First

Very interesting..

ISTM that Aimee is on the very same path that many of us were on not too long ago, we were complementarians, believed it wholeheartedly, began to see the hypocricy and inconsistency…now firmly believe that the only biblically consistent hermeneutic points to an egalitarian perspective. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

I’m not sure it’s fair to say that CBMW has “pushed things too far”. What they are teaching isn’t actually Christianity. That goes beyond pushing too far. Where’s the “farewell, CBMW” tweet, Piper?

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Very à propos.

Not sure if it is the same Courtney but looks a lot like the one interviews at SBTS for some news outlet back when Palin was running for VP. She was the token female student. The students were saying how it was ok for women to be President but not the spiritual head, pastor, etc. So, Palin could be commander in chief but could not teach a mixed bible study. Got it.

This was in converse to Voddie who was on national news saying women should not be elected president or VP.

That movement needs a Talmud. I can’t keep up with their rules, roles and formulas for the sexes. Grudem already started one with the 83. :o)

“War is the province of men, Éowyn.” ~ Éomir, at the Dunharrow Camp [The Return of the King, film version.]

Of course, Éomir was speaking about humans in battle versus Hobbits / Merry. But we know how this all turned out with Éowyn and The Witch-king of Angmar.

@ mot:
Miller’s gonna give her a warning soon.

TWW has posted regarding a less than Biblical viewpoint of women (and men, for that matter) and community. Key with CBMW. Tragic.

In some African cultures, women are not valued as people. As a single woman missionary there, it seemed obvious to me that the Christian men teachers not only didn’t correct this, but added fuel to the fire with their submission voodoo. (Some were divided in their own marriages – their wives clearly not wanting to be there, but oh yeah, the husband has the last and final word.)

Howard Hendricks used to say that if your Christianity does not work at home, it doesn’t work; don’t export it. Well, those missionaries were exporting their horrific gender bias packaged with false teaching in spades.

Years later, a friend works in an area where six militias gang-rape women as the norm, with impunity. Accepted. Guys have the last word. Maybe those guys follow Doug Wilson. Would this be playing out differently today if the missionaries had done their job? Heart wrenching. They lost the opportunity to make a difference with truth on a whole continent.

Sometimes as American Christians we just don’t get it. The ripple effect of some of our nonsense is tragic.

(BTW, I read fast, and was anticipating this post.)

On the council of CBMW is Dorothy Patterson, D.Min., Dr. Theol. (yes, those are real earned degrees — she’s a smart woman) who definitely wears the pants in her home. Anyone who has been at the manse on campus and seen Dorothy and Paige in action knows who the boss is.

on Reissig: ‘We don’t really understand why you get upset at what we say. She is being serious, folks.’

well, the thing is people have tried to communicate and they have been shut out, silenced, belittled, and ignored …
of COURSE ‘we don’t really understand why’ because they refused to listen to the reasons . . .

these neo-Cals can’t say that women haven’t tried to communicate, and the onus of responsibility for understanding ‘why’ needs to fall on them what closed their ears to the pleas of those who were upset

Mrs. Reissig is in a position to be a conduit between the men of her organization and those women with grave concerns. Perhaps, if it’s true that she really doesn’t understand, she can offer to serve in that capacity, since she is not (yet) muzzled.

To riff Obi Wan Kenobi. This is not the Christianity I was looking for.

Nancy2 wrote:

” She needs to get out of her bubble”
Maybe it’s a soap bubble. Could she just be in need of a good rinsing?

Why is she so surprised that other women might object to the complementary view? She seems very biased, but I am sure that is what the committee wanted.

mot wrote:

I am sure that is what the committee wanted.

I wonder if her middle name is Stepford?

Deb wrote:

Here’s a post Wade Burleson wrote about Courtney Tater before her last name changed to Reissig.

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2008/10/my-prayer-for-miss-courtney-tarter-that.html

That is it!

Ken P. wrote:

If I’m not first, it’s because I actually read the post.

Winners type first and then read, silly.

Jack wrote:

To riff Obi Wan Kenobi. This is not the Christianity I was looking for.

That will preach.

Seems these types are all about going back to Egypt.

@ Anonymous:
She even went to South Africa for the Dr. Theology. :o)

http://dorothypatterson.org/about/

She changed her bio! She took out the part where she attended a midnight buffet with Arafat.

But she does say this:

“Despite the successful completion of these degrees, Dr. Patterson’s theological education was not her idea: “My husband is responsible for my studies in theology. I did not have the inclination to do it. My health challenges and responsibilities in our home as wife and mother just pulled me away from an interest in the pursuit of graduate and post-graduate studies. I owe my graduate education to my husband’s encouragement and determination to put me through these programs in order that I could be a better helper to him, especially in the area of woman-to-woman teaching.”

So, she did not want to do the grad level stuff but her husband wanted her to so she would be a better helper to him.

Anonymous, are you suggesting Hyacinth…err…I mean Dorothy is not being truthful?

Patriciamc wrote:

I’ve found that those are usually the type of women who yell the loudest for wifely submission.

Bingo!

Deb wrote:

Here’s a post Wade Burleson wrote about Courtney Tater before her last name changed to Reissig.

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2008/10/my-prayer-for-miss-courtney-tarter-that.html

So Reissig is (was) Miss Courtney Tater . . . shazaaam!

FYI from the book section at the top of the page and on topic:

Commenter/poster/author/researcher Barb Orlowski, Canada, (blog is Church Exiters) posted these books on 8/25/15 on another Wartburg Watch article regarding the whole comp discussion as recommended reading.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would like to recommend three books by Susanna Krizo which attempt to expose the Complementarian agenda.
*“Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Patriarchy”
“Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Patriarchy” examines the main arguments in an easy-to-read dialogue format that allows the reader to reach his/her own conclusions while enjoying a deep, yet lighthearted, theological discussion.
Here is an excerpt from one book review:
“Thank God for Susanna Krizo! She makes complicated theology easy and fun to read. This is one of the most entertaining books we’ve ever read. At times it is so funny that you find yourself laughing and having a good time, and totally forget that theology is usually a dull topic to read! What we love most about her writing is that she works so hard to develop a full logical argument, address both sides of an issue, and really thinks things through to reasonable conclusions, all the while staying faithful to the Bible. Many theologians don’t like answering questions because they don’t really want to think things through because then their conclusions fall apart. But the Bible says “come let us reason together” because we need to really test all doctrine before accepting it. That’s what this book does so well.”
*“When Dogmas Die: The Return of Biblical Equality”
“When Dogmas Die” begins with a comprehensive look at Genesis 3:16 and the view that women are born inferior.
Book Quote: “Always ask why—not who, but why—for if you ask who gave the man authority over the woman, you may not find out why the man was given the authority, but if you ask why the man was given authority over the woman, you will find that it was the man’s idea.
Book Review Excerpt:
“When Dogmas Die” is a stunning critique of one of the great handbooks of Patriarchy in the Church: “Restoring Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” the collection of essays on gender roles compiled by John Piper and Wayne Grudem.
Grudem is considered a scholar by many in the church, so it comes as quite a surprise to find his work so tainted with errors and omissions, as this book aptly demonstrates and documents.
The subjection of women by men began as a result of the fall in the garden, and Krizo begins the book with a Chapter entitled “Genesis 3:16” to prove that point, and to show why Piper and Grudem’s attempt to teach a God-ordained hierarchy prior to the fall is in error.
*“Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles”
Book Review Excerpts:
“Witty and insightful, Susanna Krizo’s new book joins an ever-growing body of literature calling for the full recognition of women’s equality in all corners of the Christian faith. Challenging patriarchal assumptions carried over from ancient cultures, Krizo paints a picture of women and men sharing authority and celebrating what it means to be created in the image of God.”
“If the creation account doesn’t mention the man’s authority, and if Ephesians 5 instructs husbands to love their wives the way they love themselves instead of exercising authority over them, why do our theologians nevertheless insist that Ephesians 5 confirms that the man was given authority over the woman as part of creation” (from Chapter 7)
“The answer is simple: because men desire to rule women as a consequence of sin and no longer love their wives the way humans were created to love — unselfishly.” (from Chapter 7)

Ken F’s spot on post on June 3, 2016 about Comp. So good I share it widely:

Speaking of Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem’s semi-Arian heresy, The Eternal Subordination of the Son, Ken F. made this insightful post on May 25th here:
““Let me see if I understand Ware’s logic. Woman was made from man, which makes woman lower than man. Man was made from dirt, which makes man lower than dirt? No, wait, that won’t work. Ok, lets try this. Man was made after all the plants and animals, which means man has dominion over all of them. Woman was made after man, which means woman has dominion over man. No, wait, that doesn’t work either. What’s a poor complementarian to do?”
Another line of thought of complementarians takes the curse God placed on the woman as the norm: “And he will rule over you” becomes a normative mantra to support the their view that men are supposed to rule over women.
So let’s apply that same normative mantra to men from the other curses:
“In toil you will eat of [the ground] All the days of your life.” That means men are only allowed to eat from what they personally produce from the field. And only if it involves personal toiling. No more restaurants. No more grocery stores. No more pubs. No more home-cooked meals. I guess it even means no fasting because men have to eat on all days.
“And you will eat the plants of the field.” Same as above, but also say goodbye to all meat and dairy products. That will put a damper on potlucks. But on the bright side, it would force men to drink black coffee, which is the only manly way to drink it.
“By the sweat of your face You will eat bread.” No more air conditioning – all bread must be eaten while sweating from the face. This could also mean that it is sinful to live in cool climates, unless one can find a hot place to eat bread. I suppose one could create rules about whether or not sweating is mandatory while eating non-bread foods.
If we think that it’s ok to resist these other curses, then why would we in any way want to retain the curse of men ruling over women? I am so glad that my wife is strong enough to not need me to dominate her like that.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Courtney Reissig’s last name was formerly “Tarter” not “Tater.”

Dang.

Tree wrote:

Thanks for the name correction, Brad! Typos are funny sometimes. Tater/Tarter. But I think “Tater Tot” might stick. Maybe she’ll keep considering and learning and eventually grow up into being “Spud”.

I noticed the typo, but I enjoyed the fact that taters grow underground so much that I decided not to mention it. Thanks for spoiling my fun, Brad. Men, Harummmppphhhh!

Lydia wrote:

advocating for women

Thanks for sharing. Highly inspiring. My examples were all from West Africa. Wonder if it makes a difference.

Velour wrote:

“The answer is simple: because men desire to rule women as a consequence of sin and no longer love their wives the way humans were created to love — unselfishly.”

YES!

I remember reading about ‘domination’ as a CONSEQUENCE of the sin of Eden before. This:

… “domination” indicates the disturbance and loss of the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the “unity of the two”: and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic “communio personarum”.
(John Paul II, from the apostolic letter ‘Mulieris Dignitatem’)

owen strachan states this as the reason the ridiculous soapbubble article was taken down:

“Post offline as folks got confused over it. That’s why. Thanks!”

https://twitter.com/ostrachan/status/747575472553234432

so let me get this straight:

grant castleberry says soapbubble article was taken down because it was unbiblical

aimee byrd explains that owen strachan refused to take it down because, as it turns out, it was biblical

then owen strachan explains it was taken down because readers were unable to think clearly.

the issue was the readers. the problem lie with how inept they were with comprehension.

CBMW can’t figure out what’s biblical and what isn’t, owen strachan and co-hort grant castleberry contradict each other, so let’s just put the blame on the readers and wash our hands of it. see how easy that was? 🙂

that way owen doesn’t have to recant that he embarrassingly affirms control-freakery-abusiveness as headship because it’s biblical. he doesn’t have to say that he was wrong, grant was right. owen wins!

what flailing idiots.

courtney reissig, you defer to these flounderers on purpose?? I assume, then, that this is a laudable example of biblical womanhood.

what about people who read the article whose marriages were influenced by it? who will use their personal influence to promote and encourage such things with others? CBMW just chalks it up to collateral damage? too much male ego & female submissiveness to recant?

“biblical” manhood and womanhood… i think there’s a credibility problem.

Forgive the bad formatting on my previous comment. Am on my phone in an airport in the EU. @ Bill Kinnon:

@ Velour:
I’ve picked up the “submissive woman” at the fundamentalist church I went to but these clowns are taking it to a very strange place. I mean “good enough for Jesus, good enough for you” as applies to women makes no sense. They know Jesus was a guy right? So if their ESS theology applies only to women then are men superior to Jesus? Maybe the fact that men in the 1st century wore robes instead of pants confuses them. I wonder whether Scottish kilts fit into the ESs worldview as well, where do other clothes fit in? Does my Hawaiian shirt collection make me more inferior. A non sequitur, I know but it makes as much sense as what’s described above.

“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”

Doesn’t feel great, does it?

Quoting Reissig from OP:

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. “

She is called upon to assist them in promulgating *the doctrines the men have already established*.

Were there any women in the discussion when the CBMW were laying their foundation of absolute truth on ‘complementarianism’?

I sincerely doubt it. After all the hard work is done, they will allow a *couple* of women to ‘decorate’ their doctrine for dissemination to other women. But, they have no interest in any woman’s view of the actual doctrine.

When it comes to actual doctrine? Their attitude is well exemplified by the following comment by one of the Bayly brothers:

I had warned that it is not the place of women such as Rachel Miller and her female friends publicly to rebuke Pastors Doug Wilson and John Piper for their doctrinal commitments, particularly when the doctrinal commitments being rebuked are the simple Christian orthodoxy all Christians have believed and preached in all places across all time.

In put from women? IT’S NOT THEIR PLACE.

Dee, fwiw, her use of the word “meta-level analysis” is completely consistent with how I’ve used (and heard used) “meta”. It may not be dictionary correct terminology, but I feel like it’s appropriate.

I’ve honestly not heard that term used much in religious circles. It tends to be used more in my software development/PC gaming world 🙂

It goes without saying that usually when people say “analysis” in common conversation, they aren’t really doing hard core analysis. They usually just mean “I looked stuff over”.

As for the rest of the article, I don’t even have words to describe (yet) what I just read . . .

@ elastigirl:
So these guys (masculine gendered noun intended) blame the victim not only in serious, horrific cases of abuse, but also in minor matters of purportedly “misunderstood” intent. One could be forgiven for thinking that it’s practically a core part of their ideology.

With that said, given how they keep being “misunderstood,” and given the present example of their mis-use of meta-analysis, I’d like to leave the CBMW with some advice that may lead them in the direction of a dictionary, and consequently better communication skills…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

NJ wrote:

Actual blackberries? I’m getting ready to get up early on Saturday morning to head for one of the biggest black raspberry farms in the country and get some pounds of the tasty things for pies, jam, cobbler, etc.

Yup. Not domesticated blackberries, either! Real, wild blackberries that are abundant and juicy in this area – so much more flavor than domesticateds! Jam, jelly, cobblers and pies!

BL wrote:

After all the hard work is done, they will allow a *couple* of women to ‘decorate’ their doctrine for dissemination to other women.

Indeed. All they want is to make it just a hair under the level of obnoxiousness that will make most if not all women reject it utterly. They don’t want to change what they think and they surely want to maintain control.

There are three simple questions that begged to be asked; I wonder why complementarians are not asked to answer these:

1. Was the curse prescriptive or descriptive?
2. If the curse of sin was broken through the work of Christ, why does the breaking of that curse apply only to men, and not women?
3. Where in Scripture are you given permission to diminish the work of Christ on the cross by saying the curse is broken only for men?

My two euros…

Question 4: Is Christ’s work of salvation as sufficient and complete for women as it is for men?

Deb wrote:

Mary Kassian was involved. So was Dorothy Patterson.

Thanks for the correction. 😉

Nancy2 wrote:

NJ wrote:
Actual blackberries? I’m getting ready to get up early on Saturday morning to head for one of the biggest black raspberry farms in the country and get some pounds of the tasty things for pies, jam, cobbler, etc.
Yup. Not domesticated blackberries, either! Real, wild blackberries that are abundant and juicy in this area – so much more flavor than domesticateds! Jam, jelly, cobblers and pies!

And picking wild blackberries….love the jelly and cobblers, but I scratch thinking of the chiggers that alway come with berry picking in East Texas…..especially mayhaws….

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

There are three simple questions that begged to be asked; I wonder why complementarians are not asked to answer these:

They don’t want to find the truth. They just want to be in control.

mot wrote:

Believe so. Wonder what input these two women had–me thinks just signing their names to the document.

Maybe fetching coffee and donuts – and being “winsome”!

dee wrote:

I think I need to do research on baseboard cleaning.

Perhaps you should write a dissertation on it!

@ Nancy2:

That makes sense.

dee wrote:

Christians for Biblical Equality

Thank you. I did a search, but all I came up with was links to CBMW. Perhaps CBE needs to work on their SEO.

dee wrote:

I think I need to do research on baseboard cleaning.

Pinterest. Pinterest should be giving out degrees!

[by the by, I did not know until recently that pinterest also has some scantily clad/naked ladies! I apparently have some sort of facebook (male) friend who uses it for that and it keeps showing up in my feed, along with all the cleaning/kids bday ideas/recipes. I am going to have to figure out how to get rid of that]

Lydia wrote:

I met some Kenyan Anglican priests last summer who are advocating for women to develop ALL their spiritual gifts for the edification of the entire body. Their pleaing prayers for women made me cry.

Lydia, were they also advocating for the ordination of women?

ishy wrote:

Is there an egalitarian counterpart to CBMW?

CBE, christians for Biblical Equality. A great group that I am happy to support.

dee wrote:

For a short time, a PhD from U. of South Africa was all the rage in certain groups.

My wife and I were at SEBTS in the late ’90s when this was en vogue. It seemed that everyone and their brothers were getting some type of Doctorate of Theology (not a Ph.D.) from somewhere in South Africa. I think I looked into the degree and discovered it was basically not recognized here in the U.S. – thus, for educational purposes, it has less value than a D.Min.

But “earning” one, which is done via distance, makes you sound intelligent.

I am of the opinion that CBMW, especially men like Strachan, Grudem and Ware, are inherently threatened by women like Aimee. She is very intelligent and her writing has more internal logic than almost everything put out by today’s YRR/9Marks/Neo-Cal oligarchs leaders.

Nancy2, well I never had to worry about pests so much as those darn thorns. I’m sure the milder climate of western WA had something to do with that. With their permission, we could find some pretty tasty and juicy blackberries in our neighbors’ pasture. Must have been the natural fertilizer. 😀

Dang it, now I’m thinking of the wild huckleberries and thimbleberries…

Lydia wrote:

She took out the part where she attended a midnight buffet with Arafat.

That is a good thing. Because at that buffet, she and Paige ran their mouths about the missions work being done in Palestine and my wife’s cousins had to flee the country.

Under their ministry (we’ll call them the Smiths, which is not their actual last name), the nanny to Arafat’s children had become saved. Paige and Dorothy couldn’t resist telling Arafat that there was a Christian in his own household. He figured out who it was fairly quickly, and if memory serves me well, she disappeared and the Smith’s cover was blown.

I have so little respect for Paige and Dorothy that it probably is causing me to sin.

elastigirl wrote:

the issue was the readers. the problem lie with how inept they were with comprehension.

The readers OR the listeners.

They’re the problem.

They just don’t understand.

They failed to see the nuances.

They missed the heart of what we’re saying.

They were young and overzealous in their implementation.

There was nothing wrong with our teaching.

It’s the readers & listeners that are the problem.

That’s always the final summation.

Burwell wrote:

That is a good thing. Because at that buffet, she and Paige ran their mouths about the missions work being done in Palestine and my wife’s cousins had to flee the country.

The Patterson’s need to brag to Arafat and show how they had one over him, was ever so much more important than any successful mission work someone else was doing!

It’s just like that time in Scripture when Paul went to eat at the Emperor’s and told him all about how great the church meeting in Priscilla’s and Aquila’s house was!

Oh.

Wait.

Nevermind…

Lydia wrote:

I used to remind the SBC comp dictators that Mrs. Criswell taught a mixed SS class of over 300 that was on the radio back in the 70’s and 80’s. The size of a typical SBC church! Why was that ok? Well… err….her husband okayed it.
Right.

Maybe folks who believe like that aren’t aware of this in the front of their mind, but to believe it’s only okay for a woman to teach men (or mixed gender group) is to really believe at your core that there is something inherently flawed, sinful, or wrong with women, femininity, etc., which the Bible does not teach.

The Bible says both male and female are created in God’s image, God gave dominion to both, etc.

@ Nancy2:

Thanks, Nancy2. I appreciate you letting me know. And drinking in deeply from a conversation with Mr Coffee this morning also helped put all things in a better light. 🙂

Daisy wrote:

I meant, to believe it is OK for a woman to teach mixed group ONLY IF they have some man’s permission…

But only the husbands, which leaves single gals out.

I bet brad would give me ‘permission’. Wonder if that would work?

Courtney Reissig said that most of the women’s voices in this debate have been critical ones. It’s possible I haven’t read widely enough, but from the various places I have been reading, the same is true of most of the men’s voices as well. This isn’t men vs. women; it’s a minority group of hard core complementarians vs. the rest of the Church. I wonder if they’ll ever realize that.

Nancy2 wrote:

@ Deb:
Definitely. A bad joke from a woman who was exhausted from working up blackberries half the night! I forget sometimes …….. people can’t see the twinkle of sarcasm in my eyes on line!

I can!

Belly laughs.

dee wrote:

Lydia wrote:
She changed her bio! She took out the part where she attended a midnight buffet with Arafat.
Snort!

Now. i’ll have to change my bio about meeting Elvis at the 7-11.

@ Nancy2:
Oh, and “twinkle”!

@ Nancy2:
Sugar foot! My emojis don’t show on TWW!

elastigirl wrote:

in some ways it reminds me of the movie The Giver, which i just saw for the 2nd time. everyone had a role determined for them. everything was fake. fake people.

I’ve seen the new Superman move (Man of Steel) a few times since it’s been on cable over the last year.
There’s a scene where Clark Ken (aka KalEl, aka Superman) meets his dad JorEl (as a hologram or whatever).

JorEl explains on their home planet, KalEl was the first baby to be created and born the old fashioned way. All other children on their planet were created in labs and grown in gardens of whatever. They were each designed to carry out pre-determined roles: like some of the babies were designed to be plumbers when they grew up, other guys, hockey coaches, whatever.

JorEl said he and his wife wanted KalEl/Clark to be created the “old fashioned” way, so he could choose for himself to be whatever he wanted to be, so that all possibilities would be open to him.

A secular, Hollywood film got something right that complementarians, (who claim to believe the Bible), got wrong.

ishy wrote:

Boy, does she have even more of a problem then, because they seem to lump all women together. Maybe I should become a theologian, since I’m single and shouldn’t count in that argument.

Married women don’t fare any better. Except, of course, those few women who are married to very speshul men!

Daisy wrote:

brad/futuristguy wrote:
Courtney Reissig’s last name was formerly “Tarter” not “Tater.”
But “Tater” was funnier.
It reminds me of Tater Tots, and I like Tater Tots.

I prefer hash browns, but:
Courtney is a Complementarian. Taters grow in the ground ….. they must be completely “covered” by dirt ….. man was made from dirt. Given those facts in one summation, I thought the typo was quite appropriate ….. and funny.

Nancy2 wrote:

Married women don’t fare any better. Except, of course, those few women who are married to very speshul men!

That’s what I was saying, maybe it wasn’t clear. I was saying that by her argument, being single should give women a pass to be on the same level as the married men. But we all know that’s not true.

Speaking of John Piper, his Twitter account posted a link to an article by Douglas Wilson (yes, THAT Douglas Wilson) which can be found on Desiring God. The article is called “LGBT Basics.” I’m sure that Piper could have found someone to express similar views, someone who is not as tainted as Douglas Wilson. But he went with Douglas Wilson. No matter what you think about LGBT issues, just the notion that you’d go to Douglas Wilson for ANYTHING says volumes.

This is another reason why I’ll probably never darken the door of a church again.

Megan wrote:

CBMW isn’t sexist because they have women! who they listen to! on their editorial team. And because of this, they don’t have to take other women’s voices seriously.

Alternately, you could say it’s simple tokenism…they put a few women on the team just so it doesn’t look bad. Then they proceed to do what they want.

I want to say something regarding the numbers of women on these groups. They are generally small, but they are pointed to as if they are not. I saw a study the other day saying that people perceive something to be more female than male at the point when it gets to something like 30% female representation. I wonder if this accounts for some of the ‘churches are too girly!’ complaints we have heard from some of these guys.

I saw ‘doug wilson’ and ‘lgbt’ and thought there’s no way I’m reading that!

mirele wrote:

This is another reason why I’ll probably never darken the door of a church again.

I know a lot of people are opposed to this, but have you considered going to a full on liberal church?

Daisy wrote:

It’s fairly common for complementarians to claim the person who is disagreeing with comp does not understand comp.

Snort.
I hereby do claim that comps disagree with egalitarianism/mutualism because they don’t understand!

Lea wrote:

I saw ‘doug wilson’ and ‘lgbt’ and thought there’s no way I’m reading that!

My imagination on what Dougie might say is more than enough. ‘How can lgbt people possibly “conquer, colonize, and plant”?’ Uhg. : (

brian wrote:

Do no harm. I find that same or even a higher commandment in the Bible, Love God and love neighbor and these commandments are one in the same. I think people should serve where their gifted if gifted to teach or preach then do it and we will all be blessed if gifted hospitality then also do that. I don’t think gender should really be a limiting factor.

Brian, I have often wished that Christianity went by the Hippocratic oath “first, do no harm.”

Sorry for so many typos above…

Way off topic, but …… Aarrrggghhhhhh!
My husband just got back to the house from picking berries. Low and behold, another one of our dog got bitten by a snake. Please pray that the snake was a copperhead and not a rattler or a cottonmouth!
We’ll know in about 20 minutes!

Megan wrote:

I bring this up to say that I think this is part of what’s going on in complementarian circles. CBMW isn’t sexist because they have women! who they listen to! on their editorial team. And because of this, they don’t have to take other women’s voices seriously. It also helps explain Courtney Reissig’s position: she feels heard, and she’s an insider, so the critics don’t know what they’re talking about.

Good point. Isn’t this the whole idea of “tokenism”?

I also doubt she is “heard” on any subject of significance. Possibly her input is more about how to word an article to appeal to women or such like.

Nancy2 wrote:

I can’t wrap my banged-up, damaged head around the apparent need for women to be submissive/subordinate to men in the afterlife.
Do they believe the men will praise and worship God in Heaven, and women will be there simply to “help” the men praise and worship God?

I think they just like the idea of being able to wipe their feet on women even after life here.

Their views are reminisce of Mormonism, and the schools of Islam that teach young men who get killed in Jihad get 72 lady virgins (really, raisins*) in the afterlife.

There is something very peculiar and sick about any theology that not only seeks to keep women subservient (and as sex objects) in the “here and now” but after death, as well. That is a special kind of twisted, IMO.
————-
* “Quran scholar: Martyrs get raisins, not virgins”
http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/quran-scholar-martyrs-get-raisins-not-virgins/

dee wrote:

Can I be frank? I think she is pretending that she doesn’t understand. It’s a typical deflection tactic. But, I could be wrong.

That and she probably draws a not-too-shabby ‘compensation package’, but as you say, I could be wrong too.

ishy wrote:

Is there an egalitarian counterpart to CBMW?

There’s Christians For Biblical Equality (CBE)

And sites like this:
http://juniaproject.com/

ishy wrote:

Thank you. I did a search, but all I came up with was links to CBMW. Perhaps CBE needs to work on their SEO.

Here’s a link to their home page:
Christians For Biblical Equality:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/

Nancy2 wrote:

Article on ESS controversy. Scroll down and read the comment by HEBREWSDNT, posted yesterday at 10:49.

Here is a link to the specific post:
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/which-is-it/#comment-4784

That poster says much the same thing Gram3, myself, and a few others were saying to a comp guy who posts here on occasion. You have to take the original audience and culture that Bible was written in and to into account.

Otherwise, you end up with some very dangerous, awful doctrines (such as complementarianism).

And as that guy’s post sort of mentions (which I have more pointedly before) comps accuse non-comps of reading the Bible through secular culture, but it’s quite the opposite.

Comps have an anti-secular feminist agenda to push, so they use any passages at all that SEEM to permit men to “biblically” step on women to silence all women. They view the clobber verses as a way of keeping left wing, secular feminism from creeping into the church.

It’s sad, really – the Bible does promote or endorse egalitarianism/ mutualism, but they are fighting the Bible on that.

Here is a snippet from that guy’s post, HEBREWSDNT:

…while I was doing my coursework, and she gave a quote from a New Testament professor she really liked that went something like this:

“Evangelicals have a tendency to confuse the idea that the Bible was written *for* us with the idea that the Bible was written *to* us. The text was not specifically addressed to our problems, but to issues in the Ancient Near East and Greco-Roman world that are, nonetheless, still relevant to us today.
Thus, these men who believe in the ESS have simply read these texts about the temporary economic submission of the son in the light of the battle between feminism and traditional gender roles, and voila! You have the ESS.
It will appear “Biblical” to them, because they were interpreting scripture when they got it-even though the battle between feminism and traditional gender roles was interfering with their ability to understand the text.

elastigirl wrote:

in some ways it reminds me of the movie The Giver, which i just saw for the 2nd time. everyone had a role determined for them. everything was fake. fake people.

Good flick. I have it in my DVD collection.

ishy wrote:

Boy, does she have even more of a problem then, because they seem to lump all women together. Maybe I should become a theologian, since I’m single and shouldn’t count in that argument.
Of course, as those said earlier, in other places in CBMW, us single women are living in sin for not getting married. Because it’d be better to marry an idiot and be in submission than be single.

I was engaged to an idiot but did the smart thing and dumped him. 🙂

Complementarians don’t know what to do with single and childless adults, much like they don’t know what to do with the Holy Spirit in the Trinity.

If something or someone does not fit their pre-conceived ideas, or can’t be crammed into an “authority / submit” framework, it, she, or they gets ignored.

Which is probably why complementarians ignore singles (or try to argue or scold them into getting married, to make them fit), and why they ignore the Holy Spirit.

@ Nancy2:

Oh, I like hash browns, too. I like potatoes in about any form, cooked any way. Baked, fried, whatever. 🙂

@ Deb:
Thanks Deb. It’s been more than 45 minutes since Allie was bitten (right on the side of her face), so she will survive. I’m sure the snake was a copperhead!
She is badly swollen, but I have given her meds, and she is resting here in the house a few feet away from me. Poor baby, she’s only 8 months old – Red Tick/Boxer mix. I hope she saw the snake and learned something!
Lizzie was bitten Friday night. Amos was bitten last July and the snake came in the carport.
This is WAR! ; )

elastigirl wrote:

“biblical” manhood and womanhood… i think there’s a credibility problem.

I think that on one level they know this, and that their movement is doomed to get flushed so to speak by more and more people of faith who bought into it in good faith. And yet on another level, they’re in denial, much in the same Berlin was when the Eastern Front began to collapse in late 1944.

caroline wrote:

2) Since Courtney claims that the folks at CBMW don’t know how their work affects us, here another way that they hurt:
These ideas are not only by potential abusers to justify harm, they also can damage marriages between two well-meaning Christians who take this stuff seriously.
Many of their “principles” really are just stereotypes or perceived norms in their subculture.

I think Reissig is being disingenuous.

If she and other complementarians want to know how complementarianism has hurt women, there is plenty of testimony out there online.

When Ruth Tucker wrote a book about how complementarian views on male headship (such as is promoted by CBMM and others) enabled her first husband to abuse her, other comps brushed that all off as her just being emotional.

Her concerns, critiques, and experiences were written off by Tim Challies and others.

I’ve discussed on this blog a billion times over in much older threads how complementarianism damaged me personally. I’m still dealing with ramifications of it now.
I mention a little bit about that in a few blog posts on my blog:
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/

The information on how complementarianism has hurt women, and how Non-Comps view the topic, is out there in spades and droves, but complementarians prefer to pretend as though it’s not.

siteseer wrote:

Possibly her input is more about how to word an article to appeal to women or such like.

Yes, I suspect this is a big part of it. They want her to finesse their sexist drivel, so it doesn’t sound so obviously sexist to women.

brian wrote:

I think people should serve where their gifted if gifted to teach or preach then do it and we will all be blessed if gifted hospitality then also do that. I don’t think gender should really be a limiting factor.

In another lifetime and in a place where the marriage of time and space is strained almost to the point of divorce, I sojourned with a coven of forest crones who taught the same things.

Daisy wrote:

@ Nancy2:
I am sorry your dog is injured. I hope he or she is OK.

Thanks, Daisy. It’s been over an hour now since she was bitten. She will be in some pain and have to eat soft, canned dog food for a couple of days, but I think she will be okay. She’s sleeping on a doggie bed near an air conditioner vent right now.

@ Daisy:
I agree that there is plenty of evidence, but so often those stories are dismissed with claims that the people involved are not really Christians or not really committed to “biblical marriage” or don’t take the bible seriously. The point that I’d like to make to them is that this stuff can be poison to a marriage even if both partners are wholly committed to one another and to Christ. It is no small thing to be told that if you really had a Christian marriage, such-and-such would be different in your communication style, or your finances, or your career, or your sex life. Not to mention the incredible stress that can be added to a marriage when one partner is told how the other should be or do differently.

Nancy2 wrote:

Daisy wrote:
@ Nancy2:
Oh, I like hash browns, too. I like potatoes in about any form, cooked any way. Baked, fried, whatever.
Me, too! Sliced and fried in a skillet; stewed, drained, and mixed with cheese sauce; mashed with gravy on top; in foil on the grill ……

We sound like that guy from the Forrest Gump movie who really, really liked shrimp:

Forrest Gump – Shrimps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhfK98f5S00

Deb wrote:

@ BL:
Mary Kassian was involved. So was Dorothy Patterson.

They are on the seminary payroll so they supporting the party line drivel is to be expected. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you…

caroline wrote:

I agree that there is plenty of evidence, but so often those stories are dismissed with claims that the people involved are not really Christians or not really committed to “biblical marriage” or don’t take the bible seriously. The point that I’d like to make to them is that this stuff can be poison to a marriage even if both partners are wholly committed to one another and to Christ. It is no small thing to be told that if you really had a Christian marriage, such-and-such would be different in your communication style, or your finances, or your career, or your sex life. Not to mention the incredible stress that can be added to a marriage when one partner is told how the other should be or do differently.

This is so true!

siteseer wrote:

The man wanting to rule over women was one result of the fall. Another result was the woman turning to the man- putting him in the place only God should be in.
I believe the supporters of comp are codifying and practicing the results of the fall/curse- the male part of the curse as well as the female part- as opposed to walking in newness of life in Christ.

That’s exactly what I think, too.

Josh wrote:

Doug Wilson is an exception to that rule, and I’m not even ashamed to admit it, nor will I care if anyone calls me hypocritical for avoiding him. Life is too short to spend it getting angry at vile filth like that which proceeds from Doug Wilson’s mouth / keyboard

Well said. Have you read “The Truth About Moscow” blog? It is a great source of DW accountability.

http://moscowid.net/

@ Patty in Massachusetts:
Sure but it wasn’t presented so formal but as full co heirs in all spiritual gifts.

@ Muff Potter:
@ Beakerj:
Thank you!

Thanks to all of you for the well wishes and prayers for Alligator Allie!
I just checked on her. She has moved into the spare bedroom where it is quiet, dim, and cool. She is resting.

Once I knew Allie would be okay, I realized that all of this Tater talk had made me hungry. So, I put a skillet of taters on to fry!

Hey, could some of y’all do me a big favor? Contact the guys at CMBW, et al, and tell them to get their manly bee-hinds down here and help me get these blasted snakes under control! (Girly giggles here!)

Daisy wrote:

Here is a snippet from that guy’s post, HEBREWSDNT:

…while I was doing my coursework, and she gave a quote from a New Testament professor she really liked that went something like this:

“Evangelicals have a tendency to confuse the idea that the Bible was written *for* us with the idea that the Bible was written *to* us. The text was not specifically addressed to our problems, but to issues in the Ancient Near East and Greco-Roman world that are, nonetheless, still relevant to us today.
Thus, these men who believe in the ESS have simply read these texts about the temporary economic submission of the son in the light of the battle between feminism and traditional gender roles, and voila! You have the ESS.
It will appear “Biblical” to them, because they were interpreting scripture when they got it-even though the battle between feminism and traditional gender roles was interfering with their ability to understand the text.

What an excellent post.

The thing that impresses me is that so much error is the result of not trusting God and letting him be God. Worry, fear, catastrophizing… the idea that if “we” don’t “do” something, God’s plan will come to naught… instead of just teaching the scriptures and letting people apply them to their own lives. A spirit of control reigns, as if God needs these people to help him be God. And all they do is make a mess of things, corrupting the word of God to fit their current agenda. It really gets confusing then, when the perpetrators say they believe in the sovereignty of God! Their actions show that they do not. Thousands of years of history have not convinced them that God prevails through culture and change.

NJ wrote:

Dang it, now I’m thinking of the wild huckleberries

Love Love Love Hucleberries!

Another good comp-refuting resource:
Recommended article by Baptist pastor Wade Burleson, The Wartburg Watch’s EPastor on Sundays, on the whole comp doctrine/patriarchy and the Eternal Subordination of the Son:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/06/eternal-subordination-and-sbc-divorce.html
“Here’s the catch. Southern Baptist leaders have made the tragic error of believing that a husband should rule and a wife should be submissive because the Bible demands it. Truth be known, the Bible calls any desire to control and dominate–be it the husband or the wife– “the curse.” The divorce rate increases when Southern Baptists call “the norm” what the Bible calls “the curse.” When the first man (Adam) sought to rule over the first woman (Eve), Adam was manifesting a curse, not meeting a commandment (Genesis 3:16).
Jesus came to reverse the curse. Redemption causes curse-filled people to become grace-filled people. Those who seek to rule over others by exerting authority, when they come to see what Jesus says about life, will turn loose of trying to control other people and will only seek to love and serve, NEVER exerting any alleged authority. Again, Jesus said that “the Gentiles lord over others” and “exert authority,” but “it shall not be this way among you” (Matthew 20:24-26).
Southern Baptist Convention leaders have wrongly pushed for men to lord their authority over their wives, and called on wives to submit to the authority of their husbands because of a belief in and promotion of “the eternal subordination of the Son.” I’ve written about this doctrinal problem among Southern Baptists for years, but I recently came across a brilliant article by Dr. Keith Johnson (Ph.D. Duke), the director of theological development for Campus Crusade for Christ. Johnson’s article is called Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective.”
Dr. Keith Johnson’s article:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/36.1/Themelios36.1.pdf#page=9

I’ve said this before but the CBMW is just completely whacked out and run by men who seem really insecure and overcompensating.

Outside of white collar professions, men have a substantial advantage over women in getting good jobs. Most blue collar jobs that pay well require physical strength that women simply don’t have. This builds in a natural advantage in favor of men. Also, hormones and brain chemistry naturally make the man more dominant and the woman more compliant. This is just biological reality.

It’s also part of the Adamic Curse which is a CURSE. Men need to be taught to recognize the predisposition to be insensitive and domineering toward women, and mitigate that. The CBMW spins it around and makes the Curse a good thing.

But more than that, the idea that a man is in anyway responsible for the faith or behavior of his wife is to put him in an unbelievable slavery if he takes the command seriously. It’s textbook codependency, trying to manipulate another adult into being good. It’s part of why I suspect a lot of these men possibly had domineering mothers or were parentalized by their mother. They seem to really believe that managing their wives’ emotions and behavior is their biggest job in life.

And… that is why they hate secular psychology. A good counselor would immediately call them out for being codependent and not really a man’s man.

Daisy wrote:

It reminds me of Tater Tots, and I like Tater Tots.

Speaking of patriarchy and Tater Tots, the Duggars almost ruined Tater Tots for me…But I actually like the Crispy Crowns better. More crunchy surface area for ketchup.

Daisy wrote:

plan parties

Did you ever watch the office? One their running skits was the party planning committee.

I don’t like doing this sort of thing and only do it when necessary (baby shower/retirement of close coworkers) but what I really hate is organizing lunches! Such a pain dealing with orders and money.

And here is where I put in a plug for Jason’s deli because we learned that you can organize a meal online, send the link to everyone coming, and they can go in and order the food and even pay! Somebody at Jason’s deli gets this and we have not done anything else since we found out.

@ Daisy:

Oh! one more thought on the parties thing! I think some of it women bring on themselves – when I was 22 or so I worked in an office with mostly 20something guys and 2 or 3 women and we NEVER had birthday cake or anything like that. Just beer and a card, which the guys generally took care of.

Then we got one or two more women and all of a sudden we had to get a birthday cake every month or something!

Daisy wrote:

I don’t see how the two people in a marriage scenario maps to 3 people in the Trinity – the Holy Spirit becomes chopped liver in their theology.

I don’t think the ESS people were finished with the Trinity … so the Holy Spirit was likely ‘next’ to be enlisted in some strange morphed way into their agenda …. did the ‘pushback’ from other Calvinists who reject ESS slow them down? perhaps, but these folks have likely gone beyond the point where for them NOTHING is sacred in the pursuit of their agenda …. look at the young pastor’s ‘cheap Walmart juice and crackers, take ’em on the way out, if you want’ act …. no concept of the sacred …. EXCEPT in one area: the Rise of the Dominant Males, new idols for a new cult

Even Christ the Lord was cannon fodder for these ESS guyz.

Muff Potter wrote:

I think that on one level they know this, and that their movement is doomed to get flushed so to speak by more and more people of faith who bought into it in good faith.

At my deepest, I was a “thin complementarian” but now that I have had too many doses of CBMW’s toxic theology, I am really fighting mad about the duplicity and heresy. Yes, I’m not afraid to use heresy because they are preaching another gospel. They are heretics who say that the Gospel has Female Subordination at its core and that we cannot understand the Gospel without their eisegetical machinations. Their tricks have been exposed, and the act is probably not going to sell as many tickets in the future. And meanwhile there are more and more people like me who are ashamed and furious that we allowed ourselves to buy into any form of this.

These are men and a few women who are willing to sacrifice the nature of the Eternal Son on the altar of their power religion. And, yes, I do know that they deny that they are impinging on the nature of the Eternal Son. They say a lot of things that just are not so.

Nancy2 wrote:

Patriciamc wrote:

When the choir sings during service, all of the men are front and center on the stage/altar area. The women are in two groups, one on each side of the men.

At our church, the men are in the front and the women are in the back. Really.
They get my vote for an all- male choir and an all-male church!

Crazy!! Most normal choirs are arranged by some combination of heights and singing voices (altos, tenors sopranos together) right?

Mine has the choir in the back because it’s about worshiping God not performance.

Patriciamc wrote:

That reminds me of watching Charles Stanley on TV. When the choir sings during service, all of the men are front and center on the stage/altar area. The women are in two groups, one on each side of the men.

I don’t know that I would read too much into this. My secular classical choir uses the same arrangement. The reason they do is that there are a lot less men and the sound doesn’t balance otherwise.

I will apologize from the outset to those who disagree for my “strong language”. The Eternal Subordination of Women comes from a most infantile understanding of the Trinity and Heaven. We should expect better from the people led by the man CJM calls the smartest man he knows and all the PhD’s.

The assumption is that there is gender in heaven. That gender is more than a human expression for biological purposes. How can women be truly formed in God’s image if women are eternally women and God is eternally male?

This clinging to gender flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching about gender when asked about marriage and divorce in heaven. It flies in the face of what Paul wrote about gender in heaven.

It infuriates me that the same people who complained about all the liberals who didn’t believe the Bible, destroyed the lives and careers of good, honest, thoughtful folks in the name of Biblical inerrancy are now teaching one of the basest forms of heresy in ESS to justify their hatred of women who are smart, capable, and better gifted than they by God.

I am jumping off my soap box now. Hope I don’t break my neck since it is so high.

BTW, just ran across this bit on gender roles from designing women. Ha!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZGZI4sIvU8&feature=youtu.be

Velour wrote:

In their Comp logic Jesus died for Adam’s sins but not Eve’s therefore Eve is greater than Jesus?

No, it was Jesus’s TESTOSTERONE that killed Satan! Which is why he’s scared of men? Or something like that.

Girl testosterone doesn’t count, because reasons.

Gram3 wrote:

And meanwhile there are more and more people like me who are ashamed and furious that we allowed ourselves to buy into any form of this.

Yes! But I worry that for everyone who wakes up and “gets it”, there are too many others who are still being beaten down by all of this.

Burwell wrote:

Lydia wrote:
She took out the part where she attended a midnight buffet with Arafat.
That is a good thing. Because at that buffet, she and Paige ran their mouths about the missions work being done in Palestine and my wife’s cousins had to flee the country.
Under their ministry (we’ll call them the Smiths, which is not their actual last name), the nanny to Arafat’s children had become saved. Paige and Dorothy couldn’t resist telling Arafat that there was a Christian in his own household. He figured out who it was fairly quickly, and if memory serves me well, she disappeared and the Smith’s cover was blown.

How sacrificial of them. …….. They put others in danger for the sake of their own personal, cushy glory.

Christiane wrote:

These men have injured themselves in the process of attempting to be gods. And what they have attempted to do to women is ‘not of Christ’, nor could it ever be. Let women speak to the truth of this, for the sake of the men who are in over their heads.

Sadly, they believe they are gods and do not expect to be questioned.

Lea wrote:

It infuriates me that the same people who complained about all the liberals who didn’t believe the Bible, destroyed the lives and careers of good, honest, thoughtful folks in the name of Biblical inerrancy are now teaching one of the basest forms of heresy in ESS to justify their hatred of women who are smart, capable, and better gifted than they by God.

Yes, these are the same people.

Burwell wrote:

Why they or any of the other leaders we often discuss here are still in positions of authority is a mystery to my.

I they “liberals” had conducted themselves the was Paige and many of the other takeover crowd the FUNDAMENTALIST would have tried to burn them at the stake.

If I were to kneel, the paramedics would have to be called to help me rise!

Gram3 wrote:

Some people just cannot stand peace and want to stir up trouble between people while others want to play power games with other people. Again, I say this is Cluster B theology, and I think there is some real pathology behind it. At the very least, it is driven by fear.

When they get into their beliefs about the care of infants and children, the cluster B really gets obvious.

Not sure if any of you folks watched the “Fire by Nite” videos back in the 80’s but whenever I hear of women who support the comp teachings, I always think of the wife of “brother Peter Brothers” in this skit-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnlK2s08A-w&t=40m9s
“Whatever my husband says is right” lol

mot wrote:

Same thing with the 2000 BF&M. I believe there were 2 women on this committee.

Nancy2 wrote:

Mrs. Paige Patterson and Mrs. Al Mohler?

No, those two were on a 1998 committee that inserted a section on “The Family” to the 1963BFM.

Dorothy Patterson’s friend Mrs. O. S. Hawkins (‘Susie’) and twentysomething protege Miss Heather King stood in as the two gals on the 2000BFM committee:

http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfmcommittee.asp

Can I have a reference to the term ‘Cluster B Theology’ please. The allusions to it sound ominous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone who has been at the manse on campus and seen Dorothy and Paige in action knows who the boss is.

Well, someone needs to “complement” Paige closely these days before he shoots his foot off with one of his big game rifles!

Max wrote:

Well, someone needs to “complement” Paige closely these days before he shoots his foot off with one of his big game rifles!

Paige seems to be invisible in the SBC world. With his big ego this has to chafe him.

Nancy2 wrote:

Kimberly Rock-Shelton wrote:
I am jumping off my soap box now. Hope I don’t break my neck since it is so high.
I’d say you were standing on some pretty level ground, there.

Amen.

Kimberly, do we call that a “Soap Bubble Submission” Box? Next year during the annual Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood conference, my fellow TWW troublemaker Nancy2
and I will be hosting an alternative, competing conference, a para-church organization
of Pound Sand Ministries (TM) founded right here on TWW.

No, you won’t be getting a bag full of free submission books. But we will be having gun classes led by that spitfire Nancy2 and we will shoot down soap bubbles. Attendees will also be issued the “Down with Patriarchy is my Cardio” tshirt and matching, subversive yoga pants (which really makes the people at CBMW bothered). Nancy2 will have to decide if we will be printing these in a camo background.

We will also have a “Soap Bubble Submission” t-shirt for Day 2 of the event, with of course the bubbles being blasted to smithereens.

Sincerely,

Velour, Vice-President of Marketing and Online Retail
for Pound Sand Ministries (TM) and its para-church organizations

mot wrote:

Paige seems to be invisible in the SBC world. With his big ego this has to chafe him.

Agreed. He was on top of the SBC pyramid during and shortly after the Conservative Resurgence. Once the Calvinist Resurgence got the spotlight, he faded into the background. He’s done, but not quit yet.

Jack wrote:

Does my Hawaiian shirt collection make me more inferior.

Jack, your attire will be fine. If you need to learn how to hula, I can loan you a copy of the Dennis the Menance the comic book, which taught me the steps in how to hula when I was a lass.

caroline wrote:

@ Christiane:
I think it refers to Cluster B personality disorders (narcissistic, histrionic, borderline, antisocial). As in, this theology would only work for people with these disorders.

What I had in mind is people who think this theology is a good thing. Cluster B is characterized, among other things, by distorted thinking patterns and a lack of empathy and mind games. And appearances. Above all, appearances. Someone would have to have Cluster B traits, IMO, to propagate the Fall and call it God’s Good and Beautiful Design.

BL wrote:

Were there any women in the discussion when the CBMW were laying their foundation of absolute truth on ‘complementarianism’?

Deb wrote:

Mary Kassian was involved. So was Dorothy Patterson.

http://swbts.edu/news/releases/southwestern-inaugurates-installs-first-ever-chair-women%E2%80%99s-studies/

“Patterson was a member of the founding group of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (she was the only woman in the founding group)”

An article at the CBMW website contradicts this claim, citing Susan Foh as a founding mother as well:

http://cbmw.org/about/history/

“CBMW has been in operation since 1987, when a meeting in Dallas, Texas, brought together a number of evangelical leaders and scholars, including John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, Dorothy Patterson, James Borland, Susan Foh, and Ken Sarles.”

Has anyone heard from Susan Foh recently? Is there a reason Dorothy Patterson and SWBTS would want to ‘disappear’ her from complementarianism’s history?

elastigirl wrote:

so let me get this straight:
grant castleberry says soapbubble article was taken down because it was unbiblical
aimee byrd explains that owen strachan refused to take it down because, as it turns out, it was biblical
then owen strachan explains it was taken down because readers were unable to think clearly.
the issue was the readers. the problem lie with how inept they were with comprehension.
CBMW can’t figure out what’s biblical and what isn’t, owen strachan and co-hort grant castleberry contradict each other, so let’s just put the blame on the readers and wash our hands of it. see how easy that was?
that way owen doesn’t have to recant that he embarrassingly affirms control-freakery-abusiveness as headship because it’s biblical. he doesn’t have to say that he was wrong, grant was right. owen wins!
what flailing idiots.
courtney reissig, you defer to these flounderers on purpose?? I assume, then, that this is a laudable example of biblical womanhood.

Several years ago, the Council for Biblical Wackiness had an article on their site on how women shouldn’t participate in the Olympics. A year or so after that the US women won the World Cup and Christian Brandi Chastain was interview in by several outlets and talked about her faith. CBMW must have had a tizzy. Oh, and that article disappeared.

Gram3 wrote:

Someone would have to have Cluster B traits, IMO, to propagate the Fall and call it God’s Good and Beautiful Design.

Yes, I can see this.
I have read that certain personalities gravitate towards situations where they receive affirmation and gratification of their own narcissistic needs.

No doubt the CBMW group is like-minded and share personality traits where a healthy moral conscience doesn’t get in the way of their agenda;
OR they have the ability to ‘turn their eyes away’ from the damage they have done.

Some pretty heavy compartmentalization and rationalization is going on in patriarchy, for any of these people who do see themselves as ‘Christian’. I fear for those who are victims of the ones who coldly and with no conscience at all will do anything to maintain power and control over others. The lack of empathy in such cases is a sure sign of personality disorder, yes.

A question: is there a way to save the perpetrators out of their own darkness, and thereby bring help to those who are trapped in the patriarchal system as victims?
Is a part of the answer to examine the perpetrators as people who are also trapped in the web they have spun for their victims?
Is a saying: hurting people hurt people.

There is some movement in the Church towards less judgment and more perception of people who harm others as very troubled people themselves, and this is not to excuse the harm done, and not to try to care for and protect victims;
but more of an awareness that those inflicting pain on others are themselves troubled souls acting out their pain. That would explain the theory of the ‘theology’ of such neo-Cals resulting from personality disorders or aberrant negative traits, yes.
Such people are not going to listen to reason. They are under the control of that which they themselves have little or no understanding.

@ Muff Potter:

“The Giver” (book & film) — (dystopia, highly controlled society because of fear, fear of the unpredictable & uncontrollable & of anything going wrong, only perfection is tolerated, extreme censoring, everything and everyone’s lives are monitored and planned by the few in power, words and concepts and values redefined by those in power, no freedom of choice on anything….)

actually, for full diclosure, as i watched the movie (really enjoying it), i was thinking to myself, “blimey…. this is christian culture…. this is why everything in my being resists against the notion of attending church of any kind”.

but not having had a chance to analyze my thoughts & feelings, i wonder if i’m off-base on that. even partially. anyone?

elastigirl wrote:

but not having had a chance to analyze my thoughts & feelings, i wonder if i’m off-base on that. even partially. anyone?

I think you are very tuned in to the wonder of being ABLE to ‘choose life’ …
Determinists can’t fathom allowing that we have the power to choose, given to us from God Himself, and that this power is evidence that we are made in the image of God and are not robotic victims of some behind the scenes God of Wrath who merely pulls our strings and has pre-planned our eternal fate before we were brought into this life

Maybe what you want to ‘not set foot in’ anymore is any reminder that we are ‘less than’ and unworthy of the dignity of the human person made in God’s image.
If that is true, I don’t blame you at all. Those kinds of controlling, condemning environments say little of Christ anyway.

caroline wrote:

I still have a hard time understanding the motivations of the women who tolerate it

I think that sooner or later, New Calvinist women will rise up en masse and declare “Wait just a darn minute here!” They will then start dragging their sorry husbands/boy friends out of the mess. Yep, the ESS false teaching and its extension to subordinating women could prove to be the Achilles heel of the reformed movement.

Nancy2 wrote:

At our church, the men are in the front and the women are in the back. Really.

Good Lord, Nancy2! You might as well just stay home and shoot snakes!

P.S. hope your dog is doing OK.

elastigirl wrote:

“biblical” manhood and womanhood… i think there’s a credibility problem.

Oh my gosh, that should be a bumper sticker or something. There are few things that set my teeth on edge like slightly undereducated arrogant boys like Strachan proclaiming to have any kind of insight into manhood.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Oh my gosh, that should be a bumper sticker or something. There are few things that set my teeth on edge like slightly undereducated arrogant boys like Strachan proclaiming to have any kind of insight into manhood.

Those boys are clueless and have nothing to teach anyone.

@ Daisy:
Oh my gosh, that was so terribly awful. What a horrible, horrible article. And you’re right, absolutely callous toward those who aren’t just like her. Sad…and a little pathetic.

caroline wrote:

like Courtney Reissig, promote it.

I think that once you have bought into the System, the only way to realize any kind of personhood as a woman is to become SuperComp. Sort of like the SuperMoms that are currently in fashion. But that is just my opinion. Another reason might be the church parallel to the corporate wife. Her husband’s career benefits if she plays that role well. Or possibly both.

I do not know Courtney, so I do not know what motivates her in particular. I do know that her writing in this post is very shallow, and I do not mean that as a slam. She is doing the best she can with very little evidence for her position from the text of the Bible. So she becomes creative to make the System “fit” with the Biblical narrative.

Jack wrote:

Guess I really took a bite from the tree of knowledge.

Not on my A game today. Should have been the fruit of the tree.

Nancy2 wrote:

caroline wrote:
I still have a hard time understanding the motivations of the women who tolerate it or, like Courtney Reissig, promote it.
Stockholm Syndrome?

I also refer to it as Spiritual Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. Odorless. Tasteless. Deadly.
You’re knocked out before you know it.

Jack wrote:

@ Velour:
Thanks but I need a manly grass skirt. Something biblically approved. I think I’ll send the question to “ask the pastor” at 9 marks. Seriously. I’ll let you know if I get a response. Should I ask anyone else? I can tally the responses & report back so we are all correctly attired.

Well finally we have a “true Biblical man” (TM) in our midst. So proud of you. Unlike all of the other shirkers – Mark Dever, Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Owen Strachan, and all of the other “faux [that’s fake in French] Biblical men” who refuse to wear long dresses and sandals. It’s such a terrible disappointment to me. I expected them to be like Jesus, just like they’ve always claimed.

You Maple Leafs are a good lot.

caroline wrote:

but I agree with you that a general lack of empathy seems to characterize the entire movement.

That’s because it’s counterfeit Christianity.

elastigirl wrote:

but not having had a chance to analyze my thoughts & feelings, i wonder if i’m off-base on that. even partially. anyone?

Not off the mark at all. The common thread in all tyrannies (religious or secular) is the obsession with a kind of enforced perfection. Whether it’s couched in a sin-flesh-vs.-spirit thing as in the many favors of Christianity, or a what have you analog in the secular realm, both hate and despise human freedom.
I’ve long been a fan of the dystopian fiction genre and I still think David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas is the best of the lot, in both print and film.

siteseer wrote:

A funny thought is that if all preachers left off preaching about their own personal convictions, it would pretty much silence a lot of them right there! lol

I know. I agreed with the rest of your post too.

I see so many Christians who take topics the Bible is silent on or neutral about, or where even God says he’s all “meh” about it, but they try to insist their personal preference is iron clad, biblical, and you must follow it or else you’re in sin.

Or, else, like Stanley with the “kneeling while praying” thing try to shame you and guilt you into complying.

@ Nancy2:

I am glad the dog is doing better.

As for taking care of snakes, the CBMW crowd would probably suddenly decide that dealing with snakes is woman’s work. 🙂

Daisy wrote:

As for taking care of snakes, the CBMW crowd would probably suddenly decide that dealing with snakes is woman’s work.

I would agree with them – about the two-legged snakes in particular! (Smirk)

@ Nancy2:
Should say squeaky toy! We don’t like sneaky toys – sounds too snakey!

Gram3 wrote:

I think you are exactly right.

I noticed in part of her response that she said some of her feedback from complementarians were accusations that she’s secretly an egalitarian, a “thin” complementarian, etc.

You cannot disagree with these guys at all, or else they will throw the “you are a liberal who hates the Bible, and I bet you’re a bra burning feminist too” rock at you.

Velour wrote:

Mansplaining. That’s what we need per Owen The Trinitarian Heretic who can’t get a real job and works for his heretic father in law’s business CBMW.

This only is somewhat realted to your post, but I have unfortunately seen Christian men, even ones who claim the label egalitarian (or mutualist) who get their underwear in a twist on Christian egalitarian groups if a Christian man is indeed man-splaining to a woman, get told his behavior man-splaining.

They claim they feel deeply hurt that their behavior is being called out as mansplaining.

So, I’ve seen some blogs or groups ban the term being used at all. Instead of banning the term, I think the men being called out for it need to do some soul searching: are you in fact mansplaining? Because maybe you are, you know.

Men are often blind to the fact they do thi to women, and I’ve seen several admit to it and say they weren’t aware they were doing so until a woman pointed it out to them.

Men are being pandered to in such groups, which are really meant to be safe spaces for Christian women to vent their frustrations over comp, among other things.
Christian women can’t always get a fair shake even in groups intended to be places where they can be heard. The men and their feelings are still pandered to, at the expense of women.

Lea wrote:

Then we got one or two more women and all of a sudden we had to get a birthday cake every month or something!

One lady I worked with LIKED making cakes. It was all good at first, when it was only like 5, 6 people, but when our office blew up to like 30 or more, she started to sort of tire or resent baking the cakes.

I told her if it stopped being fun, to just stop. She was not under an obligation to bake cakes several times a month.

Gram3 wrote:

Their tricks have been exposed, and the act is probably not going to sell as many tickets in the future.

Maybe I’m wrong, but my perception is that the internet is helping to expose complementarianism for the sham it is.
There are also more materials easily at the go for anyone who doubts it. If you search the web enough, you can find mutualist / egalitarian content.

Patriciamc wrote:

Several years ago, the Council for Biblical Wackiness had an article on their site on how women shouldn’t participate in the Olympics. A year or so after that the US women won the World Cup and Christian Brandi Chastain was interview in by several outlets and talked about her faith. CBMW must have had a tizzy. Oh, and that article disappeared.

Is there anything they do think it’s OK for women to do, other than marry and have children?

Wouldn’t it be shorter for them to make a list of stuff they think women CAN do?

Might it look like:
1. marry 2. have a kid 3. bake casseroles

I can’t think of anything else they would allow. Piper doesn’t want women taking Karate (or using it), doesn’t want them reading Bibles in churches, doesn’t want them being cops.

I guess in Complementarian Land, women are supposed to be like robots, after a day of wife-ing and mom-ing, turn them off, stick them in a closet over night to re-charge?

There was a TV show on years ago about a girl robot called “Small Wonder.” I guess complementarians think women should be like that girl robot.

Daisy wrote:

I have seen a lot of complementarian men who talk poorly of psychology. They are very paranoid of it. Your explanation might be the thing that links the two together.

I’m convinced of it. Cluster B theology was such a good way of putting it.

I’ll go a step further and say that if someone has grown up around people who have personality disorders then a fatalist view of the world such as Calvinism is easier to accept. Within the same family you can have basically good people and people who are intractably evil, and the doctrine of election and reprobation helps make sense of the world. A personality disordered person has no conscious awareness that they’re sick and rarely do they change: that fits perfectly with the idea they’re reprobate.

A person who has adopted Calvinism due to such psychological trauma will see secular psychology as threatening because it exposes their coping mechanisms. And a person from a dysfunctional family may prefer violate Nicean Christology than to face the fact their dad was a jerk or the fact their mom was crazy. The anger and instability you see from them may result from some deep inner wound.

If I were a gambler I’d bet money that’s the case for many of them.

Jack wrote:

A “less violent Passion of the Christ” indeed!

What I find fascinating is that when that clip first came out (DJesus Uncrossed, on SNL), a lot of conservative critics ripped it apart for disrespecting Jesus or Christians.

However, the Jesus in that clip (where he’s using machine guns and stuff) is exactly the same Jesus that conservative, complementarian guys like Mark Driscoll or John Piper promotes!

Christians are pushing this cartoonish, Manly Man Jesus figure in their sermons and books, not just secular Hollywood in goofy skits.

@ Nancy2:

Glad to hear she is improving. 🙂
I wish I had lasagna. It’s one of my favorite foods.

Daisy wrote:

If you search the web enough, you can find mutualist / egalitarian content.

my goodness, you can go back to the early days of the Church and find egalitarian content:
“From a letter by Tertullian, an Early Church Father, to his wife, ca. 202 A.D.

” How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice.

They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in Spirit. They are in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit.

They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another.

Side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another, they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts… Psalms and hymns they sing to one another.

Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present, and where He is, there evil is not.”

Gram3 wrote:

For some reason, it just never occurs to them that they have made a relationship dependent on rules rather than on mutual love and respect.

Preach it, Gram3!

Patriciamc wrote:

Several years ago, the Council for Biblical Wackiness had an article on their site on how women shouldn’t participate in the Olympics. A year or so after that the US women won the World Cup and Christian Brandi Chastain was interview in by several outlets and talked about her faith. CBMW must have had a tizzy. Oh, and that article disappeared.

For the love of God, CBMW ALWAYS finds new ways to make themselves look like idiots.
Their only consolation is that John Piper is such a nut – his bizarre tweets, and interviews, blogs – that he seems to me like he couldn’t pass a drug test.

@ Gram3:

“Some people just cannot stand peace and want to stir up trouble between people while others want to play power games with other people.”
++++++++++

in my misguided days of working in an admin-type job at an aerospace supplier (not where a creative person belongs), i remember often hearing in jest how peace time was bad for business. i’m sure it’s the same for other industries, as well.

it strikes me that relational peace with others, peace with God, peace with oneself are bad for business in the christian industry. there’s just not a whole lot to talk about.

i truly believe that professional christians, whether knowingly or not, manufacture all kinds of problems and issues between people and God and between people and people. tasks and to-do’s and formulas are invented, and sold as the path to God & to success if you embrace them, or grave consequences if you do not. all this creates jobs. gives them something to talk about. the means to make money. the means to carve out significance for themselves.

i really don’t think the pursuit of God is hard.

it’s dang mysterious, but so what. God is invisible so of course it’s going to be mysterious. let’s let that one go and be ok with it.

and choosing what is morally right and of good character is often not easy.

but none of this is complicated.

@ Muff Potter:

“The common thread in all tyrannies (religious or secular) is the obsession with a kind of enforced perfection. Whether it’s couched in a sin-flesh-vs.-spirit thing as in the many favors of Christianity, or a what have you analog in the secular realm, both hate and despise human freedom.”
+++++++++++++++++++

how and why does the pursuit of God devolve into a tyranny?

i guess first off there must be a tyrant. (thinking out loud here)

what is it about the pursuit of God that activates tyrants and activates a following for said tyrant?

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

“biblical” manhood and womanhood… i think there’s a credibility problem.

Oh my gosh, that should be a bumper sticker or something
++++++++++++++++++++++

GREAT IDEA!!! wonder if i could do this…. how would i distribute them? a website?

@ Patriciamc:

“Several years ago, the Council for Biblical Wackiness had an article on their site on how women shouldn’t participate in the Olympics. A year or so after that the US women won the World Cup and Christian Brandi Chastain was interview in by several outlets and talked about her faith. CBMW must have had a tizzy. Oh, and that article disappeared.”
+++++++++

they clearly have too much time on their hands.

imagine, a job where you are paid to mine areas of society where women are not restricted enough. CBMW, employer of female-achievement nazis. What a noble use of funds. How proud comps must be! 😐

  __

Submit! : “The beauty of complementarity?”

hmmm…

  Are these comp guys trying to convert Christians to Calvinism instead of encouraging the sharing of Jesus’ gospel with the unsaved, which includes ‘All folks’, not just John Calvin’s or Augustine’s ‘elect’?

huh?

  Apparently, with a 16th century false gnostic gospel under their proverbial belt, (or per sad chance the congregational hood) the New Calvinist now corrupt everything they touch (including the Holy Scriptures) ; now their corrupt teaching include the Christian home? Next the workplace, or the marketplace, as well?

What?

could b.

(sadface)

Please Beware!

*

Some ‘Complementarity’ Videos:

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=the%20beauty%20of%20complementarity%3F%20&sm=3

(Might wanna see your bible for the correct details)

ATB

Sopy
__
P.S. If you watch the videos listed above, please don’t forget the beverage n’ da popcorn. They don’t come in Surround Sound or 3D, sorry.   🙂
__
notes:

“Leaving New Calvinism” a video full of interesting questions, perhaps…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5wkg95a_qUw

“When is it ‘safe’ to leave a New Calvinist church?” food for proverbial though, perhaps…
https://m.youtube.com/results?q=leving%20a%20clvinist%20church&sm=3

—

@ Lowlandseer:
And by courageous I mean in breaking ranks with those who promote complementarianism to highlight the suffering of others. The real heroes of course are the victims who find the strength to speak out.

@ Sopwith:

Oh dear, lil miss Courtney has a video!

Lowlandseer wrote:

This is one of the most powerful and heartbreaking stories I have ever read and it explains why Aimee Byrd is making such a courageous stand against the abuse of power by men in the marital relationship.

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/listening-to-abused-women?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=02ac9b4e1c-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-02ac9b4e1c-119263361

There are two articles listed in the post. The second one about narcissists is fantastic. Truly.

In response to kitty the other day, SBC Voices has done a post on ESS. Feel free to check it out.

http://sbcvoices.com/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-is-a-biblical-viewpoint-by-john-wylie/

Is There A Line Between Complementarianism And The Patriarchy Movement? by Ashley Easter
http://www.ashleyeaster.com/blog/complementarianism-and-patriarchy

Snippet:
——————-
Yesterday Tim Challis posted a blog post about why he is not Egalitarian. There were several things that I obviously look at differently but one thing really stuck out to me. He distinguished Complementarianism from the “patriarchy movement” which he said “dangerously disempowers women”.

…is Complementarianism clearly distinguished from “hyper-headship” or the “Patriarchy Movement”?

Daisy wrote:

…is Complementarianism clearly distinguished from “hyper-headship” or the “Patriarchy Movement”?

No. It seems a sliding scale, but if you go too far in the egal direction you are accused of being a ‘thin’ complementarian, which seems, as near as I can tell, means you think women are fully formed people.

R2 wrote:

The women can get by with a lot of misbehavior and the men will write it off to her being the weaker vessel. They can also present him with a laundry list of things he has to do to be a Real Man™. I knew guys who were in seminary, working 60 hours a week, trying to raise six home school children, and it just never seemed to be enough to satisfy the wife.

Thank you for pointing that out. If a man is supposed to be Jesus, then certain kinds of women are going to demand that he be just that. Now that you mentioned it, I can think of a couple I know where the wife has an extreme attitude of entitlement and another couple where the guy bears an enormous pile of guilt. Toxic stuff for authentic relationships.

There are all sorts of pathological patterns.

Lydia wrote:

Women whose assent and often income is part of the promotion of comp doctrine.

And also those women whose income depends on keeping a comp man happy so he, and his income, will stick around. You know the saying ‘you got to pay the light bill’ applies to more than just sex.

elastigirl wrote:

what are Daddy issues?
“all too many cases” — you think more women than not have these Daddy issues? or is it complementarian women you’re referring to?

I read an article about this awhile back. I can’t remember exactly where.

This might be it:
“You Don’t Have Daddy Issues”
http://jezebel.com/you-dont-have-daddy-issues-but-your-piece-of-shit-fathe-1712656531

Snippet:
—-
The narrative I’d been told my whole life—that because I’d been neglected and mistreated by my horrorshow of a father, I would suffer forever from daddy issues—was actually a complete lie. The person who suffered from daddy issues wasn’t me. I was actually quite together. I had a friendships, goals, a career. I had a full heart, I was eager to give, I was trusting.

By simple principle of the fact that my dad could not handle being a dad, he was the one who had daddy issues, not me. I just happened to be raised in his crossfire.

Daisy wrote:

Tim F. did a post about some complementarian guy who wrote a post saying something about how God designed women tennis players (or women in general), to want to show off their female form and body to men, and to want to “twirl” in a tennis skirt.

I heard about the ice skating one (which was annoying mostly because the women are really athletic too and that wasn’t acknowledged but also because figure skating is a ROUTINE. It’s a dance, it’s choreographed and it’s no more than 5 or 6 minutes long. Idiots), but not this tennis one! That is pretty outrageous.

I wear dresses all summer long because they are comfortable and cool. I hope none of these idiots think it has anything to do with them. Actually, that’s a common theme from this type – they think everything a woman does is because of men. It’s not.

R2 wrote:

Go find his posts on sex where he tells women to “have sex for God’s sake.”

How romantic! Did he tell us to say the Serenity Pray over and over during sex, too?

mot wrote:

What Bible is she using to come to this sick view of the scriptures?

The Eisegete Standard Verseion.

@ Daisy:

I’m just reading that tennis article: “They were little girls, who were made to display the beauty they were given and to have that beauty honored.”

Ew, ew, ew! And way to miss the entire point of why people were irritated btw. Ugh.

Sopwith wrote:

Are these comp guys trying to convert Christians to Calvinism instead of encouraging the sharing of Jesus’ gospel with the unsaved, which includes ‘All folks’, not just John Calvin’s or Augustine’s ‘elect’?
huh?
  Apparently, with a 16th century false gnostic gospel under their proverbial belt, (or per sad chance the congregational hood) the New Calvinist now corrupt everything they touch (including the Holy Scriptures) ; now their corrupt teaching include the Christian home? Next the workplace, or the marketplace, as well?

Spot on, Sopy.

Daisy wrote:

Tim F. did a post about some complementarian guy who wrote a post saying something about how God designed women tennis players (or women in general), to want to show off their female form and body to men, and to want to “twirl” in a tennis skirt.
I think tennis skirt twirl guy eventually pulled his article down.

Thanks, Daisy. I look forward to reading it later. Tim Fall has a knack for knocking these guys out of the water in a nice way and honing in on Biblical truths that refute their nonsense.

Does anyone tell these guys, “Don’t say/write that because you sound like an idiot!”
They don’t listen to wise counsel, not a one of them.

Just like the Puritans were undone by their antics, so too will the NeoCals be undone by their antics and lose adherents. People will only put up with so much, and then they won’t.

mirele wrote:

No, I haven’t. Right now I’m spending my Sunday mornings in front of Mark Driscoll’s attempt to reinvent himself in Scottsdale. I expect to be spending even more time in front of the building as he ramps up to two services later this month. This tends to conflict with regular church times.

mirele,
Have you ever thought that just maybe you are doing what God is leading you to do?

Lowlandseer wrote:

This is one of the most powerful and heartbreaking stories I have ever read and it explains why Aimee Byrd is making such a courageous stand against the abuse of power by men in the marital relationship.

I think it’s great she is taking that topic on, but I don’t think complementarians will ever deal effectively with abuse.

This blogger outlines a few reasons why this is so, and I think his page is pretty good:

Control: The Reason The Gospel Coalition and CBMW Cannot Actually Condemn Spousal Abuse
http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2016/01/control-reason-gospel-coalition-and.html

Velour wrote:

Tim Fall has a knack for knocking these guys out of the water in a nice way and honing in on Biblical truths that refute their nonsense.

Lifeguard Tim Fall, rescuing these guys from drowning in a sea of estrogen?

Daisy wrote:

CBMW (or some other comp group)…who did an article around 2 years ago [about] figure skaters

The figure skating fanboy was Piper pal John Ensor:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/an-olympic-lesson-for-husbands-and-wives

It’s the pairs event he’s especially fixated on:

“He leads her onto the ice and initiates each part of their routine. She receives that leadership and trusts in his strength. His raw physical strength is more on display than hers…”

Nancy2 wrote:

Lifeguard Tim Fall, rescuing these guys from drowning in a sea of estrogen?

I imagine that being a judge is good training for spotting stuff that needs to be spotted and handling it accordingly.

Ken P. wrote:

In response to kitty the other day, SBC Voices has done a post on ESS. Feel free to check it out.
http://sbcvoices.com/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-is-a-biblical-viewpoint-by-john-wylie/

He thinks ESS is biblical.

He says:

Secondly, there are those who are egalitarians who have an aversion to anything that smacks of a hierarchy or submission.

As to “submission,” it would not be such a horrible word or concept except that complementarians deny the Bible’s teaching that believers are to all submit to each other, and it’s a voluntary thing, not something to be demanded by one from the other.

Comps distort the meaning of the word “submission.”

Eph 5.21 applies submission to husbands, so that husbands are to submit to wives.

Daisy wrote:

Eph 5.21 applies submission to husbands, so that husbands are to submit to wives.

They have conveniently cut that verse out of their Bibles.

Nancy2 wrote:

They are soooo creeeepy! Do they rank women right up there with blow up dolls and crash dummies?

I can not imagine the nightmare that takes place when as a woman you are married to someone with this warped view. I can imagine a woman holding a position of supervision in the workplace and then coming home and being treated like a robot that must be programmed to do the most menial task.

R2 wrote:

Go find his posts on sex where he tells women to “have sex for God’s sake.”
Poor guy.

Challies waffles on sexual sin.

Before I get to that. Challies tells people who are virgins past the age of 30 (who want to be married and having sex) that their virginity is “for God’s glory”. He (like 99% of Christians) have no inkling that when you want to be married and having sex, no amount of spiritualizing it away (“your unwanted celibacy status is for God’s glory”) helps.

Challies spent one post downplaying celibacy and virginity and actually said that all fornicators are virgins now (he feels it’s wrong for Christians to adhere to biblical sexual morality).

But then, a few years after that blog post, he let his wife do a guest post where she big time scolded Christian men who had affairs via the Ashley Madison cheating site scandal.

So, with Challies, singles engaging in extra-marital sex is dandy and should not be condemned, but he and his wife will come down hard on married dudes who cheat.

Lea wrote:

You really do have to wonder what it is about all these men that their wives don’t seem to want to have sex with them. Maybe they should consider that they might be doing something wrong here…

That is because they are selfish, entitled, and buy into secular stereotypes about women and sex.

In almost every sermon I’ve seen or heard, the preacher assumes all married women hate sex and must be pressured to “put out” more for their sex-starved husbands.

(They apparently never see the letters to advice columnists I do from married women who are dying to have sex, but their husbands have no interest or libido.)

Further, Christian men feel the need to spell out in great detail the very sort of sexual positions or acts that all dudes prefer (Mark Driscoll really got into this).

I’ve never yet heard a Christian preacher describe in detail the sorts of sexual acts wives would like their spouses to perform on them and tell the husbands to get to that pronto.

Single women are depicted in Christian culture as being randy harlots who seek to target married men for affairs, so hence, Christians adopt the “Billy Graham Rule,” where single ladies are not allowed inside the Temple with everyone else, never mind the Holy of Holies.

Max wrote:

It’s tough to be “one” with those who preach and teach otherwise … sometimes you just can’t agree to disagree, you need to take a stand for Truth.

Max. Amen. I’m glad they are babbling about ESS at voices it means they are seeing that they do not get the last word.

Lowlandseer wrote:

This is one of the most powerful and heartbreaking stories I have ever read and it explains why Aimee Byrd is making such a courageous stand against the abuse of power by men in the marital relationship.

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/listening-to-abused-women?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=02ac9b4e1c-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-02ac9b4e1c-119263361

so the ‘husband’ found her ‘replacement’ and moved on, likely to continue the abusive pattern ……

for some reason, reading that dreadful story, I thought for a moment ‘I wonder how Anna Duggar is enduring?’ In the days when the Josh Duggar stories (plural) were breaking, one of my heroes was Anna’s brother who wanted her to leave ‘that _ _ _ ‘ (rhymes with ‘dig’). I assume the brother was also brougt up in the patriarchy model, but he at least had empathy and love for his poor sister’s plight.

I think about ‘love’ in the best possible Christian light, and I know that even in the midst of the darkest messes, love can make room for the way of grace if we withhold condemnation …. but, my dear God, just reading that story, I kept thinking how very sick that man’s behavior was, and how it would likely be perpetuated, unless there was some intervention that brought him into conviction that his concept of ‘male’ privilege to treat a wife with contempt is ‘justified’. Maybe the way of grace in such situations IS to intervene, and maybe it falls to the woman to take the intitiative for the sake of her sick spouse, but how does someone in the middle of patriarchy do this in a way that reinforces their own dignity as a human being and also their desire to help a spouse who lacks empathy to the point of emotional illness and is very capable of doing great harm as a result?

Another thought, in the middle of all the mess, the children are watching.

Max wrote:

“Those who have concerns about the implications of ESS to the doctrine of the trinity have my respect and understanding, but those who have an ulterior motive of advancing egalitarian doctrine, and who despise every idea of submission and obedience do not.”

Anyone else see the influence Miller has had on this pastor. Seems mighty passive, agressive in this quote to me. I would post at Voices but I would never get my comment published.

I do not frankly care whether he thinks ESS is biblical or not.

Lea wrote:

like never communicating

I disagree with you a little there. I think they are all for on-way, top-down communication!

Daisy wrote:

A lot of Christian women I’ve seen have already said they won’t marry a complementarian guy. These comp guys won’t have any wives to lord authority over.

What makes you think a New Calvinist complemenatarian would provide an honest answer to a prospective wife in this regard? Good Lord, if they will deceive their way into a pulpit, they would lie about their comp persuasion. As in the case of a church takeover, the truth will be revealed later in a wife takeover.

Max wrote:

Daisy wrote:
He thinks ESS is biblical.
From Wylie’s post on SBC Voices:
“Those who have concerns about the implications of ESS to the doctrine of the trinity have my respect and understanding, but those who have an ulterior motive of advancing egalitarian doctrine, and who despise every idea of submission and obedience do not.”
Well, in all due respect, these folks are not listening to the concerns of the rest of Christendom as they ought. Certainly, we have issues with ESS and its implications to the Trinity! But equally disturbing is the unBiblical extension of ESS to subordinating, controlling, intimidating, and manipulating women believers. Those who post and comment on TWW are not pushing egalitarian doctrine, nor do they have a problem with submission and obedience as defined by the whole of Scripture. Bottom-line concern is to speak out against the treatment of any believer as a lesser citizen in the Kingdom. In the Body of Christ, there should be no distinctions by race, social status, or gender: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). It’s tough to be “one” with those who preach and teach otherwise … sometimes you just can’t agree to disagree, you need to take a stand for Truth.

“those who are opposed to unorthodox, or heretical teachings have my respect…” isn’t that kind of an obvious statement?

Max wrote:

“Those who have concerns about the implications of ESS to the doctrine of the trinity have my respect and understanding, but those who have an ulterior motive of advancing egalitarian doctrine, and who despise every idea of submission and obedience do not.”

Yet, they use ESS to support and advance comp/pat! Kind of a “Biblical” way to say, “We can create it and use it to advance OUR agenda, but anyone who disagrees with us in any way can’t use it to defend their position! Na-na-na-boo-boo!”

mot wrote:

They have conveniently cut that verse out of their Bibles.

The rare comp will admit that it exists but argue that it does NOT apply to husbands, even though the text itself does not say that. So much for their claim of sola scriptura and taking the Bible seriously.

Lea wrote:

There is a huge difference in those two things, though. Singles are not hurting another person they promised to love by sneaking around on them. That is very damaging.

They’re both still sexual sins and should be called out.
I think that singles engaging in extra marital sex can be damaging to other people in other ways, like to one’s future spouse. There are or can be emotional ramifications, comparing your current sweetie to previous lovers, STDs, etc. But Christians really balk these days at holding single adults to an expectation of celibacy, they are willing to let that slide.

It’s not consistent to act like ‘singles sex’ is no big deal but when that single later marries expect him or her to act like married sex should be sacred. It sends a mixed message.

Max wrote:

(quoting the comp guy from the other site)

“Those who have concerns about the implications of ESS to the doctrine of the trinity have my respect and understanding, but those who have an ulterior motive of advancing egalitarian doctrine, and who despise every idea of submission and obedience do not.”

I’d also add he’s being dishonest. It’s not egalitarians who have “ulterior motives” (they are pretty straight forward with saying what they believe and why), and it’s comps using the Trinity to push a view of gender, not so much egalitarians.

He’s projecting what “his side” is guilty of on to his opponents.

R2 wrote:

That is so icky. I can’t imagine a man who has any empathy for his wife discussion his preferences in the bedroom in public. Or even in private.

I know. Are you familiar with preacher Mark Driscoll, formerly of Seattle’s “Mars Hill” church, now in AZ?

The guy was all about spelling out specific sex acts and saying those were what all men prefer, so Christian wives should shut up and put out the way men want it. Driscoll even quoted Biblical text to back his views.

He wrote a book called “Real Marriage” where he promoted the notion that females should cater to male sexual fethishes and preferences.

Daisy wrote:

I’d also add he’s being dishonest. It’s not egalitarians who have “ulterior motives” (they are pretty straight forward with saying what they believe and why), and it’s comps using the Trinity to push a view of gender, not so much egalitarians.

This is so true.

And ideas are right or wrong, regardless of motivation.

R2 wrote:

That is so icky. I can’t imagine a man who has any empathy for his wife discussion his preferences in the bedroom in public. Or even in private.

well apparently among male self-worshippers, this must be some kind of ‘sport’ . . . a way of publicly humiliating their wives; but are they also sending signals to other women about their own ‘needs’ and are they also crowing a bit so that their buddies will admire/be jealous their self-touted ‘male prowess’ in the marital bed?
So very immature. Bunch of fraternity boyz.

Daisy wrote:

I think that singles engaging in extra marital sex can be damaging to other people in other ways, like to one’s future spouse. There are or can be emotional ramifications, comparing your current sweetie to previous lovers, STDs, etc.

Aside from STDs, I have to say I don’t really agree. Maybe if you get married very young, you will have a clean slate? But once you hit your 30’s, you have previous relationships and the emotions are there whether the sex was or not.

ishy wrote:

Driscoll is especially creepy in that they both had sex before marriage, but he publicly humiliated her about it, saying that her sin was ruining their marriage, but without pointing out his own errors at all.

How do you say ‘low-class cad’ in Christianese? What a foolish man. Could his wife ever respect him after that kind of betrayal of her dignity? He’s a little short, not very good-looking man, and Grace is a beautiful woman. Why does he try to knock her down publicly? It doesn’t make sense. Well, I suppose ‘icky’ and ‘sick’ will have to do for now, but what IS such a man? What is going on inside his head???? Poor Grace.

Christiane wrote:

Why does he try to knock her down publicly? It doesn’t make sense. Well, I suppose ‘icky’ and ‘sick’ will have to do for now, but what IS such a man? What is going on inside his head???? Poor Grace.

Everything I read, see, and hear from him points to him being a textbook narcissist. All those people hurt at Mars Hill, and he goes right back out and starts a new church with the exact same methods.

@ Lea:

“Actually, that’s a common theme from this type – they think everything a woman does is because of men. It’s not.”
++++++++++++

fellas, it’s 105 degrees.

ishy wrote:

Christiane wrote:
Why does he try to knock her down publicly? It doesn’t make sense. Well, I suppose ‘icky’ and ‘sick’ will have to do for now, but what IS such a man? What is going on inside his head???? Poor Grace.
Everything I read, see, and hear from him points to him being a textbook narcissist. All those people hurt at Mars Hill, and he goes right back out and starts a new church with the exact same methods.

Well, he doesn’t have earning potential doing anything else so it’s back to his usual sales pitch.

My husband is a perfect example of how a husband provides for and protects his wife.

He is going on a short mission trip soon, so he broke the semi-auto that I carry (the one I use the most) down and cleaned it good for me! He said, “I was afraid you may need it while I’m gone. So, I wanted to make sure we have everything in good working order.”

I wonder …. Do comp men do things like that for their wives?

BTW, Allie still has a turkey-gobble neck, but other than that, she is back to her old self!

Christiane wrote:

Grace is a beautiful woman. Why does he try to knock her down publicly? It doesn’t make sense.

My question is, “Why does she allow it??????!!!!!!!”

Jerome wrote:

The figure skating fanboy was Piper pal John Ensor:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/an-olympic-lesson-for-husbands-and-wives
It’s the pairs event he’s especially fixated on:
“He leads her onto the ice and initiates each part of their routine. She receives that leadership and trusts in his strength. His raw physical strength is more on display than hers…”

I guess he doesn’t realize that single female skaters can do amazing jumps on their own. Of course, since they’re just female, he probably doesn’t watch when they’re on.

Lea wrote:

I heard about the ice skating one (which was annoying mostly because the women are really athletic too and that wasn’t acknowledged but also because figure skating is a ROUTINE. It’s a dance, it’s choreographed and it’s no more than 5 or 6 minutes long. Idiots), but not this tennis one! That is pretty outrageous.

It annoys the heck out of me when people say that figure skating isn’t athletic. It’s very, very hard and extremely physical!

Okay, rant over. Carry on.

elastigirl wrote:

i truly believe that professional christians, whether knowingly or not, manufacture all kinds of problems and issues between people and God and between people and people. tasks and to-do’s and formulas are invented, and sold as the path to God & to success if you embrace them, or grave consequences if you do not. all this creates jobs. gives them something to talk about. the means to make money. the means to carve out significance for themselves.
i really don’t think the pursuit of God is hard.
it’s dang mysterious, but so what. God is invisible so of course it’s going to be mysterious. let’s let that one go and be ok with it.

Yes, yes, and yes!

Lea wrote:

mirele wrote:

Right now I’m spending my Sunday mornings in front of Mark Driscoll’s attempt to reinvent himself in Scottsdale.

I think that’s fantastic! I hope you don’t think I’m trying to send you back to church. Just curious.

No, you’re fine. Years and years ago, when I made a regular practice of picketing Scientology, one of my friends, who is a professor of anthropology and studies religion, told me that I’d made my picketing into a spiritual practice, because I believed so much in the goodness of letting people know there were serious problems with Scientology via standing outside the local Org with a sign.

When I talk to people out in front of Driscoll’s place, I make it very clear that I’m not telling them to not go to church. I am saying that if they want to go to church, there are plenty of conservative churches in Scottsdale which don’t have the baggage which come along with Mark Driscoll and “The Trinity Church.”

My only real complaint in this is I wish they’d get done with the widening on the freeway. I’m tired of taking rocks in my windshield (I’ve already had to replace it once and I’ve only had the SUV four months). Otherwise, I’m really of the opinion that the truth will set people free, or, in this case, keep them from what is likely to turn out to be Seattle Part Two.

Gram3 wrote:

I can only speak for the ones I know and have known. They fall into two basic categories: women who are afraid of displeasing God and women who believe that the System will enhance the likelihood that they will get a “good” husband who will be a protector and nurturer.

Gram3 wrote:

I think that once you have bought into the System, the only way to realize any kind of personhood as a woman is to become SuperComp

I really had to do some scrolling to find these points, but I just wanted to thank Gram3. These really help to explain why some women buy into this comp nonsense. As for me, I was just too ornery as a child to fall for it.

mirele wrote:

Oh and by the way, what church needs a “Security Team”?

Wow! Is that to keep people out, or to keep people in?

@ Gram3:

BINGO!

Patty in Massachusetts wrote:

A little OT, but this is a little entertainment for Mirele as she continue her vigil outside Mark Driscoll’s church.

Apparently a new career path for Mars Hill’s former PR guy:

http://www.doxa.media/bad-press-proof-your-church/

I notice it doesn’t talk about “How to deal with that persistent middle-aged woman who stands with a sign on the public sidewalk every Sunday.” I would note that neither Driscoll nor his official staff (the ones with the lanyards) have come out to talk to me. You’d think after three months they would have figured out that I don’t bite.

Mirele, I forget which megachurch in Colorado it was where some gunman came in to shoot people. He was shot dead by a female security guard. I’m still glad the church had the foresight to hire her.

@ JYJames and Lydia,

Lydia, your comment encapsulates a present reality!

“It pains me to even think we are exporting something that embeds and affirms such brutality in a culture because they interpret head as boss/authority. Seeing women as lesser beings does not translate into protection as they claim. Their view of themselves as in authority actually harms their soul and spiritual growth.

I met some Kenyan Anglican priests last summer who are advocating for women to develop ALL their spiritual gifts for the edification of the entire body. Their pleading prayers for women made me cry.”

It was both heartening and heart-rending to hear of your Kenyan contacts and their plea. Do you have any contact information for these folks in Kenya?

I was invited over a year ago to come and speak at an inter-denominational pastors and church leaders conference in April, 2016. It was an amazing opportunity given by a progressive thinking brother who is an overseer for a network of churches. I was invited by him to teach on the topic of: Biblical Gender Equality, for their 4 day conference.

There was receiving of God’s Word and decisions made in hearts to make a change and embrace the teaching on mutuality as a biblical ideal. On the last day, three of the leaders stood on the platform. The one brother led on behalf of all the brothers to apologize to all the sisters there for following cultural ways rather than God’s Word. They immediately applied what they had received as God’s truth for men and women in Christian community. It was a humble and heart-felt gesture that was a highlight of my time with Christian Family in Kenya.

I describe my experience in this article on my Church Exiters website:

@ http://www.churchexiters.com/2016/05/women-in-the-church-exploring-biblical-gender-equality-in-a-kenyan-context/

While at this conference, I was implored twice, by a young Ugandan pastor, to ‘please come and teach this in Uganda’! I said, we’ll see what the Lord might have in mind. So, in God’s providence, I am presently working with my contact in Kenya, Bishop Chris Lusweti, as plans are coming together for me to speak in Uganda in early Nov. My heart was not at peace until I knew that I was going back!

Thanks for prayers for this event. If anyone would like to assist financially there is a need to provide food for our brothers and sisters at these conferences–since poverty dominates. People drive many hours to come to a conference and food is provided for them. Those who come from the west to do a conference are required to fund the meals for those who attend. It is a joy to be able to support such a Kingdom adventure. Maybe you’d like to join me in this venture.

I invite the TWW Community to be a part of this solution to patriarchy in Africa and empower ‘Family’ there, who have a hunger for God’s Word, to get their own answers.

If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, you can contact me through my website email: info@churchexiters.com

mirele wrote:

Patty in Massachusetts wrote:
A little OT, but this is a little entertainment for Mirele as she continue her vigil outside Mark Driscoll’s church.
Apparently a new career path for Mars Hill’s former PR guy:
http://www.doxa.media/bad-press-proof-your-church/
I notice it doesn’t talk about “How to deal with that persistent middle-aged woman who stands with a sign on the public sidewalk every Sunday.” I would note that neither Driscoll nor his official staff (the ones with the lanyards) have come out to talk to me. You’d think after three months they would have figured out that I don’t bite.

Bad press proof your church. Nah,that’s just hogwash!
Hey, Mark Driscoll! The best way to bad-press-proof-your-church is to behave yourself!!!!!

mirele wrote:

Oh and by the way, what church needs a “Security Team”?

Churches who know they’ve offended a lot of people?

andrew wrote:

“those who are opposed to unorthodox, or heretical teachings have my respect…” isn’t that kind of an obvious statement?

When someone states something that anyone would assume is obvious, that should not need to be stated, it is often a tell that they believe the opposite.

@ Patriciamc:
I was an ornery kid, too. Still am, but Gramp3 knows how to work around that. 🙂

@ Bridget:

This part especially –

“Furthermore, it is entirely possible to be abusive without displaying rage. In fact, the very worst abusers I have ever encountered were never angry. The calm and collected man out to exact absolute control is the most dangerous, because he can toe the line between legal and illegal, between socially acceptable and unacceptable. He can always appear the good guy, while he calmly destroys the psyche of his victim.”

The article does point out that women are capable of “control issues” as well.

Daisy wrote:

There is an obsession with explaining or promoting marriage or giving marital advice

…and, by extension, sex. I have only visited megachurches a few times and listened a few times online over the last few years, but without exception the messages have all been about marriage relationships/sex. I suspect it is a marketing strategy. Appeal to the lowest denominator of the broadest group and fill the most seats. Sex sells.

Gram3 wrote:

@ Patriciamc:
I was an ornery kid, too. Still am, but Gramp3 knows how to work around that.

Well, there’s the ice cream. It would work for me!

elastigirl wrote:

christian culture is going through a delayed sexual revolution

That’s an interesting thought. siteseer wrote:

I have only visited megachurches a few times and listened a few times online over the last few years, but without exception the messages have all been about marriage relationships/sex.

I’ll add that my last visit to gateway the sermon was on marriage. They threw a teensy tinsy bone to single people with some sort of ‘you’ll totally find someone’ thing thrown in. Whatever.

I’ve posted another update on the open discussion thread. Thanks.

http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-10/#comment-264068

Jeannette Altes, long time poster here, just posted about her financial needs on the Open Discussion board. Her rent of $585 is due. She will also need food and gas money.

She lost her job, is being treated for a tumor, and is looking for work.

Today’s status.
I am continuing to look for ways to make money…and working on not being afraid (ha!).
I still need $330 to cover July’s rent, and July’s bills start coming due in a week ($500 for usual plus another $150 for 2 yearly bills coming due). Plus the ongoing need for food and gas, living….
With all that is going on, the anniversary of my mom’s passing snuck up on me and the emotions there caught me off guard. Sigh. I am a survivor, however, and I am not going to give up.
The financial help you all have given still overwhelms me and the notes of encouragement and prayers are very much appreviated. You all are so special. THANK YOU!!
http://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp

NJ wrote:

Regarding Courtney Reissig’s other article, I actually agreed with some of it, especially her point that being a SAHM is not something a wife should have to “earn” to the satisfaction of people outside her marriage. Where I think there may be an issue is her application of Genesis 3 to the point that every Christian couple is obligated to have children if able. I don’t know if the CBMW crowd are also quiverfull in their ideology, which would raise questions for how at least some of them have lived their lives.

True enough. There is a lot of hostility aimed sometimes at stay-at-home moms. On the other hand, the same is true for stay-at-home dads. I think that every couple has to decide what’s best for their family and their circumstances and should be respected for doing that.

Velour wrote:

True enough. There is a lot of hostility aimed sometimes at stay-at-home moms. On the other hand, the same is true for stay-at-home dads. I think that every couple has to decide what’s best for their family and their circumstances and should be respected for doing that.

Have you checked into the costs of child care lately? In many instances, family is financially better off if one stays at home with the kids.
And with C. Reissig, if she is in a paid position, she isn’t exactly a SAHM. She worked from home.

I’m scrolling down that old Wade comment section on lil miss Courtney and found this doozy. I’ve heard ‘woman was deceived’ but not this particular spin. Heaven help us! Adam sinned willingly so he should obviously have all the responsibility.

“Secondly: The New Testament teaches that wives are to submit to the leadership of their husbands (not women to men) because Adam was not deceived but knowingly and blatantly sinned against God–and was punished the greater for it by being assigned the horrible responsibility of never leading his family wrongly again but answering for it at Judgment. “

Lea wrote:

“Secondly: The New Testament teaches that wives are to submit to the leadership of their husbands (not women to men) because Adam was not deceived but knowingly and blatantly sinned against God–and was punished the greater for it by being assigned the horrible responsibility of never leading his family wrongly again but answering for it at Judgment. “

Book, chapter, and verse, please? I wonder if that is somewhere in Acts 29, too?

@ Lowlandseer:
MoS took comments on that post!

Christiane wrote:

The ESS hyper-comps have assumed that which is not theirs to assume.

They do this with everything. Pick any topic that they promote and you will find this common thread. We commoners need to challenge their assumptions.

Lea wrote:

“Secondly: The New Testament teaches that wives are to submit to the leadership of their husbands (not women to men) because Adam was not deceived but knowingly and blatantly sinned against God–and was punished the greater for it by being assigned the horrible responsibility of never leading his family wrongly again but answering for it at Judgment. “

That part of the man answering to God is nowhere in scripture. Plus, and I’m no theologian, but if someone is answerable like that, then what does that mean for
Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? I thought that we stand innocent before God because of Christ’s sacrifice (if we believe in Christ). Right? So how can someone be answerable?

@ Barb Orlowski:
Maybe the Deebs can send you my email. Will be happy to direct you to the right place.

@ Patriciamc:
The only way I could figure it was they believe they answer for their wives and the wife answers for her submission or not, to the Lord.

How else could their extra biblical construct work?

Nancy2 wrote:

Velour wrote:
True enough. There is a lot of hostility aimed sometimes at stay-at-home moms. On the other hand, the same is true for stay-at-home dads. I think that every couple has to decide what’s best for their family and their circumstances and should be respected for doing that.
Have you checked into the costs of child care lately? In many instances, family is financially better off if one stays at home with the kids.
And with C. Reissig, if she is in a paid position, she isn’t exactly a SAHM. She worked from home.

Oh, I agree with you about the costs of child care, etc. I just don’t buy the Comp argument that it *has* to be the mother who stays home. I really think that every couple is the best judge of their circumstances, earning potential, etc.

^OK. No clue what just happened there. Response was to Nancy2 about Tim Fall. Thx.

I have to wonder how the CBMW and the rest of the comps are dealing with the fact that for the first time in American history, there are more single adults in the USA than married adults. (This has been the case since 2009.) Their “gospel” is wrapped up completely in gender roles based on certain verses, which are, IMHO, taken out of context. How is this “gospel” supposed to relate to adults who are not married, and who may have no intention of ever marrying?

Is the gospel of CBMW limited only to the married? What about evangelizing the whole world? Oh yeah, I forgot, they’re neo-Calvinists. They’re not worried about that.

mirele wrote:

I have to wonder how the CBMW and the rest of the comps are dealing with the fact that for the first time in American history, there are more single adults in the USA than married adults. (This has been the case since 2009.) Their “gospel” is wrapped up completely in gender roles based on certain verses, which are, IMHO, taken out of context. How is this “gospel” supposed to relate to adults who are not married, and who may have no intention of ever marrying?
Is the gospel of CBMW limited only to the married? What about evangelizing the whole world? Oh yeah, I forgot, they’re neo-Calvinists. They’re not worried about that.

I don’t know about not wanting to ever be married. But in most of the churches I’ve been to, the singles groups were heavily female. I think more singles guys come to services and don’t get involved. I had a conversation once with a Catholic who said there were a lot of single guys at his church, and no single women, and we thought maybe different churches appealed to different genders. It’s an interesting thing to ponder at least.

I posted an article in open discussion. Church is trying to out the names of young underage girls for suing the church for allowing a known sex offender work VBS.

@ mirele:

Is this the same building they currently reside in?

@ mirele:

Where in the world did he get that much money or the wherewithal to finance the purchase?

The word “winsome” is overused?! I don’t think I’ve ever heard it spoken by any living person. But I probably move in different circles.

Anyway, all this stuff is giving me lots of ideas for my new fanfic, “Complementarians of Gor.”

Complementarianism: the Manosphere at prayer!

Bridget wrote:

And what is the story behind this? Did you get on an informational mail list for the church?

Yup, I subscribed myself to the church’s e-mail list so I could keep track of his doings. I attend every Sunday, I should know what’s going on, right? (Attend-stand on the sidewalk)

@ mirele:

You are a super trooper!! Bless you for warning people about Driscoll dangers.

Lea wrote:

I’ll add that my last visit to gateway the sermon was on marriage. They threw a teensy tinsy bone to single people with some sort of ‘you’ll totally find someone’ thing thrown in. Whatever.

“You’ll totally find someone,” they say, [unless you’re gay, then you can’t have a relationship, like ever, and we’ll ignore you until you ‘slip up,’ at which point we’ll disown / shun / excommunicate you because you failed at flawlessly implementing our unfunded mandate of celibacy]. But I digress… And don’t forget the straight singles who can’t or simply don’t want to find someone. But there’s just no room for us, living in a complementarian paradise, so we’re cast aside.

Patriciamc wrote:

That part of the man answering to God is nowhere in scripture. Plus, and I’m no theologian, but if someone is answerable like that, then what does that mean for
Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? I thought that we stand innocent before God because of Christ’s sacrifice (if we believe in Christ). Right? So how can someone be answerable?

Here’s the part that gets me: Is Reissig saying that men are being punished for Adam’s sin in the fall by God assigning them responsibility for and authority over women?
Did anyone else get that from what she said?

ishy wrote:

But in most of the churches I’ve been to, the singles groups were heavily female. I think more singles guys come to services and don’t get involved.

Well, in most SBC churches I’ve been to, if it wasn’t for faithful Southern Baptist women over the years, LOTS of them would have closed their doors. It’s been my experience (60+ years as a Southern Baptist) that women members are a whole lot more serious about their faith than men. Call a prayer meeting and mostly women will come. Ask for volunteers to teach Sunday School and mostly female hands are raised. Visiting hospital patients and shut-ins, yep the women. I would rather be in a fox-hole fighting devils with SBC women than most of the wimpy churchmen I’ve met. Baptist women appear to be more sensitive to the Holy Spirit, than men; while Baptist men enjoy fleshing out theo-politics. The New Calvinists are side-lining a spiritual dimension of the church that needs to be there when they subordinate women; when they do so, they cut the Body of Christ into pieces. I tell my wife all the time that she is one of the mostly godly men I know :-); we are complementarians in the sense that we complement each other in our walk of faith, each using the gifts God has given us freely.

Nancy2 wrote:

BTW, Allie still has a turkey-gobble neck, but other than that, she is back to her old self!

I am glad that she is doing better!

mirele wrote:

That’s one of the things I talk about when people ask me why I’m out in front of Driscoll’s new outfit. Not so much the sex, but the fact that he used church money to hire ResultSource and game the New York Times bestseller list.

That was certainly another controversy attached to that book for sure.

Daisy wrote:

John Piper sure as hey does not think women should do anything like that, no karate, no self defense, not be police officers. Only men-folk should do that stuff. I wonder why Driscoll is wandering off course with that?

Probably to avoid more lawsuits…

Bridget wrote:

In my opinion, sexual activity should not be put on a pedestal either way.

My understanding of the Bible was that sex was reserved for marriage, so I’ve abstained my whole life, since I’ve never married. That’s not putting it on a pedestal.

elastigirl wrote:

christian culture is going through a delayed sexual revolution (late to the game as usual; in this case, 50 years overdue). it’s only for men, though. (obviously at cross-purposes, but they miss that)

I’ve read articles that say the assumptions by Christians of 200 or 300 years ago was the exact opposite of what it is today.

The assumptions a few hundred years ago was that women had the larger sexual appetites, the men were more controlled and didn’t need or want sex as much. So guys back then were thought more moral than woman. Women were thought debased and rather vulgar for supposedly wanting sex.

Velour wrote:

I really resent that these NeoCalvinist pastors spend so much time talking about sex from the pulpit. They are crass and bizarre. They seem to like to hold an audience hostage.

Not that I’m disputing that, but it goes beyond the Neo Cals.

IFB weirdo Jack Schapp (however it’s spelled) simulated a certain sex act during a sermon in church. You can find it on You Tube by searching for his name and/or “Polishing the Shaft.”

Patriciamc wrote:

That part of the man answering to God is nowhere in scripture. Plus, and I’m no theologian, but if someone is answerable like that, then what does that mean for

The NT explicitly says that Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator (high priest) between God and humanity, and the NT refers to all believers (not just men) as being priests.

The NT says nothing about husbands being a priest-figure responsible for a wife’s sins – she already has a high priest, Jesus Christ.

@ Deb:

A beautiful story Deb, one which needs telling in a world that’s dying for lack of beauty.

@ Deb:

This story made my day. I grew up with pastors like that. I am thankful to have known what church can be.

@ mirele:
I’ll be interested a little in knowing if he gets his “mid century retro chairs” and yellow fire engine truck. 🙂
(He was asking for stuff like that in one of his videos)

Nancy2 wrote:

Here’s the part that gets me: Is Reissig saying that men are being punished for Adam’s sin in the fall by God assigning them responsibility for and authority over women?
Did anyone else get that from what she said?

I don’t know about her specifically, but a lot of comps try to paint this picture of male hierarchy that it’s really not a pleasure cruise.

It’s this big, scary, heavy burden and yoke of responsibility that men must fear. Women should feel relieved they are not called to carry it.

Jesus said his burden is light, but comps are teaching Jesus made his burden heavy for men/husbands.

Who are you going to believe, Jesus or complementarians?

Daisy wrote:

I did go to a church once where there were more single dudes present than single women in the adult singles class for those age like 35 or older… which is odd, b/c usually the ladies out number the dudes.
In this case, though, the men were, to put it politely, not marriage material.

Reminds me of a woman who was living Alaska and her retort to being told how good her odds were of getting married and all of the available men: “The odds are really good, but the goods are really odd.”

“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.

Daisy wrote:

I’ve also seen too many married women crying on other blogs that their husbands are abusive or that their spouse ignores them.

Corrie ten Boom, who never married, once wrote something she had been taught by her father, Papa ten Boom, this:
” Marriage is not the answer to unhappiness. “

NaLowlandseer wrote:

@ Lowlandseer:
And by courageous I mean in breaking ranks with those who promote complementarianism to highlight the suffering of others. The real heroes of course are the victims who find the strength to speak out.

Lowlandseer wrote:

This is one of the most powerful and heartbreaking stories I have ever read and it explains why Aimee Byrd is making such a courageous stand against the abuse of power by men in the marital relationship.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/listening-to-abused-women?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=02ac9b4e1c-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-02ac9b4e1c-119263361

Lowlandseer wrote:

This is one of the most powerful and heartbreaking stories I have ever read and it explains why Aimee Byrd is making such a courageous stand against the abuse of power by men in the marital relationship.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/listening-to-abused-women?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=02ac9b4e1c-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-02ac9b4e1c-119263361

Lowlandseer wrote:

This is one of the most powerful and heartbreaking stories I have ever read and it explains why Aimee Byrd is making such a courageous stand against the abuse of power by men in the marital relationship.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/listening-to-abused-women?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=02ac9b4e1c-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-02ac9b4e1c-119263361

Lowlandseer wrote:

This is one of the most powerful and heartbreaking stories I have ever read and it explains why Aimee Byrd is making such a courageous stand against the abuse of power by men in the marital relationship.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/listening-to-abused-women?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=02ac9b4e1c-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-02ac9b4e1c-119263361

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Lowlandseer:
And by courageous I mean in breaking ranks with those who promote complementarianism to highlight the suffering of others. The real heroes of course are the victims who find the strength to speak out.

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Lowlandseer:
And by courageous I mean in breaking ranks with those who promote complementarianism to highlight the suffering of others. The real heroes of course are the victims who find the strength to speak out.

Lea wrote:

Lowlandseer wrote:
This is one of the most powerful and heartbreaking stories I have ever read and it explains why Aimee Byrd is making such a courageous stand against the abuse of power by men in the marital relationship.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/listening-to-abused-women?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=02ac9b4e1c-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-02ac9b4e1c-119263361
There are two articles listed in the post. The second one about narcissists is fantastic. Truly.

@ Lea:
@ Lea:
@ Lea:
Yes this is a powerful message she is sending. Support to this in the name of complementarianism is just another name for abuse. It is evil. Thank you Aimee for being willing to take a stand for Christ’s love for us.

Velour wrote:

Tim Fall has a knack for knocking these guys out of the water in a nice way and honing in on Biblical truths that refute their nonsense.

Velour, that is very kind of you to say.

P.S. I actually wrote another post just this morning revealing the nonsense of patriarchy. It will go live on my blog on Tuesday.

@ Daisy:
And I can only assume Genesis 25:20 is the ironclad prooftext that God would have sent Isaac Rebekah BEFORE he was 40 for folks like that. 🙂

@ Velour:
Thank you, Velour.

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.

If I recall, some were trying to pin point her feminist years she was recovering from. Were they 13 to 18?

Daisy wrote:

mirele wrote:

That’s one of the things I talk about when people ask me why I’m out in front of Driscoll’s new outfit. Not so much the sex, but the fact that he used church money to hire ResultSource and game the New York Times bestseller list.

That was certainly another controversy attached to that book for sure.

Not that I think it’s ok for Driscoll to do it, but gaming that list is apparently very common.

Lydia wrote:

If I recall, some were trying to pin point her feminist years she was recovering from. Were they 13 to 18?

That’s funny. I was thinking the same. I wasn’t sure if she grew up in church, do people go to seminary instead of regular college when they don’t (not a dog, real question), and if so how feminist was she really?

Deb wrote:

I have always loved that story and have a fondness for country churches.

Deb, that is a wonderful story of faithfulness to the end. There is so much of this missing in church today, I’m not even sure we can call it church. Stories like the one your husband shared used to be commonplace, and still are in rural areas. I’m reminded of a dear old saint who quietly ministered to a grieving family who had lost a child. Not knowing what to do or to say, he went to their home before the funeral, knocked on the door and asked for the shoes they planned to wear that day. He then polished them, left them on the porch, and left.

What is missing, we ask, from 21st century church? Love. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” When I read the reports of New Calvinist control, intimidation and manipulation, I grieve and ask “What love is this?!”

Max wrote:

Pastors appreciated their gifts and willingness to use them, and mobilized them in their ministries. Some still do.

Okay. I’m a gonna let ‘er fly here and name names. I’m sure these people won’t mind.
Several years ago, a couple a few years older than me, Jimmy and Penny Kenner, went to Red Rock, OK to bring the Gospel to people on an Indian reservation. I am a distant cousin to Penny, and I went to school with her younger brother for 12 years. I know the family well – they are wonder people!

When the Kenners arrived, the church Jimmy had planned to pastor had dwindled down until the only people there were 4 elderly Indian lady saints. Those ladies stepped up, took care of the church business (business meetings, managing church finances and the bank account, etc.), and were major players in helping the Kenners bring new members and new life to that church. Without those ladies, there would have been no church.

On a visits back home, Jimmy and Penny always share their experiences. Jimmy is not ashamed at all to stand in the pulpit and tell a crowd of traditional Southern Baptists what those ladies did!

Tim wrote:

Velour wrote:
Tim Fall has a knack for knocking these guys out of the water in a nice way and honing in on Biblical truths that refute their nonsense.
Velour, that is very kind of you to say.
P.S. I actually wrote another post just this morning revealing the nonsense of patriarchy. It will go live on my blog on Tuesday.

Welcome, Tim.

I appreciate your blog and how pithy you are in getting your points across, your sense of humor, and depth too. I cried when I read the story you wrote about your daughter being in a car wreck in Southern California, how much you loved her, how worried you were and helpless not to be there, and going car shopping with her and your wife.

I’ve learned a lot over there.

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.

@ Nancy2:
Thanks Nancy2- another precious story of heroines of the faith! When Jesus looks at believers on earth – in the Kingdom here and now – he sees a different cast of “first” and “last” than we do.

Daisy wrote:

Jesus said his burden is light, but comps are teaching Jesus made his burden heavy for men/husbands.
Who are you going to believe, Jesus or complementarians?

This!

You nailed it, Daisy.

@ Lydia

Maybe you’d like to contact me through my website email, that will save a step for the Deebs, who are probably busy with lots. I would be interested in any info that you might have about contacts in East Africa. This email will come directly to me. I am the only one who reads the emails.

info@churchexiters.com

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.

@ Muff Potter:

Jesus’ teaching clarified that a then acceptable form of serial monogamy within the practice of Mosaic law was actually adultery, after all. A whole group of guys who would have up to that point been serial monogamists or polygamists would suddenly become adulterers with Jesus’ working definition of adultery.

So, yeah, actually Jesus did come by to clarify that what had previously been considered acceptable behavior among dudes was not acceptable after all.

@ trs:
Thank you for an informative comment and for the heads up on the other thread. Hope you get some more computer time soon.

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

R2 wrote:

I’ll go a step further and say that if someone has grown up around people who have personality disorders then a fatalist view of the world such as Calvinism is easier to accept. Within the same family you can have basically good people and people who are intractably evil, and the doctrine of election and reprobation helps make sense of the world. A personality disordered person has no conscious awareness that they’re sick and rarely do they change: that fits perfectly with the idea they’re reprobate.

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.

So, back to Ephesians 5:21. Ooops. That would be 5:22 – 23.

The word, head, here can be translated — head, ruler, lord
The word can also have the sense of “union,” uniting two walls” — so, I extrapolate — the uniting of 2 previously separate walls

I don’t see the comp understanding of the husband as the leader of the household in the picture of marriage presented in these Scriptures.

The Church and Christ are ONE Body, being upbuilt in love. (Ephesians 4:15, 16) The head and the body are an intricate, caring, responsive, ontological (if you will) union. The body shares in Christ’s inheritance. The Bride shares in the very Spirit of God. God withholds nothing good from them that love Him.

The husband is lord of the wife as Christ is the Church. Did/does the husband save her, sanctify her, make her holy and blameless? Of course not. Only Christ can do that.

Seems like the Scripture is putting the relationship back in godly order. Christ is Lord of the woman. Christ is Lord of the man. Christ is Lord of the marriage. The wife becomes as close to the husband as his own body — no distinction between the way he treats her and his own body. They even both have authority over each other’s body. They both put Christ first in the relationship again — as did Adam and Eve before the Fall.

The wife can freely and safely subject herself “in everything” to her husband (as distinct from the general subjecting of one another among the saints) because she is one with him, one in responsibility, one in authority, joint-participants in the excitement of New Life in Christ. Through the Holy Spirit, the two are now even “one in Spirit” again as in the Garden. (Except now our clay pots are still fallen.)

The effects of the Fall go deep. The man assimilating the woman — making her into his image, using her for his purposes, relating to her according to his definitions rather than
that/those of God — wants to prevail in the Church. Really hard for some of us, men and women, to know that the Gospel truly does redeem us from sin and changes the worldly status quo.

The Gospel renders women absolutely equal partakers in the Holy Spirit and in Christ’s Kingdom. We don’t seem to have the same difficulty with the truth that the Gentiles are co-heirs. Yet, the husband and wife are characterized with exactly the same word as the Gentiles.

Well, Alan House. I kind of lost track of this conversation.

In answer to your question, I believe the Scripture in Ephesians build on and confirm the
Scripture in 1 Peter about the bottom-line for the marriage relationship.

Back to the example of the joint executors. Within the parameters of joint responsibility/authority the 2 have a lot of options for getting the job done. They can do everything together. One can figure everything out and delegate/oversee. They can both pick the parts they want and then negotiate the rest of the tasks. Etc. They can even
subtly undermine, sabotage, one-ups-manship, and/or criticize each other instead of working as a team.

If the estate-closing is ever reviewed by a judge, however, neither bears more responsibility or authority than the other.

Thanks for the question. You’ve stimulated my thinking. God is so incredibly GOOD.

Blessings to you and your family.