Reformed Complementarian Women Are Expressing Serious Concerns With CBMW

“What do you fear, lady?" [Aragorn] asked. 
"A cage," [Éowyn] said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”  ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King link
Man and Woman

On Monday, I spent a number of hours at the cardiologist's office with my mother, trying to get her cleared for her second cataract surgery. They almost stopped the first surgery a week ago when she went into atrial fibrillation during the procedure. Due to my mother in law's rapidly deteriorating condition, I was determined to get my mom's surgery over with ASAP. As I accompanied her into the echocardiogram room, I tweeted a link to Courtney Reissig's article over at Christianity Today's Her.Meneutics: Why Complementarian Men Need Complementarian Women. I was somewhat irritated by a number of her observations and thought others might find it worth reading.

Approximately 1 hour later, I glanced at my Twitter app and saw that there were 99+ notifications on my feed which means that something big was happening. It appears a number of people were also put off by her post and were tagging each other as well as Courtney. Even Aimee Byrd joined in on the discussion. 

The ESS/Trinity debate continues on in a big way. I  want to focus on two posts, one by Aimee Byrd and the other by Courtney Reissig. I continue to contend that this entire debate reared its ugly head because men like Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, Owen Strachan and others need it to justify the subordinate position of women to men in eternity. Here is one such article at CBMW: Relationships and Roles in the New Creation

The proponents of eternal subordination of women can use the Eternal Subordination of the Son(ESS) argument to their benefit. For example:

  1. Jesus is subordinate to the Father in eternity and He does so with joy.
  2. So, if it is good enough for Jesus, women, it should be good enough for you.
  3. If you don't like it, are you really a Christian?

Aimee Byrd says that CBMW has betrayed women

Aimee Byrd, also known as The Housewife Theologian, is both Reformed and a complementarian. Nonetheless, she has taken issue with the ESS doctrine. In this post, The Silence of Our Friendsshe dealt with what she calls "the institutional and theological betrayal of complementarian women."

She states that CBMW owes women an apology.

Those of us who have been discussing CBMW's issues for years will not find what she has to say surprising. The fact that she, as an insider, takes these positions is somewhat startling to me.  She claims that complementarian women have been betrayed by hyper-authoritarian teaching disguised as complementarian doctrine.

CBMW in particular owes a lot of women an apology. They haven't acknowledged one woman* who has critiqued their fringe teaching and asked for them to think of its practical consequences. And they wouldn't answer my one reasonable question about their stance on Nicene Trinitarian confessions. It has made some wonder whether they are even interested in listening to women. This is not complementarity according to how I thought of the definition of the word. It seems that “complementarity” has been reduced to nothing more than authority and submission, one inherent in men, the other in women. 

Women have been betrayed by the packaging and mass selling of hyper-authoritative teaching under the guise of complementarity. Men who know better are just helping to perpetuate it. And women who know better are also silent. Why is that?

She claims that CBMW has not retracted their teaching of Sanctified Testosterone and Soap Bubble Submission.

Even worse, CBMW has not affirmed Nicene Trinitarianism.

 CBMW has made no statement affirming Nicene Trinitarianism. They’ve made no retractions of the teaching of those who have taught ESS/ESF/ERAS under their brand. They have made no retractions, although I have personally asked them to, of troubling teachings such as Sanctified Testosterone or Soap Bubble Submission.

She believes that this teaching has led to abuse in some marriages.

Finally, someone within the Reformed camp is getting what many of us have been saying for years. 

While there has been helpful teaching that has come from CBMW, other teaching reduces women to ontologically subordinate roles. And some husbands have even used this kind of teaching to fuel abuse in their relationships. I get emails from women who have been in these relationships, thanking me for speaking out. Some hate complementarian teaching now because they were never heard.

She continues to emphasize her concern about this teaching leading to abuse.

Complementarian men should respond to women with a listening ear and a resolve to better teach what headship actually means and what it does not mean. They should be reaching out to abused women, whose husbands and churches hide under the banner of headship and complementarianism, and call out the abuse and false teaching loud and clear. They should be working to help church leaders to recognize abuse and provide godly counsel and resources for those abused. And if they truly believe in complementarity, they above all should want to invest in women with solid teaching, since they know their value to the church.

Aimee says that women have been blacklisted when they have asked to be heard.

But instead, when women like me plead for change, we are accused of being feminists or egalitarians or ‘thin complementarians.’ We are blacklisted and ignored. We are treated like women who won’t fall in line. Is that the beauty of complementarity?

I cannot stress enough the importance of Aimee Byrd's observations. She is an insider and believes in complementarianism but she sees the serious problems that arise from the poor teaching in this area. For these observations, she is being ostracized by the hard core complementarian crowd. 

This proves an interesting point that many of us have observed through the years. When you deal with this hardcore Calvinista crowd, you must march lock step with every jot and tiddle of their exacting beliefs. The moment an intelligent person says "Hey, wait a minute," she  become an adversary.

Courtney Reissig seems to overlook CBMW's woman problem.

In the article, Why Complementarian Men Need Complementarian Women, Reissig admits that she is in the minority at CBMW and other venues. She does not seem to view this as a problem.

Being outnumbered by men has always been part of my life. I was raised in a family of brothers. I’m the mother to three sons. I’m also the only female editor at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), so I’m all too familiar with what it’s like to be the only woman around.

Reissig demonstrates that there is a lack of input from women at CBMW

Reissig does not seem to be aware that she is demonstrating for many of us what we have long postulated. There is a lack of female input in these hard core complementarian groups. Yet, she thinks that it is OK because they listen to her. I suspect that she is quite submissive in her position and demeanor but more on that in a moment.

 I can tell you from personal experience that being the only woman in a room of complementarian men doesn't mean that I’m ignored, overruled, or seen as a token female. At CBMW, I’m frequently called on to provide my unique perspective. More often than not, my male colleagues yield to my opinion. (And yes, that is consonant with our views.) More often than not, they’re interested in how a woman might perceive what goes up on our site.  

Reissig claims that women have been an integral part of CBMW since its inception.

This is hard for me to fathom. If one reads Aimee Byrd's post above, it is evident that CBMW silences women who do not agree with them totally.

From its inception, CBMW has included women—from drafting the Danvers Statement in 1987 to speaking at present-day conferences. The female voice has not been silenced. It has been preserved and heard.

Reissig misrepresents the numbers of women at CBMW. 

Let me interject part of the Twitter conversation from the other day. Having read this article, I commented on Twitter that Reissig was a token female at CBMW. She attempted to deny it in this tweet, claiming that the small staff is basically 50/50. This is patently ridiculous.

Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 3.50.31 PM

Apparently she has not looked at her own website or is she totally invested in trying to present a woman friendly CBMW that the facts do not matter? To make matters worse, CJ Mahaney is on the Council which speaks volumes as to the character and nature of this council.

She mentions some women who have blogged on the ESS debate.

I knew this would be interesting because she represents the truly hard-line complementarians who support the ESS doctrine. CBMW supports the idea that women will be subordinate to men in eternity (that means forever and ever!) 

 a few women have spoken up to get involved. Aimee Byrd, Hannah Anderson, and Wendy Alsup have actively participated in the recent discussion, including a substantial post on the issue on Alsup’s site, Theology for Women. Their post takes issue with some of the characterizations posted on CBMW and shared by other theologians.

Reissig is dismayed that the majority of women's voices in this debate are not ones that support the stance of CBMW.

I think she was truly startled that all complementarian women are not jumping up and down to support ESS. Could it be that she functions in a bubble?

While I appreciate their contribution to the discussion, it’s notable that most of the women’s voices in this debate have been critical ones. For a more robust conversation, I believe that we need women from both ends of the complementarian spectrum to join the male voices who often lead these conversations.

Reissig first claims she is in process in regards to the Trinity debate. 

I don’t have answers to the Trinity debate, which I’m still analyzing and processing

Then she said she supports the CBMW viewpoint.

Of course she is not in process. She absolutely must believe the party line at CBMW or she might find there is one less women in the staff. Why even pretend she is in process?

To those complementarian friends who, like me, are defending this view of the Trinity,

Reissig proceeds to define her ideas as meta-level analysis!

I had to giggle at her terminology for this next section of her post. She called it "meta-level analysis of the conversation." Meta analysis is one of the more recent, overused terms of the Calvinistas. It sounds *intellectual* but it is frequently misused as it is in this instance. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, meta analysis is defined as:

a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance

As you will see, she does nothing of the sort. She proceeds to go after the critics.

The critics are not being winsome.

After having a good laugh at this overused term, I noted that her argument is quite simple. Stop being mean to us. We don't really understand why you get upset at what we say. She is being serious, folks.

To those complementarian friends taking issue with Ware’s and Grudem's understanding of the Trinity, I would suggest that you consider how your frustrations might inhibit your ability to share your views winsomely. Those of us on the other side of the debate aren’t maliciously ignoring you. We simply don’t always know how our ideas impact you. And even if you disagree vehemently with our views, we don’t want to be labeled as heretics or deemed unfit for a teaching position'

She considers herself privileged since she is not as conflicted as the rest of us 'flicted women.

To those complementarian friends who, like me, are defending this view of the Trinity, I would suggest that you listen to what’s being said by those who disagree with us. We might feel misrepresented when they critique our views. But wouldn’t we rather be wronged for the sake of unity among our brothers and sisters (1 Cor. 6:7)? We need to understand how our words and ideas have been perceived, and how those perceptions affect others. As women who are not at odds with complementarian teaching, we should use our position of relative “privilege” to try and understand those who feel more conflicted.

Peace and unity will begin with CBMW which is the example of men and women working together!

I kid you not! Reissig is so immersed in CBMW that she demonstrates an inability to understand what CBMW represents to many of us. Unity between men and women is not a term that ever comes to mind!

In the midst of this particular civil war among complementarians, I believe that peace and unity are still possible. Perhaps it begins with where CBMW started in the first place—with men and women working together for the cause of Christ, unified around our shared identity as image bearers of God, both male and female.

Behind the scenes of the Soap Bubble Opera.

in the Twitter exchange, a number of people asked Reissig why the infamous Soap Bubble post suddenly disappeared from the CBMW website. You can read our piece on the original post here. Reissig claims that she made the decision to take it down after she read it. Reissig was being a bit misleading here as Aimee demonstrates.

Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 5.34.28 PM

Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 5.34.35 PM

Here is where it gets interesting. Owen Strachan, the head of CBMW told Aimee Byrd that the post wouldn't come down because it was biblical.™ Enter Grant Castleberry, CBMW Chef Editor. Reissig was getting lots of Tweets about the Soap Bubble post. Castleberry was trying to back up Reissig but he made things more complicated.

Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 5.40.19 PM

Uh oh! Strachan claimed it was Biblical. Castleberry said he would try to explain it soon but he was on a flight with his family. We are left wondering why the post really was taken down and why CBMW and all those manly men couldn't give a reason for their decision. So, Dee is going to make a stab at a plausible cause.

The Soap Bubble post was ridiculous. It is fascinating that no one at CBMW, not even the token woman editor, could see the obvious problems with it. A number of people throughout the blogosphere, including Aimee Byrd, condemned that article. It was soon after Aimee's post that the Soap Bubble burst and disappeared. I believe that negative publicity was the cause of its removal. The staff was embarrassed and didn't have the guts to say so. So it just vanished. 

Bottom line:

When the presumed constituency of CBMW, Reformed complementarian women, begins to seriously question a number of CBMW *approved* articles and doctrines, CBMW has a serious problem. Courtney Reissig seemed to be surprised at the number of complementarian women who took issue with an article like Soap Bubble Submission as well as the disappearance of the post on their website. She needs to get out of her bubble and spend some time with disenfranchised women. CBMW has gone a bit too far and is getting well deserved pushback.

To CBMW: The advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not at stake if people don't see things your way. It has lasted 2,000 years without your organization. You have pushed things way too far.

Thanks go out to Aimee Byrd. Although I do not share some secondary doctrines with her, I know that we both share concerns about those who use hyper-authoritarianism to justify abuse. She gets it and, for that, I am thankful.

CBMW is in a bit of trouble.


Reformed Complementarian Women Are Expressing Serious Concerns With CBMW — 632 Comments

  1. Velour wrote:

    You do our state (California) proud here on TWW. We’re a good bunch here. You, H.U.G., elastigirl, me…don’t know if we have others from our state here.

    You may add me to the list—OC native who’s still here. 🙂

  2. Max wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    They even told me that when I discussed the safety of our church’s children in the presence of their friend a Megan’s List sex offender that they had secretly brought to church, put in a position of trust and leadership, given church membership to — and told no one.
    Such pastors/elders need to be put on a “Church Offender List”! We need to be keeping track of these folks somewhere.

    Indeed. I submitted all of their names to the California Department of Justice and said keep an eye out for them, goodness only knows what they’re doing to kids.

    Plus, those pastors/elders at my ex-church engaged in a conspiracy (a plan between two or more people) in telling members not to call police and to “obey” your elders (per the Membership Covenant). In my state (CA), conspiracy can be prosecuted as a felony and the pastors/elders can land up in state prison.

    Additionally, in the United States criminal acts are not legally enforceable, including via Membership Covenants.

  3. Debi Calvet wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    You do our state (California) proud here on TWW. We’re a good bunch here. You, H.U.G., elastigirl, me…don’t know if we have others from our state here.
    You may add me to the list—OC native who’s still here.

    I didn’t know that, Debi.

    Welcome to a fellow Poppy.

  4. Nancy2 wrote:

    “And we can’t wake up one day and decide to be a Proverbs 31 woman any more than a man can decide to lead like Christ.”

    The above is a cut and paste quote from Reisseg’s article, “Confessions of a .recovering Feminists”. That indicates to me that she sees a very definite distinction between men and women, not just physically, but spiritually.

    The reason Ressig is so silly writing that is that she was so young. Was she a feminist before she went to college at SBTS. Are we talking ages 13 to 18?

    It’s like all these guys who wrote books on Christian child raising when their kids were all under 6.

  5. Ken F wrote:

    Maybe we should start talking about “complimentarian” marriages. Wouldn’t things go better if we put the emphasis on complimenting each other?

    But then I don’t get to Hold the Whip!

  6. Lydia wrote:

    The reason Ressig is so silly writing that is that she was so young. Was she a feminist before she went to college at SBTS. Are we talking ages 13 to 18?

    It’s like all these guys who wrote books on Christian child raising when their kids were all under 6.

    Remember Job’s Counselors:
    It’s always those who have NEVER been there that are first and loudest with the glib advice to those who ARE.

  7. Muff Potter wrote:

    WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    I got the impression Jesus was teaching that the “doesn’t apply” applied to the eunuchs precisely because they were never having sex. For everyone else …

    For everyone else? If sex is that big of a buggaboo to the Almighty, he’d have done better to make it no more enjoyable or sought after than getting the wheat and barley crop in.

    I have wondered the same thing.
    And it also ties into Creation-vs-Evolution.

    Because sexual reproduction is an argument for evolution. You see, with asexual reproduction the organism just clones itself; DNA is identical from generation to generation except for random mutations.

    But with sexual reproduction the genome gets reshuffled with each generation; there is a vastly higher rate of variation and change. Sexual reproduction seems to be a prerequisite of evolution, introducing variation for natural selection (in the original meaning of relative reproductive success) to work with.

    So if Ken Ham’s worshippers are right, why did “male and female created He them”, i.e. create ex nihilo with sexual reproduction? Creation ex nihilo (per Ham) doesn’t require sexual reproduction, just “So Be It!” Creating humans with asexual reproduction would not only remove a lot of trouble but be solid evidence for the Six Day Zap.

  8. Gram3 wrote:

    I think it is more of what they did after Piper’s directive that a wife should endure a season of abuse. They will *never* repent of the core sin of desiring to rule over another person made in God’s image.

    Because then they can’t Hold the Whip.

  9. Lydia wrote:

    It’s like all these guys who wrote books on Christian child raising when their kids were all under 6.

    As a young father, I asked my Dad once what the toughest years of child-rearing were. His response “The first 55.” I guess parenthood lasts a life-time.

  10. Debi Calvet wrote:

    Yet it is Calvinism—specifically my own exposure to the full horror of it—that has made my long-time faith struggle even more difficult to resolve.

    Amen to that. Am in the same boat.

  11. @ trs:
    Thank you so much for taking the time to type this out. I have been on the edge of despair at times. I’ve been reading and thinking on this subject. I had a number of objections to complementary doctrine, and when there was a recent sermon on why “complementary” (as in wives submit) was the biblical form for marriage, evidently the preacher had also been reading up on objections, because he answered every one and seemed able to refute them.

    Which makes me feel like a foolish woman, being blown about by the winds of doctrine, and (to mix a metaphor) kicking against the goads.

    I see how destructive complementarianism is in practice (know how destructive it was in our own family) and think, how can this be what God has prescribed? And yet, I see a few families who preach it *and* seem to be able to make it work.

    My complementarian friends are gentle and pitying, and I get the impression that the reason we failed at it was because we were just doing it wrong. *sigh*

  12. @ refugee


    What you’re going through makes my blood boil.

    Imo, being an authentic person before an authentic God is the opposite of foolishness. In my experience, “Biblical forms” for anything in life are doomed to fail.

    God already sees (and loves beyond knowing) me, the real me, who I am at heart. (and you and everyone else — ya just can’t fool the Holy Spirit)

    He knows, and I now freely agree, that I cannot live up to anyone’s expectations/”forms”/”patterns of living,” etc., not even my own. lol
    Like, I can sure plan days and times to get to the gym — that end up having zero to do with actually getting myself there.

    The Ephesians passage on marriage just makes me laugh. Who can live out what Paul wrote? The blaring subtext to me is: You can’t do this without depending on the Holy Spirit every second of every day. Get your eyes off yourselves and your status and who is or is not Top Dawg, and keep your eyes right on Jesus.

    The passage really IS about Christ and the Church.

    I’m not real familiar with the comp/egalitarian debate. Most of what I know is from reading here at TWW and at a few other blogs.

    What I’m finding is that the Scriptures really do not support the comp doctrines of “wives submit,” at least as far as I understand them.

    A poster, Alan House, on another thread asked me a question about Ephesians 5:21 – 23. (Hope those are the right verses. lol) The post you read was my answer.

    I’m going to add a few more thoughts.

    I’d benefit from knowing your pastor’s refutations of the objections to comp doctine, if you ever feel like posting them.

  13. Isn’t it just like fallen nature to develop a doctrine of male entitlement based on

    1. “I’m the oldest/first-created.” 2. “I sinned second.” 3. “She’s the second.” 4. “She sinned first.”

    Therefore: Men rule everywhere, in every way, at all times, forever and ever, Amen. God said so.
    Missing the whole message of God’s SALVATION here, much?

  14. @refugee & @trs,

    Here is Ron Pierce’s class room lectures (15-hours). He is a theology professor. He used to believe in Comp & he no longer does after careful study of the Scriptures. His book is also on amazon.

    P.S. For more articles, links, book information, etc. refuting Comp, please go to the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books/Movies, etc. tab. I and others
    keep good resources stored over there for peoples’ use.

  15. I call BOGUS on using 1 Timothy 2:12 to support the doctrine that women in God’s ekklesia cannot teach.

    This Scripture is about “authenteo” which signifies extreme authoritarianism, a form of governance as opposite to God’s authority as possible.

    “Authenteo” and “exousia” are not interchangeable in either connotative or denotative meaning.

    “Authenteo” is not even synonymous with 2961. kurieuó
    which carries the idea of “ruling over” or “lording it over” or “being master over.”

    Imo, “authenteo” is the way the predicted end-times tyrant (i.e. the man of perdition) will rule — accountable to no one, and as if he himself alone is god. Authenteo is evil.

    I say, “No way this v12 has anything to do with the daily interaction of men and women in the ekklesia.”

  16. More musings. Additions, corrections, expanded meanings — all welcome.

    Plus, 1 Timothy 2:11 does not command women to be silent (in the church or anywhere else).

    The verse is talking about learning. How can learning take place without talking? The focus is on ** appropriate ** speech, within the established context for learning.

    2271. hésuchia This term “does not mean speechlessness, which is more directly indicated by 4602 (sigḗ) (J. Thayer). See 2272 (hēsyxios).

    272 hēsýxios (an adjective derived from hēsyxos, “quiet, stillness”) – properly, quiet (still), i.e. steady (settled) due to a divinely-inspired inner calmness.

    2272/hēsyxios (“calmly quiet”) describes being “appropriately tranquil” by not misusing (or overusing) words that would stir up needless friction (destructive commotion).

    Verse 11 does not command women to be subject to men, either.

    In the Scriptural ekklesia, being “subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21) is a given. Plus, no one taught from “their own authority.” All the teaching was “in subjection.”

    (Interesting to me, also, is that the gender of those from whom these women would be learning is not mentioned.)

    Do not the men in the ekklesia also learn “in all subjection” and “in quietness,” i.e. without “anger and dissension” or unnecessary and disruptive interruptions?

    Paul just seems to calmly include the women in the standard practice of learning/teaching. Imo, the verse emphasizes “let the women learn,” and does not imply “let the women be in silent subjugation.”

  17. I want to add a caveat or a few to my musings about Scriptural meanings.

    I by no means equate the ekklesia Scripture talks about with today’s church.

    For the most part, today’s church is a perilous place to apply what Scripture talks about, i.e. — subjecting oneself to one another, etc.
    Extreme wariness is necessary, imo.

    Still walking my own way out of a place of broken trust, I need tons of evidentiary “good fruit” from anyone professing faith in Christ (or however one wants to word that).

    Just for context, in my view:

    God never, in any way, appoints or supports abusers to mediate or preach His salvation to anyone.

    God is not secretly “in cahoots” with “spiritual leaders” to excuse their sin. He issues no special “we’ll-just-let-that-slide.-After-all-you’re-so-important-to-God’s-Kingdom-and-the-Gospel-and-all-that passes to church leaders or members.

    God does not require anyone “to obey” or follow or even respect (other than the consideration due every human being) a “spiritual leader” who serially (or even once) sexually assaults children or reassigns/covers for such.

    The spirit behind institutional support for predators and continual denial of help for abused and sexually assaulted children is not the Holy Spirit.

    (The way people, organizations and institutions treat children clearly demonstrates the priorities of their hearts. To me, our country’s legislative indifference to children is way past reprehensible.)

    God’s teachings do not allow the husband or the wife to mistreat, abuse, or otherwise purposely damage each other or their children. God’s teachings, actually, allow no one to “lord it over” anyone else.

    For anyone who is/was triggered by words like obedience, subjection, etc., I apologize for neglecting to post a trigger warning. In the Scripture, those words are upbuilding. In real life, not so much.

    For a long time, even hearing the verse about “obeying the leaders” gave me stomach cramps.

  18. trs wrote:

    I want to add a caveat or a few to my musings about Scriptural meanings.

    Your analysis and insight is incredible. It’s a shame that it’s getting buried in an old post that probably won’t get the attention it deserves. If you ever decide to write a book on this I will gladly buy it. Have you considered putting all these thoughts together for a potential “guest post” on TWW.

  19. @ Ken F.

    Wow! Thanks for the kind kudos and the hearty “amen!” All the post input here is healing for sure.

    When in “monologue-mode” I mostly post at end-threads to avoid blawg-hawgedness. Conversations flow on while I’m still responding to months-old posts. lol I really got caught up with the “women must keep silent” myth.

    Never thought of doing a guest post, though, as you can tell, the Deebs are totally open to sharing posters’ stories.

    I’m still in the throes of recovering from the more strange/extreme fallout from church shunning. My brain “gets it” faster than the rest of me. For now, I’m content with a post or screed here and there.

    I almost ready to put the “t” at the end of my moniker. I gotta tell ya — that’s God’s grace, pure and simple. No doubt about it.

    I appreciate your encouraging words a lot. Thanks again.

  20. trs wrote:

    Never thought of doing a guest post, though, as you can tell, the Deebs are totally open to sharing posters’ stories.

    I know how you feel about trying to keep up with the current threads. I don’t have time to keep up with the comments. I am convinced that you have a gift that should be used in the body. If you don’t have a way to exercise that gifting, a guest post trying all that you’ve posted on these last few threads would be extremely beneficial to all.

    Did you have chance to see the two lengthy comments I posted on the open discussion last week? They are from a paper I wrote on accountability more than a year ago. I am interested in your feedback since I am not a Greek scholar but I dived into what the Greek means drawing from books that I have.

  21. @ Velour:

    He makes a great point about 1 Corin 7 vs Eph 5 when it comes to teaching from scripture on marriage. He says 1 Corin 7 covers 12 aspects of marriage and is twice as long as Eph 5 which covers two aspects.

  22. Lydia wrote:

    @ Velour:
    He makes a great point about 1 Corin 7 vs Eph 5 when it comes to teaching from scripture on marriage. He says 1 Corin 7 covers 12 aspects of marriage and is twice as long as Eph 5 which covers two aspects.


  23. @ Ken F.

    Thanks again, Ken. Your words are deeply encouraging.

    I did find/read your posts on accountability. Very thorough and well-thought through as per your usual. Valuable and insightful. I could write much in response.

    btw, I don’t know Greek either. lol

    Seems to me that folks who do not believe that God is personal nor that Christ restores our personal relationship with Him, cannot really understand what Scripture is saying. Somehow the Bible becomes just some kind of rule book.

    My disclaimer to anybody is: Doing the “Christian/Biblical/Spiritual/Scriptural/etc. life” without Holy Spirit empowerment is highly hazardous to one’s health, happiness and sanity. I advocate to abandon the enterprise entirely.

    As usual, behind in the posts and comments, I’m commenting here for the sake of continuity.

  24. trs wrote:

    I’m still in the throes of recovering from the more strange/extreme fallout from church shunning. My brain “gets it” faster than the rest of me.

    Me too.

  25. ~~ fwiw ~~

    Things That Are Not A Savior ~~

    systematic theology, church doctrines, baptisms, sacraments, “spiritual authority,” religion, “authority/submission,” the Bible, church fathers/mothers, creeds, commandments, a pastor, a priest, a pope, Moses, a “Moses model,” a friend, a leader, a follower, a celebrity name, discipline, a sermon, disguised wolves, church membership, spiritual disciplines, meditation, tulips, theologians, a mega-church, an accountability group, a mantra, “inner silence,” a missionary, pantheism, atheism, panentheism, evolution, creationsism, any “–ism,” ~` add to the list –

    “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

    What (actually — Who) Saves A Person’s Soul

    Jesus of Nazareth, crucified, dead, buried, risen, ascended into heaven, reigning from the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16)

    That’s it.

  26. @ trs:

    “Things That Are Not A Savior ~~… add to the list –”

    “Biblical Church Discipline”
    Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood’s teachings
    9Marks’ teachings/model
    “elder-led” with no congregational vote
    *a small church
    *a small group
    *women not teaching
    *women not using their gifts
    *not having a congregational vote
    *the Danver’s Statement (about *Biblical roles*)
    *the Chicago Statement (about the Inerrancy of Scripture)
    *Nouthetic Counseling/the Bible is sufficient counsel for all situations [it’s not and is no substitute for bona fide care, such as medical, by licensed professionals like physicians
    *church attendance
    *attendance at church events
    *”unity” (meaning don’t ever use critical thinking skills or ask questions)
    *the teachings of Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, and others
    *American cultural/political beliefs as the Gospel
    *Elect [going to Heaven]; non-elect [going to Hell]

  27. @ Ken F.

    btw (again)

    I don’t know how relevant this is to your earlier quest re: the atonement but here is what Jesus says.

    “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”
    John 10:17 – 18

    The Sanhedrin manipulated the death sentence and blackmailed the crowd into calling for his death.

    The Romans crucified Him.

    BUT NO ONE killed Jesus.

    He voluntarily (“for the joy that was set before Him” (Hebrews 12:2) ) stayed on the Cross

    because He saw me, helpless in the deceit, decay, destruction, and death of sin,

    and He so deeply, deeply (sweating blood kind of deeply) desired

    to free me, heal me, make me whole, restored, renewed, love me for all eternity (and not just me, but every human being)

    that He laid down His own life . . . and then took up His life again — victoriously triumphing over my merciless, escapeless enemies: sin, death, and the devil.

    The “joy set before Him?” — imo — Seeing in the future that epitome of all Fellowship Dinners — that feast wherein He drinks the new wine once more in His Father’s Kingdom with all of us, the Bride, whom He loves.

    The joy that held Him there? US!! US, whole and loved and loving and laughing and LIVING and rejoicing for all eternity with Him our (insert any and all superlatives) Redeemer.

    I look forward to telling Him thank you for all eternity .

    (Sometimes life in this realm is so grim, I just have to look heavenward for a bit.)

  28. @ trs:
    These are great thoughts. Thank you. They are very much in line with what I’ve been learning from the early church and the Eastern Orthodox theology. The “Christus Victor” explanation is making so much more sense to me. I still think you should do some guest posts because you have so much to offer.

  29. trs wrote:

    I’m commenting here for the sake of continuity.

    I’m commenting here for the sake of invisibility. Much less likely to get in trouble than on the main thread. Thanks for reviewing the accountability paper. It blows me away how much stuff is done in the name of Churchianity that has no Biblical or historical authority. This has been a very fruitful search for me. I feel like I had to dump all of my theology onto a pile in the middle of the room and then sort through it to find the treasures. It’s been very messy, but I think I’m making some progress.

  30. @ Ken F:
    @ trs:
    The DEEBS have an open discussion page, but it is REALLY open …. To everything.
    So, I wonder if it would be to difficult for them to set up a page for something along the the lines of “the History of Christianity”, or “Biblical Interpretations”?
    I wonder, because I miss so much on these old posts! It would me so much easier to find and follow on a seperate page link!
    I wouldn’t have anything to add, but I have much to learn!

  31. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Ken F:
    @ trs:
    The DEEBS have an open discussion page, but it is REALLY open …. To everything.
    So, I wonder if it would be to difficult for them to set up a page for something along the the lines of “the History of Christianity”, or “Biblical Interpretations”?
    I wonder, because I miss so much on these old posts! It would me so much easier to find and follow on a seperate page link!
    I wouldn’t have anything to add, but I have much to learn!

    I want a section under the Interesting tab for Quotes/Good Posts and I recently emailed them my request. I’ve been copying and stashing really good ones under the Books/Movies section, because that was the only real estate available. H.U.G. recently noticed this.