accept that or not…).

  337. Daisy, you and everyone else is free to believe as you choose. But belief isn’t what is studied in the sciences; the sciences are what they are. Which is part of the confusion here, I’m thinking.

  338. @ Daisy:
    Flag Ken took a look at this.#

    She studiously avoids quoting the NT except for pointing to the usual Gal 3 : 28. She begs the whole question of what God has revealed in the NT, which is whole point of the discussion:

    Female leadership is dramatically, outrageously blessed by God. The evidence is plain in the church and world— …

    Since when did we ever look to the world to discern the will of God? Cf. in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.

    She doesn’t explain how anyone could lead anyone if mutual submission is a kind of absolute. How would government function, for example. How could eldership function?

    One-way submission will not lead to domestic abuse if the husband obeys the one-way sacrificial love and all its implications required of him. These two aspects complement each other, and you cease to have a Christian marriage in any meaningful sense if either of them is missing.

  339. Daisy wrote:

    So why even call yourself a complementarian?

    The late Anglican evangelical John Stott apparently tried to formulate a mediating position between egal~ and complementarianism. Unfortunately, there isn’t one, at some point even after you have discounted the extremes on either side you have to opt for one or the other.

    Hence however much I may agree with some of the things egalitarians complain about in the church with regard to women exercising a legitimate ministry, there remains a differentiation of role, and I can’t cross the divide to the egalitarian side because I cannot reconcile this with the NT.

  340. Daisy wrote:

    The Bible says you are to ‘LOVE YOURSELF as you love your neighbor.’

    Sorry to follow you!

    It’s precisely the other way round. You are to love God and love your neighbour as yourself. Two commands, not three. We love ourselves in the sense of put ourselves first by nature. The commandment is given to turn this around, so we start to consider the needs of others before ourselves.

    I know we have legitimate needs, that is not the point; rather it is to change the focus away from self to others and to God.

  341. what i am more interested in trying to understand is why women put up with sexual and physical abuse to the degree that they do to begin with? both in and outside of the church? is it as widespread as some make it seem i would certainly hope not! it boggles my mind as a man why especially in the growing feminist climate of the secular world and in the church that they should have been taught somewhere along the lines that they don’t need to let alone have to stand for it or put up with it, i should also think that Christ himself is also going to have a few choice words for said abusers when the time comes, all that being said i probably never will understand it as a man /shrug

  342. NotARealPerson wrote:

    why women put up with sexual and physical abuse to the degree that they do to begin with?

    NotARealPerson,

    This TED Talk on abuse might help you understand why women (or anyone) stays in an abusive situation. It features a Harvard grad who got abused by her first husband, and the thinking behind it. “Why domestic violence victims don’t leave”

    Description:

    Leslie Morgan Steiner was in “crazy love” — that is, madly in love with a man who routinely abused her and threatened her life. Steiner tells the dark story of her relationship, correcting misconceptions many people hold about victims of domestic violence, and explaining how we can all help break the silence.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_morgan_steiner_why_domestic_violence_victims_don_t_leave?language=en

  343. Janey, thanks for the link to the TED talk. I listened to it. One stat that stood out as to one reason domestic violence victims don’t leave was this: 70% of domestic violence murders occur AFTER a victim leaves the relationship. In short, it can be very dangerous for a victim to leave.
    I recommend the link you gave to person posting under user name “NotARealPerson.”

  344. Ken wrote:

    She doesn’t explain how anyone could lead anyone if mutual submission is a kind of absolute. How would government function, for example. How could eldership function?

    Why do you assume grown ups need a leader? I realize a lot of Americans think this way today which boggles my mind considering what we went through to throw off the idea of a caste system from the Revolution to the Civil War. However, I can understand this thinking better from someone who grew up within an environment of a historical state/church and aristocracy.

    It was a radical idea at one time that grown ups could govern themselves. A lot of blood was spilled fighting that idea by those who wanted to govern and rule over others.

  345. Lydia wrote:

    It was a radical idea at one time that grown ups could govern themselves. A lot of blood was spilled fighting that idea by those who wanted to govern and rule over others.

    For those of us who descended from several generations of Americans, there was a reason (several reasons, actually) our ancestors left Europe and the British Isles. Independence, self-governance, religious freedom, heavy taxation without representation, exploration …………
    I don’t think Ken can grasp that.
    And, with the push for equal rights for women, American Christian men are forgetting or ignoring the fact that women were brave, scrappy, individual pioneers, too.

  346. Ken wrote:

    You are to love God and love your neighbour as yourself.

    It says “as yourself.”
    If you don’t love yourself, you’ll not be able to love others, and you will doubt God’s love for you.

  347. @ NotARealPerson:

    There are entire books on the subject. There are a host of reasons why women marry or date abusers and stay in abusive relationships for years.

    There are also entire books and blogs devoted to explaining why some men are abusive (physically or verbally) to their partners.

    Some books you may want to read on those topics:
    ————
    1. Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft

    2. The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker

    3. The Nice Girl Syndrome: Stop Being Manipulated and Abused — and Start Standing Up for Yourself by Beverly Engel

    4. Boundaries: When to Say Yes, When to Say No to Take Control of Your Life by Henry Cloud and John Townsend

    5. The Verbally Abusive Relationship – by Patricia Healy Evans

  348. Ken wrote:

    there remains a differentiation of role, and I can’t cross the divide to the egalitarian side because I cannot reconcile this with the NT.

    No, there really is not. You choose to interpret the text in that manner.

  349. @ Josh:
    Who said I was holding you responsible for Dawkins?

    My point was that many atheists subscribe to evolution because they feel it absolves any need for belief in a deity.

    Evolution is not so much science as it is a world view that is loved and adored by Non-Christians because it helps them believe it affirms their atheism.

  350. numo wrote:

    Daisy, you and everyone else is free to believe as you choose. But belief isn’t what is studied in the sciences; the sciences are what they are. Which is part of the confusion here, I’m thinking.

    People can look at the same set of evidence and arrive at different conclusions. That doesn’t make folks who reject evolution and/or old earth stupid yokels, science deniers, or “anti science.”

  351. @ Daisy:

    This is a hard concept because it sounds so narcissistic to Western Protestant/Catholic ears which has a tendency to value a culture of death without realizing it. It is not unusual to have people point fingers and tell you what YOU should sacrifice for them.

    It is really about valuing the fact you were created in God’s image. That makes you valuable to God which means you should value your life. Life is valuable. WE choose to devalue life by our behaviors toward others.

  352. Ken wrote:

    One-way submission will not lead to domestic abuse if the husband obeys the one-way sacrificial love and all its implications required of him. These two aspects complement each other, and you cease to have a Christian marriage in any meaningful sense if either of them is missing.

    One way submission is against what Christ taught.

    You claim to follow Christ, yes?

    That you keep wanting for men to hold all power in relationships in marriages and in church over women is revealing a love for authority, power over others, and it’s favortism (of the male gender).

    The Bible says you are to avoid seeking authority over others, and not to play favorites.

    Comp is in fact used to abuse women, even the soft and cuddly variety you preach. This also gets back to the “no true comp would ever abuse a woman” view addressed in the post by Nate and here:
    http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html

    Comp is flawed, sexist, and un-biblical at its very core and basis, not just if it is implemented incorrectly by abusive men.

  353. Lydia’s reply to Flag Ken
    Lydia wrote:

    Why do you assume grown ups need a leader? I realize a lot of Americans think this way today which boggles my mind considering what we went through to throw off the idea of a caste system from the Revolution to the Civil War.

    However, I can understand this thinking better from someone who grew up within an environment of a historical state/church and aristocracy.

    It was a radical idea at one time that grown ups could govern themselves. A lot of blood was spilled fighting that idea by those who wanted to govern and rule over others.

    I am a middle aged, never-married woman.

    I don’t have a husband to lead me now as a single. I’m doing okay on my own without male leadership.

    Why would I suddenly need a man to lead me if I married tomorrow?

    Inquiring minds want to know, and how can Ken explain this away.

  354. @ Nancy2:

    You know, people will focus on how we got so many things wrong for so long but I focus on how powerful the idea of individual self government and having a say in government was it would not die no matter how many people tried to ignore it with the status quo. It took too long but when viewed through the lens of overall history, it is amazing how the thinking took root.

    Let us not lose it!!! (Or give it away so easily!)

  355. @ Daisy:

    They do it by separating the spiritual from the secular. It is really right out of Greek Philosophy in many ways. Your spiritual being is to be subject to the earthly philosopher kings (elder/pastor/husband) who know best for you. But you can be self governing in the secular world. How we can separate ourselves in that way, I will never understand. So, you can be President but you cannot teach the bible to men. You can be Commander in Chief but at the same time “subject” to your husband.

    The problem for Ken is he cannot evolve from the culture of 1st Century Palestine and reads the bible as a rule book or manual. But it benefits him to do so, so why even bother?

    Ken has even taken it a step further equating the teaching to slaves and mapping it to those who are employees. As if there is no voluntary contractural agreement with employment. It boggles.

  356. @ Nancy2:

    Can you imagine bearing children in the back of a covered wagon while going West? Or how about picking cotton with a baby strapped to your back all day?

  357. Lydia wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    This is a hard concept because it sounds so narcissistic to Western Protestant/Catholic ears which has a tendency to value a culture of death without realizing it. It is not unusual to have people point fingers and tell you what YOU should sacrifice for them.

    It is really about valuing the fact you were created in God’s image. That makes you valuable to God which means you should value your life.

    Life is valuable. WE choose to devalue life by our behaviors toward others.

    That sounds accurate all right.

    What Flag Ken will never appreciate, though I’ve tried explaining some of this before…

    Ken seemingly thinks feelings or personal experiences are bad and should not be used at all to gauge a doctrine.

    But a church’s or group of Christians interpretation of Scripture, and its misapplication, can have very damaging effects on a person in real life, like it has with me.

    Under codependency (masked under the term gender complementarianism)
    …. and that I was taught by my Christian parents since youth, things like:

    my feelings and needs don’t matter, only other people’s feelings and needs matter

    – only God and what God wants/ needs matters

    – you should feel ashamed for feeling negative feelings and/or for expressing them

    I was shamed for making mistakes, admitting to problems when I saw them in my life or in the family, was shamed for admitting to feeling sad or bad, etc.

    My upbringing is very much like described in the book someone here advised me to read, “Tired of Trying to Measure Up.”

    You can read that for free here,
    “Tired of Trying to Measure Up” By Jeff VanVonderen:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=7G9W21sgiSAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    I lived for decades how Flag Ken says Christian women are to live:

    I was a gender comp woman. I deferred to men, including an emotionally and financially abusive ex fiance’.

    I put God and other people first and felt that me ever putting myself first, or at all, was secular, liberal, mumbo-jumbo an was selfish, etc. etc.

    For many years, up until a few years ago, I sincerely and consistently lived like how Flag Ken is saying in this thread and others how he thinks all Christian women should live, and it resulted in me

    – lacking boundaries, lacking self esteem,
    – I didn’t feel God loved me at all (or not near as much as others),
    – afraid to take risks in life,
    -did not stand up to bullies,

    -allowed myself to be exploited by an ex fiancee and verbally abused by him,

    -allowed myself to be verbally abused by a family member for many years,

    -was diagnosed with clinical depression at a young age / had suicidal ideation,

    -had anxiety (still have some anxiety), had panic attacks,

    I could go on with another ten pages of issues I had (some I’m still working through) thanks to living this gender comp, anti-psychological, anti self confidence view that Ken is advocating.

    The “Ken view” does not produce good fruit. It actually creates some pretty rotten fruit.

    I had to get outside the Christian bubble to break free of it.

    What Ken is proposing will keep someone with my set of problems trapped in the same problems indefinitely. The Ken prescription will keep you running on the hamster wheel, running in place, never getting anywhere.

    How does the expression go?
    “The definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

  358. Lydia wrote:

    They do it by separating the spiritual from the secular. It is really right out of Greek Philosophy in many ways. Your spiritual being is to be subject to the earthly philosopher kings (elder/pastor/husband) who know best for you. But you can be self governing in the secular world.

    How we can separate ourselves in that way, I will never understand.
    So, you can be President but you cannot teach the bible to men. You can be Commander in Chief but at the same time “subject” to your husband.

    I think this still leaves the Kens of the gender complementarian world out there with a problem.

    I’m leading myself spiritually at this time. I’m not married.

    I’m working my way through stuff all on my own (other than emotional support or debates I get into on blogs such as this one).

    I’ve had to get through the grief of losing my mother alone. No “spiritual male head” to lead me there, not with the spiritual implications of grief, death, and loss, and not in practical ways.

    When I began having doubts about the Christian faith the last couple years, I’ve been on my own there, too, researching topics on my own.
    I’ve not had a man hold my little hand and navigate this stuff for me.

    If an unmarried woman doesn’t need a man as her spiritual (or secular) leader, a married one does not, either.

    My ex fiance’ was not a bright guy, not at spiritual or at secular stuff. He was a high school grad, but no college degree. He had learning disabilities that left him unable to be much of a thinker, to put it politely.

    I cannot fathom why a gender comp would insist I defer any and all decision making and choices to someone who’s I.Q. and education is much lower than mine (my ex also sometimes lacked common sense), and at that based on body parts alone.

    There are so many good articles and books which address how gender comps are totally mis-applying teachings by apostle Paul and other NT writers that were intended only for a narrow demographic, culture, and time period and/or limited situation.

    The gender comps are just dying to make all this stuff binding on all women every where, down to 2015 United States and Europe, and they are alienating women as a result and handicapping the church to boot.

  359. Daisy wrote:

    Ken seemingly thinks feelings or personal experiences are bad and should not be used at all to gauge a doctrine.

    I hope our feelings and personal experiences are filtered through logic, reason, right and wrong.

  360. Daisy wrote:

    I think this still leaves the Kens of the gender complementarian world out there with a problem.

    It does. They are actually applying the same wrong pagan principle. The woman, when married, then becomes separated from herself with the same principle as the “forms”. It is a religion based upon genitals. I hate to be crass but that is what it boils down to. The male becomes the philosopher king for the woman in that religion. There is no “blessed alliance” as Carolyn Custis James puts it so eloquently.

  361. @ Ken:

    As I have mentioned in comments several times current cosmology says there was a beginning to the universe and that there is no end expected thus it is a one time event. The discoveries leading to these conclusions were awarded the 1978 and 2011 Nobel Physics prizes.
    At the point of creation I believe God created a process that continues to this day and has resulted in the universe we live in. In particular, biological evolution as it is commonly understood is part of the process.
    The Darwinian “survival of the fittest” concept adequately describes how evolution works. Our species is also a result of this evolution process. Our genome is 99% the same as a chimpanzee. Evolution implies that organisms that are similar will have more of their genomes in common. This fact is beginning to be exploited as a alternative means of species classification to the common presently used physical similarity. Evolution’s survival of the fittest claim is a more descriptive paradigm for much of the abuse described on TWW than Jesus’s “love your neighbor as yourself”.
    I believe God can intervene in His creation in any way He pleases. I think the real question is how much and where the intervention has been done. I suspect, but can’t prove, that the interventions have been fairly limited.
    One place we clearly differ from the rest of life is that we have a sense of morality. Morality doesn’t seem to follow from the survival of the fittest paradigm and as is shown at many levels is not an intrinsic part of our collective genetic endowment. I think the intervention f God giving us a sense of morality and our discarding of it is the message of the Garden parable in Genesis.
    The frantic search for life off of planet Earth is a symptom of the push for a non theistic source of life. Even if an extraterrestrial source of the origin of life on Earth can be demonstrated the question of how life first occurred hasn’t been answered.
    Evidence for the biochemical similarity of all life and its evolution from simpler to more complex forms is sufficiently compelling that requiring that God started it and gave it occasional direction is what requires faith.
    This brief comment is barely an outline of a detailed presentation about the science of evolution and where or if God modified parts of it at some time.

  362. Daisy wrote:

    Evolution is not so much science as it is a world view that is loved and adored by Non-Christians because it helps them believe it affirms their atheism.

    Evolution is a science. See my very recent above comment to Ken. Another measure of the validity of a science is the technology it supports. Evolution by justifying the molecular commonality of all life provides the basis for the rapidly developing science and technology of genomics.

  363. Does anyone know if there are any denominations or non denominational churches left that don’t prescribe to reformed theology? I am having a hard time finding a church that hasn’t been indoctrinated by Neo Cal beliefs. It’s getting really frustrating.

  364. Nancy2 wrote:

    The odds of humans forming by chance are 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. I think God made us, but what happened afterwards is a result of nature, chance, and choices.

    My guess this is low by 1 followed by many pages full of zeros. I didn’t include creating the the first true organism as a Godly intervention in my comment: I don’t like making “God of the gaps” type of arguments. I hope my original comment gave some hint of my leanings on this topic.

    You might visit: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/G/GenomeSizes.html to get some insight into just how complex even the simplest free standing organism is.

  365. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    The odds of humans forming by chance are 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. I think God made us, but what happened afterwards is a result of nature, chance, and choices.
    My guess this is low by 1 followed by many pages full of zeros. I didn’t include creating the the first true organism as a Godly intervention in my comment: I don’t like making “God of the gaps” type of arguments. I hope my original comment gave some hint of my leanings on this topic.
    You might visit: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/G/GenomeSizes.html to get some insight into just how complex even the simplest free standing organism is.

    Yes, a 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. The article I referenced goes into probabilities on simple organisms, too. As a math person, I can understand the probabilities to some degree. But the chances even of simple organisms happening by chance are so infinitesimally small, it is difficult to fathom!

  366. OldJohnJ wrote:

    I believe God can intervene in His creation in any way He pleases. I think the real question is how much and where the intervention has been done. I suspect, but can’t prove, that the interventions have been fairly limited.

    A point that tends to come up less frequently than other points in theological discussions about human origins is the fact that, in the Genesis account, it took two acts to create humankind:

    Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    This process of “forming from the dust of the ground” refers, I believe, to the physical matter of which we are made; the chemical elements, the tissue types and yes, the DNA whereby our bodies function. But there is something else that makes us human, described here as “the breath of life” – no other living thing is described as combining these two attributes. That’s technically an argument from silence, but it’s a very loud silence, especially in the light of what Genesis explicitly says about us. This, I believe, refers to our intrinsic connection with unseen, spiritual things.

    As regards the nature of God’s forming us from the dust of the earth – that, obviously, is a process that can have taken some considerable time, if indeed it was the breath of life that truly marked our creation. God’s hand on the process is something I, likewise, suspect but cannot prove. My guess is that it might crudely be likened to driving a long distance along a motorway (or interstate, or autobahn, etc). You hold the steering wheel throughout the journey; for the majority of it, you don’t move it very much, but occasionally you must perform a more active manoeuvre. With vastly more complexity and many more degrees of freedom, I’m inclined to suspect that God’s hand on the development of life on earth has been like that: ever present, but rarely noticeable.

  367. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    With vastly more complexity and many more degrees of freedom, I’m inclined to suspect that God’s hand on the development of life on earth has been like that: ever present, but rarely noticeable.

    Following the various forms of abuse chronicled here on TWW, especially by those in power over individual churches, I feel survival of the fittest as opposed to the Golden Rule is a far better description of our species. Sadly, I also feel that we have collectively, not individually, told the Lord “we will do it our way” and he is allowing us that freedom. I believe God does work in the lives of those who follow His leading but I don’t see much guidance of culture in general.

  368. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Following the various forms of abuse chronicled here on TWW, especially by those in power over individual churches, I feel survival of the fittest as opposed to the Golden Rule is a far better description of our species.

    “Survival of the Fittest” in its commonly-understood Social Darwinist Self-Justification form, not as it was originally intended by Darwin.

    Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” originally meant reproductive success, i.e. which individuals pass their genes to the most offspring, resulting in those genes becoming dominant in the population. Quiverfull’s “Outbreed the Heathen” is as Darwinist as you can get.

  369. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    This process of “forming from the dust of the ground” refers, I believe, to the physical matter of which we are made; the chemical elements, the tissue types and yes, the DNA whereby our bodies function.

    An archaic version of Carl Sagan’s “We are all made of star-stuff!”

  370. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Survival of the Fittest” in its commonly-understood Social Darwinist Self-Justification form, not as it was originally intended by Darwin.

    Yes, I intended the phrase to be in the Darwinian “nature red in tooth and claw” sense which is not a Darwin phrase.