"I heard police or ambulancemen, standing in our house, say, "She must have provoked him," or, "Mrs Stewart, it takes two to make a fight." They had no idea. The truth is my mother did nothing to deserve the violence she endured. She did not provoke my father, and even if she had, violence is an unacceptable way of dealing with conflict. Violence is a choice a man makes and he alone is responsible for it." -Patrick Stewart link
Mary Kassian, not surprisingly, recently wrote a negative review of Ruth Tucker's book Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife. Tucker's book dealt with her experience as an abused wife and her former husband's use of male headship authority to justify his physical and emotional abuse. Sadly, without an ounce of compassion, Kassian lays the blame fully at Ruth's feet for her abuse, hinting that she ignored *red flags* prior to the marriage. Kassian goes on to *prove* that Tucker continued to put herself in harm's way throughout the marriage.
1.
Besides his run-ins with educators, Joe has a history with the law. He was arrested for voyeurism – for being a “peeping-tom.” This sexual misconduct, he claims, was resolved through the mandated counseling process.
Joe plans to be a pastor. Ruth knows that his religious views are “fundamentalist.” They have a heated pre-marital spat about the science of a literal six-day creation, but the issue of wifely obedience never comes up (p. 37).
Because of the glaring red flags, Ruth’s mother strongly opposes the marriage. But to no avail. Ruth is in love.
2.
A few years later, a church elder and wife show up on Ruth’s doorstep with a local newspaper in hand. The paper reveals that Joe had been arrested for repeated theft of coffee and donut money at the county jail, where he had made weekly pastoral visits (p. 65). Joe hadn’t told Ruth about the arrest. She’s mortified.
To alleviate her “wretched shame,” Ruth pressures her husband to publicly confess: “He agreed (on my insistence) to preach the following Sunday night a sermon of deep contrition from Psalm 51— a sermon I practically dictated to him.” (p. 65).
Joe was dismissed as pastor. However, Ruth’s “behind-the-scenes maneuvering” opened doors for him to minister part-time at a church in Crown Point, Indiana, and for further graduate studies at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. (p. 57).
At this point, 9 years into their marriage, and staying home with a pre-schooler, Ruth decides it’s a good time to take in foster children. Thirteen-year-old Deana moves in. When Ruth finds out that Joe has repeatedly come into Deana’s room at night and sexually assaulted her, the rage she unleashes against him is “virulent and deep primal.” Yet she doesn’t report Joe to the authorities. She covers up the sexual abuse.
Having taken Ruth down for being obviously stupid, unlike Kassian who knew how to pick a good husband, she then proceeds to lower the boom. This has absolutely nothing to do with male headship. In fact, it is egalitarianism that is responsible for domestic violence.
Ruth’s experience led her to believe that the doctrine of headship promotes abuse. But my experience with abuse leads me to believe that women in egalitarian relationships are at a far higher risk than those with husbands who sense a responsibility to provide loving, protective headship. I could tell you dozens of heart-wrenching stories to persuade you that the further away a couple wanders from God’s pattern for marriage and the doctrine of loving male headship, the higher the risk of abuse.
So Ruth’s experience and my experience testify to the exact opposite conclusion. Which is why experience and emotions are an unreliable source for debating the veracity of a premise. It’s a sad day when reason is ignored and a conclusion accepted purely on the basis of who tells the best story and evokes the strongest emotion.
Kassian then says she will pay her way to meet with Ruth, and they will become the best of friends.
After her little take down, I doubt if such a pleasant, cappuccino type meeting is in the cards.
Ruth, we’ve stood on opposite sides of the woman’s issue for decades—since you first published on the topic in 1987 and me in 1990. I highly doubt whether CBE and CBMW would ever work together on this, though I can’t say for sure. At this point, my involvement with CBMW is peripheral at best.
So even though it’s unlikely that those organizations would come together to stand against abuse, it doesn’t prevent you and me from doing so. We could. You and me. Two Grandmas who love the Lord, love women, and deplore abuse. We could come together. We could do it for the sake of our daughters, grand-daughters, mothers, sisters, and friends.
I’ll fly anywhere in North America at my own expense to meet you. We’ll hash out a Ruth and Mary personal statement. I suspect we’ll really like each other . . . we’ll sip frothy cups of cappuccino, laugh and cry, share stories (and pictures of our grandbabies) and become friends. And perhaps that, in and of itself, will make a difference.
Besides believing that Kassian was a heel to handle the Tucker's abuse in this manner, I realized that Kassian is so entrenched in her iron bubble of frothy cappuccinos and glorious complementarianism that she is unable to question her rigid paradigm.
I have no doubt that my words mean little to nothing to Mary Kassian, who clams to be an author of the Danvers Statement. She also claims to have invented the term *complementarianism* and is a Professor at SBTS' Women's Institute.
“As distinguished professor of women’s studies, Mary Kassian brings an international reputation combined with deep biblical convictions and a tremendous ability to communicate, to teach and to share her passion for a biblical understanding of these issues.
“This is a great development for Southern Seminary and another representation of what God is giving us in this faculty. We look forward to having Mary join us in the classroom, on the faculty and as a part of the Southern Seminary family.”
Kassian will be teaching classes within Southern’s Women’s Ministry Institute on such topics as prayer, gender roles within the church and family, and feminist theology. Part of Kassian’s role at Southern will be to assist new Director of Women’s Programs Jaye Martin in developing a long-term vision for the school’s women’s program.
This Distinguished Professor of Women's Studies claims to have studied systematic theology on a doctoral level, but I could no mention of any theology degree. It looks like her only degree is in rehab medicine.
Mary Kassian is an award winning author, popular speaker, and a distinguished professor of women’s studies at Southern Baptist Seminary. She has published several books, Bible studies and videos, including: Girls Gone Wise, In My Father’s House: Finding Your Heart’s True Home, Conversation Peace, Vertically Inclined, and the Feminist Mistake.
Mary graduated from the faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine from the University of Alberta, Canada and has studied systematic theology at the doctoral level. She has taught courses at seminaries across North America She is a popular conference speaker and has ministered to women’s groups internationally. Mary has appeared on numerous radio and television shows, including Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, and Marriage Uncensored.
Your pastor, women's leaders, blog queens and theologians are sinners.
Kassian made it clear in her passive aggressive style (how it came off to me) that if only Ruth had married a "godly" complementarian this whole mess would not have happened. And this is where she is wrong. For years, the Deebs have pointed out how sinful men have used authoritarian-based complementarianism to abuse women emotionally and/or physically. In fact, right at the very beginning – in Genesis – which comps (I am using an abbreviation of this unwieldy term) use to prove the subordinate status of women, Adam blamed Eve for his transgression. This was a man who walked closely with God, and yet his own sin caused him to turn against his wife in order to protect himself from appearing guilty.
Why is this important? Women who do marry Christian men with no apparent red flags are not guaranteed the beautiful complementarian marriage to which Kassian alludes. People drift and change, even while attending Kassian approved *gospel* churches. Others conceal their poor behavior for a period of time, especially in the dating and early marriage years.
Authoritarian complementarianism is appealing to those who have a hidden abusive personality.
Kassian has a problem. Even the supposed "good" guys can turn bad. Years ago I knew a Christian couple that was well-loved and respected throughout the Christian community. I still remember people telling me that this couple had the best marriage they had ever seen. By this time, Dee was getting smarter. i remember thinking that only time would bear that out. Several years later, the husband took up with a sweet young thing, leaving his wife devastated. While married they did the whole complementarian thing – church (an official TGC church with a council member as pastor), Bible studies, men's and women's conferences with the approved leaders, etc. They had been married for over 20 years. So much for a complementarian marriage…
Then there was another woman I knew who was a well known women's Bible study leader. She was big into submission – her husband was head of the family, etc. They attended gospel™ approved conferences, a great church, etc. They had been married for about 25 years. I found out she had cancer and that it wasn't going well. So, I brought her a meal and spent time talking with her. Suddenly, she raised her arm and I saw bruises all over it. At first I thought it might be a result of chemotherapy, so I asked her about it. Sadly, her husband had been abusing her for several years, and she was covered in bruises in concealed areas. Of course, I got her some help, but it was an awful situation.
Needless to say we do not know what goes on in the homes of our leaders, self-declared or otherwise. So, for example, we have no idea what really goes on in Mary Kassian's home. One thing I do know. There have been one too many supposed *good* comp leaders who have been caught in sin. Abuse, unfortunately, is one of those silent sins. I happen to know that there are complementarian men, even leader types, who have abused their wives; however, no one talks about it. Yet, women like Kassian continue to deny that such a thing could happen since she only knows "good men".
Aimee Byrd: Authoritarian complementarianism and domestic abuse.
Thankfully, Aimee Byrd is one person whom Mary Kassian might listen to on a good day. Byrd is both Reformed and a complementarian. She wrote an excellent article Listening to Abused Women, in which she writes:
In my last article, I pleaded that complementarian men should respond to women with a listening ear and a resolve to better teach what headship actually means and what it does not mean. They should be reaching out to abused women, whose husbands and churches hide under the banner of headship and complementarianism, and call out the abuse and false teaching loud and clear. They should be working to help church leaders to recognize abuse and provide godly counsel and resources for those abused.
Could current trends in comp teaching enable abuse?
My point is that when you make authority/submission of Father to Son the distinction between the two in eternity (ex., Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 251) and make that the paradigm for male-female relations you risk developing a position where the Christological/crucicentric pattern of the husband-wife relationship is relativized or even sidelined. And you may well end up with a monochrome understanding of marriage which misses the need for the husband to sacrifice for the wife, as well as all of those beautiful, playful dimensions of biblical love and marriage as we find, for example, in the Song of Songs.
All of these things must be part of anything claiming the name of biblical complementarianism. The current reductionism, by way of contrast, may not cause but certainly enables the kind of abuse described here. It is a pity that, in the rush to defend the barricades, so many seem to have lost sight of the human side of this Trinitarian problem.
A true story of one marriage that started off well and ended badly.
I am going to make a guess here. I believe that this story is about a woman who believed in comp teaching, was Reformed, and may have been a leader of women. She cared about living a life of submission to her husband, who was a committed Christian when they married.
When I first met my husband-to-be, it was like a dream come true. We met on a missions trip. He was kind, considerate, actively serving in the church, spiritually mature, and handsome, too. Our friendship grew quickly and within months we were meeting with the elders to get their blessing on our engagement, which they gladly gave. My parents even consulted with mutual friends as to his character as a Christian, and he passed with flying colors.
But to top that, he confided to me that he received a prophetic word from God promising him a special blessing on this marriage. Who could resist that? I was in a different place theologically at the time, so I did not see extra-scriptural revelation as a problem. Rather I felt humbled and honored to be the person whom God choose to fulfill His promise to my future husband. This all but guaranteed to my mind that we would have a happy marriage.
Warning: In case anyone thinks that this prophetic word is limited to charismatic churches, think again. SGM has influenced many of the Calvinist churches in this regard. I know of one well educated, deeply committed, theology studying, ardent complementarian who attends one of the recognized Calvinista *gospel* churches and who gets prophecies on where he should go on vacation, whmo he should marry and which Bible study he should lead. His pastor, well known in comp circles, thinks he is one of the godliest men in his really big Calvinista church.
The wife tried to obedient, to no avail.
I wanted to be a good wife, so I was determined not to usurp my husband's authority. I deferred to him in just about everything. I trusted that if he was wrong, God would correct him in His time. My job was to be obedient.
… I think only perfection would have only satisfied him, not a normal, fallible human being. Even when the children disappointed or embarrassed him, it was my fault because I was not doing enough to raise them properly.
She felt she needed to hide this from others in order to *respect* her husband.
This is important. Many people who are abused suffer in silence.
The family continued to function normally at least on the outside. Not even the children suspected because we hid it from them. We hid it from our friends. I hid it from my family. I did not ask for prayer because it would be a sign of disrespect towards him, and the Bible told me that he could be won without a word. I was also afraid of what he would he do if people found out. Would it drive him further away or to divorce? So I suffered in silence and prayed with all my might that God would save the marriage. But things got even worse.
Her husband praised others while showering her with contempt.
He barely showed me any physical affection but was quick to hug the wives and daughters of our friends. He praised others. I got back-handed compliments. I tried to say, as gently as I could, that it wounded me when I saw him show affection to our friends. His response was to tell me to stop trying to control him. From then on I just kept silent as the contempt grew. He would work late, stay up late, and sleep on the couch.
Others viewed them as the perfect Christian family while things were falling apart.
After what seemed like ages, the blow fell when my husband said we should separate, telling me to move out and leave the children with him. I was crushed. I refused his offer and finally broke my silence. Friends and family were stunned because we seemed like the perfect Christian family. They talked to him and encouraged us to fight for the marriage. I was more than willing to do this. But he said staying married to me would be a slow emotional death, and he needed to be free to be himself. If I would not go, he would move out even though several Christian men confronted him on multiple occasions.
Eventually she found out that he had another honey who was God's will for him. You can read the entire story in which she describes how she was *gas-lighted* by her husband. The sad reality is that many people do not recognize her abuse because he didn't hit her. He merely manipulated her view of reality and bullied her in the process.
She discusses how the church and church members often give poor advice to the abused woman.
After reading Kassian's take down of Tucker, I can see how this occurs within the authority-driven complementarian churches.
Yet I have heard stories of women who were told to go back and submit no matter what their husbands did, while still maintaining a reverential attitude toward their abusers. There may have been some exceptions if there was a pattern of violence, but never permanent freedom from the abuser. And what makes a pattern? Once? Twice? How much was too much? They were told to stop being so emotional and exaggerating their situations especially if there weren't any bruises as evidence. They were told that God was for their marriages so they needed to pray harder. And wasn't she as much of a sinner as her abusive husband? If she deserved Hell, wasn't she getting better than she deserved? I was told that I didn't tell my husband I loved him enough. This is telling me I needed to give a narcissist what he wanted, which is like trying to fill a bottomless pit. This was also like a punch in the stomach from someone I trusted, so I felt betrayed all over again.
Wendy Alsup, also a Reformed complementarian, brings some sense to how gender roles are misunderstood.
I think Wendy hits on an interesting distinction.
Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware have linked ESS to the submission of women.
Wendy believes that this has corrupted the debate on the Trinity and ESS.
Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem in particular have cultivated the doctrine of ESS in direct response to modern evangelical feminism and use it to bolster their very real world views on gender, particularly submission of women. This teaching then filters down through books, conferences, and pulpits and has significant influence on how men and women are taught to relate to each other in their churches, marriages, and society at large.
Alsup believes that Grudem, Ware, CBMW, etc. have linked the subordination of women in eternity to the subordination of Jesus in eternity.
For the last six years, TWW has contended that this has been the reason for the ESS debate. Finally, a Reformed complementarian agrees with us!
Note the parallel language of the joyful agreement and support of the Son eternally to the leadership of the Father and the female's willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. If we are reading Grudem, Ware, and The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's position correctly, Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father and woman will be eternally subordinate to man in the New Creation.
Alsup believes that these groups and theologians are confusing gender distinctions with the roles of husband and wife – roles that will end after this life.
These leaders of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood believe that this benevolent responsibility of man and joyful receiving from woman is the heart of mature manhood and womanhood – not roles for husbands and wives but the essence of the two genders, and they believe it holds still in the New Creation.
…Our earthly marriages—and the submission that happens within them—are but mere shadows of the one great marriage between Christ and His bride that will exist for all eternity. As our roles shift from being individual husbands and wives so too will the submission that flows from our individual relationships. As the collective Bride of Christ, we will all submit to Jesus as our Bridegroom. Christ remains the head of both man and woman. His supremacy (which Philippians 2 tells us is the direct result of his obedience to the Father) will govern our relationships with each other, male and female alike.
Alsup states that, in the here and now, we are not celebrating authority, but sacrifice.
In this life now, husbands and wives have an opportunity to give testimony, not to the subordination of women to men, but to the eternal truth that Jesus is a Bridegroom who loved His wife enough to leave His glory, descend to the earth, and fulfill His Father’s plan of Redemption. And this is what we celebrate when we celebrate the subordination of the Son. We do not celebrate authority. We celebrate sacrifice. We do not celebrate control. We celebrate the submission of our wills. It is this beautiful dynamic between the Father and Son, and eventually between the Bridegroom and Bride, that will set the world right.
Although I have some differences with both Alsup and Byrd when it comes to the role of men and women in the marriage relationship, I still believe that together they get this discussion right.
If marriages reflected sacrifice and submission of our individual wills to the good of the marriage, I believe that abusive behavior would more readily be spotted by those trapped in an abusive marriage. It would also affect how the church cares for those who have been abused. Women are not to be subordinate and abused in that position. They are to be sacrificially loved.
I believe that Grudem, Ware, Piper, CBMW and others are contributing to the silent abuse culture in today's churches. It is time to rethink how women are viewed by the church. In many churches, women are afraid to discuss domestic abuse because the teaching seems to tell women if they just submit enough, they, too, will have a beautiful comp marriage. When they don't, if must be their fault. After all, it is only good comp women like Mary Kassian who have *good* men in their lives, right?
@ Jeannette Altes:
It gets you book deals in the SBC. Ask Ware. Another spokesman for ESS is Denny Burk, Dean of Boyce College at SBTS.
@ Max:
A girl can dream, right? :o)
@ Christiane:
Giles went through the editing Ware did line by line.
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
And as Friend said, how can one “violate” Nicene? Not to mention that is a glaringly “unbaptist” statement.
@ Christiane:
Why reject when you can rewrite history and the lemming followers believe whatever you write?
Lydia wrote:
Got it. Thanks for the explanation.
Max wrote:
Thanks, Max. I’m glad that I’m not the only one who thought his closing strange.
Paula Rice wrote:
Oh that is funny.
I love the last name you’ve given Mary. I’ll make one more editorial change.
Mary Cashing-in!
Nancy2 wrote:
Well if the rest of us are on Trueman & Co’s side taken issue with this attack on the Trinity and outright heresy, then count me in.
Al Mohler is reprehensible. Whom does he think he is to lecture the rest of us?
@ Lydia:
I don’t know. Taking liberties re-writing Athanasius, who is so well known, seems a big gamble. Maybe Ware (ed.) thought he wouldn’t get caught out, but too many people are up on Athanasius because of his work to preserve orthodoxy against the the attacks of the Arian heresy.
Maybe Ware (ed.) didn’t know that????? In which case, what kind of scholarship is that ????
Christiane wrote:
change ‘Grudem’ to ‘Ware’
@ Christiane:
@ Velour:
Mohler conveniently omits the fact that Ware and Grudem actually admitted that they are changing the traditional view of the Trinity.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-reply-to-dr-mohler-on-nicene-trinitarianism#.V3tTJpB4WrU
@ Christiane:
Exactly. I don’t like the idea of people being crushed *at all,* especially due to “leaders” who make them run inside a collapsing building…
This is such a long, unwieldy document, yet the discussion of co-equal and co-eternal is really germane:
http://anglicansonline.org/basics/athanasian.html
* Please note that this is an old translation, and some capitalized nouns would be lowercase today (“catholic” = universal, for example). The wording is awkward in many places, and it’s a tough one altogether, since so much trinitarian material is sort of shoehorned into it.
@ Christiane:
Made the corrections.
Ken F wrote:
Real leaders tend to just lead, without having to be in an assigned positio, ken.
I had a class on group dynamic and we would have groups with appointed leaders and then self appointed leaders and the observe.
Lea wrote:
Certainly we have all seen how self appointed personalities can rise up to take charge of things and how the mob can be influenced to let them do that. In fact, we have fought major wars with whole countries who did that.
That, however, is not how the scriptures show that leadership should function. There is a dual pattern in scripture with, on the one hand, recognition of the various spiritual gifts and also illustrations of group decisions (Acts: choosing of deacons), and on the other hand there are the instructions to Timothy about choosing elders/deacons/laying on of hands. And, yes, the denial to some individuals of the permission to teach.
Those who appoint themselves to leadership should not always and automatically be let to get away with that. And expecting any group or mob to necessarily exercise trustworthy diligence is not wise.
@ okrapod:
I was thinking more of the people who are concerned that a group of five will not be able to pick a restaurant without a ‘leader’. Or organize a food bank drive. Or some other things a church might need to do on a regular basis. And those ad hoc sort of leaders may change – with some better at some things than others. I think it’s a mistake for churches to pick one guy, or 5 guys, and have them decide EVERYTHING. Which is what happens in some of these heavily authoritative churches.
I dislike your description of the ‘mob’ though. Certainly people can be influenced, but this is true in picking ‘leaders’ as well. We have criteria, but aside from the no women bit, are we using them? And who’s fault is that, really? The ‘leaders’.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, please have pleasant dreams Lydia. Not all dreams are nightmares. I keep thinking the New Calvinist nightmare will pass.
@ Lea:
Well, I have been involved in two churches which self destructed and in both cases there was mob like behavior which included some ‘strong personalities’ trying to be the ones in charge. In one other church in a town where we lived the mobs got completely out of control and somebody threw a hymnal at somebody else during a business meeting and medical attention was required to the recipient’s nose.
I make no apologies for the use of the term mob in such circumstances.
But as to some little group like you describe I agree with you. Adults do not need to be baby sat.
On July 4th, Bruce Ware responded in a lengthy guest post to criticisms of his Trinitarian views, but as commenters like Geoff Holsclaw and “The Reformissionary” point out, he hasn’t exactly done a convincing job with his use of sources, terms, and theological clarifications.
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/04/knowing-the-self-revealed-god-who-is-father-son-and-holy-spirit/?utm_content=bufferf5296&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#comment-6468
okrapod wrote:
Whoa!
I am comfortable with some groups being considered moblike, I simply misliked the idea that any large group would be so, which is a bit what it sounded like from your post. You did a bit of conflating ‘any group’ with ‘mob’.
One person can make a bad decision, and 50 people can make a bad decision, but I think you have better odds with the 50 to avoid a really really bad decision.
Lydia wrote:
Lemmings have an interesting behavior (besides jumping off of cliffs). (Think New Calvinist when I refer to lemmings in the following). Lemmings have periodic population booms. When food supplies dwindle, they will disperse in all directions, seeking the food and shelter their natural habitats can no longer provide. If New Calvinist leaders fall – and stop feeding them such gems as ESS and complementarity – their followers will become disillusioned and scatter (it happened with the emergence movement; it can happen with the resurgence). Piper, Mohler, et al must continually come up with some new thing, rewrite church history, stretch another Bible verse beyond its bounds, etc. … or the movement will run out of fuel and fail. When one of them makes a crazy statement and drifts to the south of orthodoxy, they must rally to his side and try to explain it away or they all will fall. It must be terribly tense for the New Calvinist icons to come alongside Grudem and Ware these days, but they must try to protect their own or cast doubt among the followers about their overall teachings. Of course, if the potato gets too hot to handle, the sly ones will escape out of the snare. There came a time when even Driscoll needed to be distanced; the big dogs who once promoted him put him dropped that potato. Grudem and Ware?
Lea wrote:
Actually I said ‘any group or mob’ not ‘any group/mob’. That is a distinct difference, but I shall try to be more specific in the future.
I am not as impressed by small groups as some people, however, and that also is based on experience. Example: In the last church to have serious problems where I was I had been appointed to a committee which was to assign people to small groups. The bishop had sent us an older and wiser pastor since there were problems. So we get in the committee and sure enough here is somebody who is just determined to run the show, about how things used to be done and how if only everybody would do it that way the happy days would come again. It was evident that a lot of people were not happy with that, but none of us dared to ‘take on’ the problem person. Except the pastor, who made the final call, and things calmed down. Since you have been talking about group size, this was a group of about 12 or 15 people. I do not know in the theories of group dynamics how that size may or may not be a deciding factor. I do know that the bishop had assigned the pastor and the pastor made the call and everybody settled down at the time. And I do know that the pastor was both older and wiser, so that is another variable.
okrapod wrote:
Group dynamics is sort of interesting actually, but it’s been a while since I studied it. I would probably be rambling if I went into it.
okrapod wrote:
I’m sure it was. I’m more talking about odds. Most groups (smallish) can self select a leader and get things done just fine. I think authoritarian groups run by one person or a few people are harder to fix than self selected leadership I guess.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Wow! Long, in depth push back comments from those two!
I have another one of those off the wall questions. If the Son is eternally subordinate/submissive to the Father, and we are to be “Christ-like” wouldn’t ESS/ERAS negate Gen.2:24 …… ” And a son shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife ……” ?
Nancy2 wrote:
Well this is the problem I have with the whole ESS thing – I reject the premise. Even if the Son were eternally submissive, that means absolutely nothing for human relations. There isn’t any way to make this logical; it’s a fool’s errand.
Lydia wrote:
Absolutely correct. At SBTS it is quid pro quo – one trades theology for favors. Just look at how Mohler has replaced some really excellent scholars with unqualified younger people just because they aggressively promote his brand of fundamentalism. Burke and Strachan are two examples of people who were hired far above their capabilities. From a management standpoint, it is very disappointing because not only is the school failing, but so are the people who were hired above their capacity. It sets them up to fail as well.
numo wrote:
Well put. And thank you for posting the excellent article on co-eternality, numo. Very relevant.
Lea wrote:
I’ve been in various kinds of leadership roles throughout my nearly 30 year secular career. I’ve attended numerous required leadership courses and have read many books. I don’t claim to be a great leader, nor to I claim to fully understand leadership. But I am not a novice.
When it comes to church leadership I’m still trying to figure things out. I’ve never held a “leadership” position in a church, so I am a novice when it comes to church leadership models. But by now I am very much against a business model for church leadership. A business model makes the lead pastor the celebrity CEO, the staff and elders the VPs, life group and/or ministry leaders the middle management, and the church members become nothing more than employees to be (micro)managed. The “leaders” tend to view themselves as responsible, rather than accountable, which means they feel a responsibility to meddle. Yuck.
But what should it look like? The Bible describes the church as a body. But what are we to make of that analogy? Human and animal bodies are highly structured with each of the parts having defined and very specific roles. I am not saying that one SHOULD interpret the analogy this way, but one COULD interpret that analogy to mean that a church body should likewise be highly structured with each member having defined roles. But I think few people on this site would advocate for that. But what is the alternative? An amorphous blog, like pond scum? I don’t think many would advocate for that either. This why I am thinking that there will need to be some kind of minimal structure in place. But what should it look like?
I don’t have this figured out yet, but the feedback here has been helpful.
Max wrote:
We’ll see. In academic circles, Mohler is not considered a scholar or worth legitimizing through a response. Seriously. Even in evangelical scholarly circles he is like the guy who claims aliens built the pyramids. Has a following of relatively harmless nut-jobs, but not the kind of ideas that a serious scholar would even respond to. Depending on how much damage he does to theology and the church, we will see.
@ Lea:
There is a course run by many churches here called “Christianity Explored” with a follow up course called “Discipleship Explored”. The author is Rico Tice, an Anglican evangelical. The handbook for leaders says this about leader/learner ratios.
“A high ratio of leaders to group members is essential. For example, a well-balanced group may consist of two leaders and six guests, or three leaders and nine guests. If your course is likely to be large, make sure you have enough leaders, then divide them into teams of three. In order to deal with pastoral situations appropriately, it’s advisable to assign a mixture of male and female leaders to each team.” They also insist that leaders should attend the leadership courses every time, regardless of how many times they have led a group. I came across this in a church I briefly joined and it worried me that everything was so regimented. Every leader had to follow e script, even down to anecdotes to break the ice. Interestingly the Charity Commission asked them to explain why they held so much much money in reserve. The answer? To enable them to keep going for six months if the revenue flow dropped. They are now running a version for prisons!
Ken F wrote:
A place to start might be bishops, elders, deacons, evangelists, prophets, teachers, those with varying spiritual gifts …… it is obvious where I am going with this.
@ Lowlandseer:
And there are also instructions for welcoming guests.
The hardest part of Christianity Explored for many guests is getting through the door on the first night. This will be especially true if you’re running your course in a church building, which for many will seem an unfamiliar, unwelcoming place. welcoming each arrival. In a larger group, choose welcomers who are not leaders: that way, leaders can concentrate on talking to guests who’ve already arrived. Leaders and welcomers should wear name tags so that they are immediately identifiable by guests. When a guest arrives, welcomers should simply introduce themselves and find out the person’s name. Asking for addresses or telephone numbers at this stage can make people feel uncomfortable. Take the guest to where the group will be meeting and introduce them to another leader. If your session is not including a meal, this would be a good time to offer people a drink (eg: tea, coffee, fruit juice) and a biscuit/cookie. If you’re expecting a large number of guests, it’s a good idea to prepare a seating plan (illustration provided). Nothing is left to chance.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Yep, just because you’ve been given a platform doesn’t necessarily mean you have anything to say.
okrapod wrote:
That’s what I’m leaning toward, but I get the sense that others here reject any kind or structure like that. Any system can be abuse. The one advantage of bureaucracy is how it slows down everything. It can make it frustrating to effect positive change, but it also puts the brakes on negative change. The YRRs could never get away with what they are doing if they tried it in a more structured denomination. For them, the fewer rules the more opportunity. But once they are in power, then come the rules.
@ Lowlandseer:
Rico Tice has been featured by TGC
Sorry here is the link
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/author/rico-tice
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Let the nuancing begin!
Gram3 posted this excellent challenge last month about this topic and Ken F. gave a brilliant answer.
Gram3:
“Gram3’s post on June 4, 2016:
Denny says:
…we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.
First, class, pick out the assertions which are embarrassingly naked of argument. Second, class, spot the “attack on the person” fallacy (hint: the “f” word.) Third, class, identify the emphatic and prejudicial language concealing a lack of facts and argument. Extra credit: Explain reasonably and concisely what “vision of patriarchy” actually means. Extra extra credit: Explain reasonably and concisely how said “vision of patriarchy” undergirds Christianity (must explain the structural engineering metaphor to receive all points.)
That’s a taste.”
Ken F. posted this on June 5, 2016, in response to Gram3’s challenge to TWW posters about Complentarism/Patriarchy/Eternal Subordination of the Son and its logical fallicies.
“If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.”
++++++++++
What an assignment – pretty stiff challenge because the statement is such a mess of vague terms. They can wiggle words to say just about anything when they don’t define them. I’ll give it a stab:
“reclaim” assumes that complementarians once had the upper hand. When was that? Evidence? It’s a nice word to throw in becase it preys (prays?) on people’s loss aversion (people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains – from Wikipedia). The reality is they have nothing to reclaim because complementarians have never been in the majority. Pure spin.
“the debate” makes it sound like there are two sides and that one side can win. It pushes the discussion into extreme views: one is either a complentarian with all that baggage, or one is a liberal feminist who denies all gender differences. The reality is at neither extreme. And there is no true debate because there are no official groups who are taking the two extreme sides. It’s an attempt to spin facts in order to whip up frenzy and make it sound like there is something to win, or at least something not to lose.
“we must not fear making a claim” – This is a funny statement. I would think they would want to say “we must not fear standing for the truth.” It’s almost like this is an admission to making up something new.
“disturbingly counter-cultural” – How does one define counter-cultural in a multi-cultural environment? “Counter-cultural” is just a buzz word that has almost no meaning. It’s meant to sound brave and heroic, but they forget that all the heretics were counter to the normative church culture. “Disturbingly” is a disturbing word to describe a Christian movement. More spin in an effort to sound heroic.
“yet strikingly biblical” is another meaningless phrase. First, the word “yet” contrasts “biblical” with “counter-cultural.” Isn’t Christianity already supposed to be counter-cultural? So it sounds like this is setting up a double-negative. It seems like “and” would have been a better word choice. Unless they mean to upset the current Christian culture, which is what they are doing. Inserting “strikingly” makes no sense other than to inflate the language.
“less-than-evangelical feminists” – What does “less than evangelical” mean? Is it assuming that no feminist can be fully evangelical? What do they mean by feminist? If it’s someone advocating equal pay for equal work, that hardly disqualifies a person from being an evangelical. What does it even mean to be evangelical? There is no clear definition for evangelical. So this is a nearly meaningless string of words.
“understand increasingly:” What evidence does he have that “less-than-evangelical feminists” are increasing in their understanding of his conclusion? I think it’s the opposite. It’s spin to make it sound like complementarians are gaining ground.
“Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.” – This is the point they have yet to prove. But say it enough times and it begins to sound true. Christianity has been infected by it too often in the past, just like it has been infected by lust for the power of the state. But it’s not the “Biblical” norm.
I have to skip the extra credit points – I cannot begin to imagine how to answer.
Ken F wrote:
I don’t know who this is directed at, but that is not my opinion.
But I reject utterly the idea that small groups cannot sort things out on their own and must have a pre-assigned “leader”.
One thing you get into when you study this stuff is the differences between types of leadership style. Charismatic being one (like cult leaders or ‘the pastor’), Positional leadership, natural leaders, etc…
And of course, some of this depends on what you are doing. Are you running a church, a committee, a sunday school class?
Velour wrote:
Gibberish. Half of what they write is gibberish. You have to take out the adjectives to see what they are even saying and even then it’s dicey since they rewrite the meaning of words.
Ken F wrote:
A wise old preacher said once that you will know an apple tree by its fruit.
An apple tree doesn’t go around declaring, “I’m an apple tree! I’m an apple tree!”
It either produces fruit or it doesn’t
And I would add that it does no good for people to declare a walnut tree and apple tree when it produces walnuts. Nor does it do any good to tell an apple tree to stop making apples because it offends you.
The problem with most churches is that men have gotten a hold of who gets to decide who is what.
Some men have declare that women are not allowed to produce certain kinds of fruit.
There is fruit that only men can produce.
Yes, I have pretty much rejected the structures of men. That’s because of what they are. They are manmade and have nothing to do with God, Jesus, and The Church that Jesus wants to set up.
I’m more about giving people space and allowing them room to find out what kind of tree the are. And the supposed ‘leaders’ should also be working towards helping individuals find out what kind of trees they a are rather than telling them what kind of trees the get to be or don’t get to be.
Ken F wrote:
I think it’s much easier in small groups. The temple probably worked much like modern megachurches, but I don’t see the segregation of the temple structure anywhere in the New Testament referencing churches.
@ Lea:
To add to this, we wouldn’t leave out the criteria of maturity in Christ, age, and wisdom. We would leave out popular, Charismatic personality, unfaithful, quick temper, etc.
IMHO, mentorship in churches would be more appropriate and more productive than leadership, at least in the way leadership is defined in our churches today.
If you look at Jesus and the apostles, he didn’t ‘lead’ them so much as he taught and mentored them. He didn’t force them to be fishers of men: he asked, and they chose to follow Him. He didn’t make them sign contracts. They could have walked away at anytime. Even though some apostles understood things better and more quickly than others, there was no pecking order among them, at least that I can see.
@ Lowlandseer:
Yikes! This sounds frightening to me.
If you have ever experienced a gathering of Christians where no one is in charge, no one is “boss” which is very different than leader, you might fall for what the overripe boys peddle.
They are not the only dog and pony show in town. While the patriarchy bunch fights for that system, and while the non patriarchy bunch fights for the “right” to be boss just like “those guys” many of us have just….moved….on.
If no one is ordained boss, if no one gets paid to serve, the real leaders rise like cream to the top and actually serve and lead. The hirelings tend to drain off like whey to the pigs.
It works.
Nancy2 wrote:
Read Katharine Bushnell’s take (God’s Word to Women) on the leaving and cleaving thing. It makes sense
Nancy2 wrote:
They tried though! Certain brothers wanted to sit at his side . . . Jesus did bring correction.
Ken F wrote:
I don’t know if this was meant to be funny, or just a flippant way of dismissing what was being discussed?
It does derail conversation.
Ken F wrote:
If we are a priesthood of believers, empowered by the same Holy Spirit, than why shouldn’t believers have voting rights? These are their churches, where they serve, where they give their money. They should have a say in the running of their churches.
I guess it will be ok then to tell them that their money won’t be needed since they will have no voice.
Nancy2 wrote:
The book the Training of the Twelve goes into this. I was in a ministry that used a similar model. The problem with it comes when people pick and choose the people they want for certain ministries and not for others.
But it’s still way ahead of the model of most megachurches who hire people from outside the church to do most of the visible things. For example,pro musicians. I think it’s a big waste to not use the gifts inside the church.
Gram3 wrote:
Isn’t the context part of the problem, though? Meaning that, this is the second or third time – it’s already Mr. Ware’s responses to the responses to his responses to critiques of his views. Seems to me that if you combine like a serial MRI the longer comments and critiques of Mr. Ware’s articles and responses, we find he’s having to get more and more specific and then it’s becoming more clear that he’s dug himself into a huger hole than we first thought.
I am not immersing myself into the intricacies of the debate itself because I have other things I am required to pay attention to, but I have been taking note of the larger context. FWIW, here are some thoughts the “meta-analysis” of issues big picture. (See the critiques themselves for examples.)
* Mr. Ware is being critiqued at the level of assumptions, the key one being that there is *NO* command, mandate, or hint in Scripture that we must connect gender relations with the nature of the Trinity. It is his own assumption/theological conclusion to make that leap from the Trinity to man/woman dominance/submission.
* Mr. Ware is being critiqued at the level of exegesis, and how he handles particular texts in Scriptural context, which affects his theological conclusions.
* Parallel to his handling of Scripture/theology Mr. Ware is being critiqued at the level of patristic authors/historical theology for how he has misread and misinterpreted their particular works and also the flow of church history.
* There is also a not-so-academic critique that has been ongoing for decades, in the testimonies of survivors of hyper-complementarianism and theological patriarchy, so he is being spotlighted for the destructive impact of his so-called constructive doctrine.
The presence of critiques is not proof of error. (Think how many people critique The Deebs and commenters at TWW!) But this MRI of different angles diagnosing Mr. Ware’s alleged heretical doctrine could be taken as potential indicators of a system fatally flawed through failures at multiple intellectual levels. If he is to demonstrate his presuppositions, exegesis, theology, historical theology, and personal/social impact are all legitimate, he will have to go far beyond the present “nuancing.” And others with the academic credentials and expertise to hold him to account, are doing so.
Mr. Ware’s a professor of theology. He should be able to take this …
Meanwhile, as a sidenote, it doesn’t matter how many eminent-respected-august theologians side with Mr. Ware and/or issue their own statements that favor his views. They will likely have to submit their theological acumen to the same critical analysis as Mr. Ware’s has been.
Further, I could be missing something, but I haven’t seen any publications by Mr. Mohler on any of the “read this” list for understanding this controversy.
Ken F wrote:
Ken, what is the purpose of assembling ourselves together?
okrapod wrote:
I see them more as functions although they have been used as titles/offices for the large part of church history.
A few interesting things about the concept of elders…
Ex,: The Corinthian had been operating quite a while and there is no mention of Elders in either letter. It is not something that is a given or even recommend for each church. It is not a polity or church structure rule.
The word “appoint” in Greek has as one of its definitions, “hand stretching” as in voting.
Most letters are written to the entire church.
Elders are understandable for the early days of Christendom. I am a bit amused that Paul recommends elders for Crete despite quoting one of their prophets that Cretans are all liars. :o)
I do not think the functions were ever meant to be the static leadership offices they turned into. I think that inhibits spiritual growth and wisdom in the Body.
ishy wrote:
My vague recollection is that temples were not places with a big weekly congregation of regulars. I believe they were places where people went for certain holidays and observances. This would make them a bit more like today’s cathedrals or pilgrimage spots: people make an effort to see a holy spot, to listen for God, to make a sacrifice or offering even if that’s only the time for the pilgrimage itself. All of that is distinct from the megachurch.
Does anybody know more about the role of ancient temples?
@ Lea:
Most people avoid conflict and this makes it easy for the string personalities. The mob mentality comes from a lack of self governing in such situations. Something we tend to promote these days in schools, government and even church.
There are a lot of “experts” out there convincing people they are unable to self govern and make wise decisions on their own. It starts young.
@ Lydia:
Strong!
Ken F wrote:
I’m glad things here have been helpful.
It is good to question structures, what’s helpful, what’s not, etc.
Accepting without questioning doesn’t go very well.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2011/06/human-structures-in-review.html
@ brad/futuristguy:
From what I have read, your analysis is right on target. The comment thread under the Ware guest post is quite informative as are the comment threads under Michael Bird’s and Scot McKnight’s multiple posts.
It is plainly clear (!) to me that the ESS crew is placing way too much significance on their *interpretation* of 1 Corinthians 11:3. I believe that is why Grudem has spent so much effort on getting people to assume that kephale must mean “authority over.” Without the assumption that kephale means authority and without the assumption that Paul’s purpose there was to lay out a chain of command or perhaps a pattern of command, the linkage between intra-Trinitarian relationships and human relationships falls apart. Then to add Rahner’s rule as if it is inspired text just adds more layers of assumptions/assertions. It is almost like they have built an elaborate Hollywood set which looks plausibly real but cannot withstand much stress or much close inspection.
I think the ETS Trinity study group meeting will be an interesting one.
BL wrote:
Yes. And who ever said being the Body is easy? It is so much easier to have adults in charge of other adults. Most of history operated this way with princes of the church and realm.
The Body is a place we shoyld grow in wisdom and maturity through the encouragement and guidance of others. Defined offices and roles stifle that, IMO.
I see the functions as facilitating such. A pastor function also hopes to develop that function in others.
An interesting note is that there is no “laity” in the NT. All believers are “clergy”.
Friend wrote:
There was only one temple in Israel – the one in Jerusalem. And you are correct in that the temple didn’t have a weekly “Sabbath Service” as such. They did have the daily sacrifices, as well as the special feast days / holy days scheduled on occasion throughout the year.
The priests offered animal sacrifices and offerings morning and evening. It was also a repository for food gathered from which to feed the poor, widows, orphans and travelers.
Weekly meetings were in the local synagogues.
linda wrote:
I belong to a little prayer group that has officers for keeping things organized. Our bylaws would make it hard for these office holders to become entrenched and overbearing. We are few in number, the terms are short, and people can’t hold the same position for two terms in a row. In other words, if we make it a hot seat, we might find ourselves sitting in that hot seat a few months from now. This is one structure that constantly brings new voices into the discussion.
More important: we are devoted to prayer, and we also set aside time for listening to one another’s updates at every single meeting (about 8 times a year). Everyone is invited to mention a personal concern and a subject of rejoicing. All of the information is kept strictly confidential. Over time, this practice builds trust and strengthens the group and the individual members.
Incidentally, nobody has “drained off.” We have all found individual roles and voices in the group.
@ BL:
Thank you!
brad/futuristguy wrote:
So is Grudem, but he got pretty huffy and petulant about the academic challenge to his academic life’s work. And Mohler did not help them maintain their academic dignity with his non-response response. I think his main function is to keep the pewpeons and his YRR apostles in line. I cannot imagine that any academics take his response seriously.
@ Gram3:
This is why I find the metaphor of a “spiritual MRI” helpful. There are so many different layers and interconnected systems of assumptions and conclusions going on, that it requires examining the “patient” from multiple angles in order to get a more accurate systems diagnosis.
The only way out of the theological problem here is to give increasingly more detail about methods used and conclusions reached. And with the revelation of those additional specifics, more questions get raised — and rightly so. If you want to be a professor and publish your opinions to where they are often taken as first-level issues (though cloaked as secondary doctrines), then this is the kind of accountability that is appropriate. At least Mr. Ware is submitting to that process, which is relatively in his favor. I suspect that from all that’s happened the past few months, if he now goes silent without there being wider concurrence about him providing some resolution to the examination, he and CBMW will end up in a far worse light …
Imagine this happening without easy communication systems to facilitate it. No wonder it took decades in the early church to see the negative impacts from the trajectory set up by faulty doctrines, and centuries to clarify orthodoxy through councils and confessions.
@ Ken F:
Ken, I’m not opposed to structure per se, but the kind of structure & what the roles are there for. I suppose the more genuinely loving & pastoral anyone is, the less difficult it is to follow them, like a shepherd & sheep. Nothing is perfect & I’d rather something structured with someone like Eugene Peterson in charge than something ‘freer’ with less loving oversight. I’m not sure if I’m making any sense at all here, it may just be that we’re all so horrified by some of the leadership in mega-churches discussed here that it’s hard to even countenance this.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
It would be refreshing if Ware, Grudem, and the other ESS advoates would clearly state their assumptions and point to any textual warrant for those assumptions. It would be refreshing if they would stop making assertions but would provide evidence and a coherent argument from that evidence.
The fact is, their fanboys are not interested in that tedious exercise and would rather just ignore the deficiencies in their textual evidence *and* in their reasoning. As we have seen on the comment thread of this post, when you as them for evidence for their claims, they disappear or deflect. Or in my own church case, they made me disappear (in a sense) for asking for proof that I am subordinate and that the Eternal Son is subordinate.
BL wrote:
It was a feeble attempt to point out that hierarchy cannot be avoided. Even in the most egalitarian church, there will be some who are considered too young to vote (assuming there are young families). That is hierarchy. The issue for a particular body is to go into it with eyes wide open. I don’t like the business model. That is a terrible extreme. But I suspect there will also be abuses at the other extreme. For example, the best way to change an egalitarian church is to flood it with newcomers. All it takes to change a church like that is to get enough people to swing the vote. If one argues that their church/group would never allow such a thing, then it’s an admission that newcomers aren’t equal members. That’s hierarchy.
Gram3 wrote:
Add to that: deny, project, blame, shame.
Beakerj wrote:
You stated it better and more concisely than I did. I think this is why the Bible said there are varieties of ministries. Some people function better in more structured organizations. Some do worse. I think the key is to look for health. But looks can be deceiving at times.
Ken F wrote:
What definition of egalitarian are you using here? My egalitarian church is elder led but we vote on elders. Whereas my Baptist church was a denominational vote church, but not egalitarian.
The usual answer is that the voters are members of the church and you regulate this through how you become members…this is not terribly complicated.
Ken F wrote:
I come back to my earlier question to you – what is the purpose of assembling ourselves together?
It seems that you are viewing today’s churchianity as the base structure and from there you are attempting to figure out how something else would work *within that same structure*.
And until you have explored the *purpose* of assembling ourselves together, you may be limited to circling around what *is*, rather than what *could* be.
Ken F wrote:
Some people function best in a dictatorship – but that doesn’t mean that dictatorships are therefore justified.
I think the key is to look for PURPOSE.
WHY do we assemble ourselves together?
Lydia wrote:
I know you do. I think, though, that some of what you are saying comes from assumptions that I am not making. You say that Paul did not mention elders in his letters to the church at Corinth, and therefore that means that there were none? I think that it means nothing as to whether there were or were not elders at Corinth. The thing about an argument from the absence of evidence, you know.
Back when I was researching for myself the idea of bishops I found Protestant sources which said that while the word episcopos is certainly in scripture one cannot arrive at an argument from scripture alone as to whether this was a separate office, or another word for elder or whether if it was a separate office with someone as bishop who was also an elder. Some protestants have come to one conclusion and some to another conclusion. So I started looking at some of the ante-Nicene fathers. What a task. But I found a lot of use of the term and quickly became convinced that whatever it was it was at least something. But what I wanted to see was all four terms used in the same sentence. I did find it with bishop, elder, deacon and laity. However, I was never able to satisfy the question as to whether they all thought that or some thought one thing and some another. Here again, if someone is just writing something about listening to the bishop does that mean that there are no elders or deacons etc, or does it just mean that this was not the subject being discussed? Argument from absence of evidence again.
However, it became clear to be that during the ante-Nicene period these differentiations of function (office?) were part of the thinking of what Ehrman has called the proto-orthodox church.
I don’t have a problem with protestants who say it cannot be definitively proven by the bible and therefore we conclude xyz about bishops. I do have a problem with saying that elders and deacons and teachers and all that ceased to be unless they can come up with chapter and verse where it says that these things will cease to be.
In other words, one either argues from solely and only and exclusively sola scripture or one does not. In my thinking if one does argue from sola sola then one has to have chapter and verse to back up such arguments. And for me, the absence of some specific statement does not lead to any conclusion except that there is an absence of some specific statement. Beyond that one has to either go to other sources or else stick with one’s own opinions. My choice, other sources, because I have been too mistaken too many times to get all that excited about my own conclusions.
Velour wrote:
I did not say members should not have voting rights. That’s a decision that should be left up to them. But don’t we all have the right to vote with our feet if we don’t like the way our church is governed? Unfortunately, many have been groomed to tolerate spiritual abuse, so they don’t leave when they should. And some are trapped in abusive marriages where voting with feet about the church could make the marital abuse worse.
okrapod wrote:
I don’t think that anyone has said that elders, deacons and teachers all ceased to be.
BL wrote:
I think you are assuming that I have an agenda that I’m pretty sure I don’t have. I think the textbook answer to your question is Heb 10:25 – mutual encouragement. I often feel like I should become a “done” because I’m not sure why churches meet. Is it because it’s the way we’ve always done it?
Lea wrote:
That’s a good point. I thought I was hearing people arguing for no hierarchy, which would mean the same vote for everyone, the same status for everyone, no distinction in honor, etc. I’m having a hard time understanding how a group larger than a few people can function on such an egalitarian basis. But when I suggested that some hierarchy might not be bad I felt like I get pounded. This is a lightening rod issue. I got some good things to think about and now I am done with the conversation. Thanks to all for the good thoughts.
Ken F wrote:
This thread was about complimentarian, and the counter for that is egalitarian. So you can see why that definition is confusing in this context.
I don’t think anyone is arguing against the mere existence of hierarchy, but again, think of the context. Most people here are not ALLOWED in the hierarchy, for churches that are hierarchical.
But if you’re done, fine.
Ken F wrote:
No, I assure you that I am not assuming that you have an agenda.
Ken F wrote:
Well to honest, Ken, it takes work, but the results are far superior. So superior that “no hierarchy” is the default structure taught in business school these days. The basis of this approach is that everyone has a role to play, but no one is “above” any other. So in this model, the manager is not “in charge” – his role is to serve the team by making sure everyone is heard, and that the best ideas are acted on. One example of a company that has made billions by consistently embodying this philosophy is facebook.
BL wrote:
Maybe you were not involved in this conversation all that long, but for a loooong time on TWW among the commenters there has been going on this discussion as to whether the ‘offices’ in 1 Timothy were (a) intended for the whole church or just for some problem that Timothy was having in Ephesus and (b) whether these ‘offices’ were ever intended to actually be offices at or or merely functions, and (c) whether said functions were ever intended to be for the whole church for all time or merely were needed during the formative years. Somebody argued that the role/office/function of pastor is not blblical for example.
If I were to try quote who all said what over the months and months this has been going on that I know about it would take something like forever. However, if you will listen to what people say, and ask yourself if this is what is being said, it really is, or so it seems to me. This really is an ongoing and thoroughly interesting conversation.
Ken F wrote:
I don’t view that as hierarchy. You seem to view it as hierarchy. We may need to define hierarchy.
BL wrote:
Worship, prayer, edification (many things s fall under edification).
Beakerj wrote:
I’ll add that authoritarian, abusive churches aren’t just mega churches but also smaller churches. My former NeoCalvinist church was an incredibly abusive church.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
That would be same facebook of recent fame which has allegedly been editing out ‘conservative views’ or something like that?
okrapod wrote:
No, I am just seeing a different intent. The letters, for the most part, were written to entire groups meeting– however many there were in a city or how large. (One archeology source put the largest meeting in a home at about 70 in Ephesus).
People did not have Scripture. Even the Jews did not have scrolls lying around in their homes. So much of what they knew and learned was oral. Someone with a bit more experience would be listened to like a Phoebe and such. I think we should see elders in that light. Not every group needed them or they would most likely be mentioned more and even named in letters more if so important to the Body.
I think there are other aspects we ignore. Jesus was a bit antagonistic toward the Temple. Choosing JTB was indicative of that early on. JTB was pretty much an outlier on purpose.
Jesus was not exactly interested in promoting the typucal Temple polity type structures or systems. Christianity is very much an individual relationship with God yet within a group. But not always. It is not always possible which does not diminish salvation.
I honestly think this is one of those issues where church history and tradition hurt understanding more than it helps.
We take words written in a specific historical context to a specific situation and try to make them into policy like they were laws in totally different cultures where there are no Kings or dictators.
I am not saying we don’t need laws. We need laws because there are bad people who choose to do harm. My message is one of encouragement toward self government at church and every day life. I think most people are capable of such but many don’t believe that. So I am looking at this from a birds eye view which I believe was Gods original intention for His creation. I do not believe he created a pecking order or hierarchy of humans. (Children not included in that statement)
I believe the resurrection is our sign we are to seek that sort of functioning in our lives.
It is “hard” for a group not to have a leader. Not impossible. And quite rewarding for everyone in the long run. My background cones into play here, too. It is similar to what Drfundystan was saying.
It does not work for everyone but it is amazing what people can accomplish when given the freedom, responsibilty, tools and self authority. It is so much more productive than groups waiting around for the leader to tell them what to do, think and providing a “vision” for them. We have trained people to do just that and it is a crying shame. Our schools are even geared this way.
I think the Body of Christ should be a model (a light) to the world in how it functions. Static “offices”, titles and leadership positions have been a hindrance to this.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I not convinced that churches should follow business models. Just because it works at facebook (did you see the recent negative press that might negate your assertion?) or anywhere else in business does not mean it should be applied to the church. I’m no longer sure what church is supposed to look like. There are certainly lots of models out there though. The only reasons I have not quit qoing to church are 1) I believe that God wants me to stay with this one even though I don’t have any other tangible rationale, 2) the SBC church I attend has mostly resisted the YRR cool aid, and 3) it appears that church is inherently messy and God uses this in all of our lives.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Yes.
A few decades ago I started a homeschooling group in my area.
The purpose was to assist other families who were interested in homeschooling, at a time when parents were being arrested and their children hauled off by child services.
Before there were homeschooling ‘experts’ with their conferences, books, curricula, etc.
And for a couple of years the group consisted of me. I took phone calls and answered questions for hours. I contributed to a state-wide newsletter. I talked about homeschooling every where I went. I made photo-copies of the applicable state laws. I became a liaison for families who wanted to set up homeschooling via their church.
My goal was to give each family the information available to assist them in making decisions & choices.
Eventually, the local group grew until there were ~100 families. We arranged tours, olympics, plays, play dates, park days, art days, holiday days, craft days, etc. We had camping trips, cookouts. Set up meetings with our local and state legislators.
We ‘officially’ met once a month to deal with whatever business needed dealing with, and members were encouraged to share info on whatever they were using, or researching, or problems they were encountering. Give & take.
Everyone contributed from their own experiences, wisdom, errors, successes. We occasionally had misunderstandings and issues, but we managed to deal with them without destroying each other.
There was no hierarchy – I was a facilitator. I wasn’t looking for a life-long position. I wasn’t looking for income. I wasn’t looking to tell people how it absolutely had to be done.
And I passed on the baton.
Was I a leader? Yes. Were other people allowed to lead with their strengths and/or interests? Yes. Was there structure? Yes. Was it inviolable? No.
@ okrapod:
I probably did not communicate well. First they are not offices. That is not used in the Greek. Function fits as they are doing verb words. I don’t see them as static but serving functions because others are developing same gifts.
People maturing and growing in wisdom to develop giftings is a good thing.
The confusion comes with ministry as a career ladder. Who was paid in the NT? That is a whole other can of worms with all sorts of interpretations. Paid with honor? Benefactors like Jesus had? (They were women!) Given hospitality to do their work. Paul made tents to not be a burden.
Salary and titles changed everything. The state church changed everything. Not for good.
The only thing to do away with is our thinking that lofty titles and position translate into spiritual maturity. That is possible but not probable. We might be better off just learning from scholars who know language and study historical context.
But there will always be saints who pastor, serve others, tell others, etc. They just don’t have the title and/or income from it. They just ‘do’ it anyway.
Lydia wrote:
Or alternately ‘leadership’. Just because you went to seminary doesn’t make you leader. Just because somebody pays you doesn’t make you a leader.
Biblical examples of leadership: Being a Servant. Leading by Example. None of it involves bossing other people around.
I think there’s always that person that really wants to be in charge, but shouldn’t be. And those types of people are often either really persistent, or they are liars, or they go off on their own without accountability.
Christians need to do a better job of being on guard against these people, and frankly, I think most Christians are WORSE than the average non-Christian.
I was contemplating this morning what a church would look like if, instead of trying to grow fast, that it tried to intensely disciple and stabilize one Christian at a time? There’s a book called Slow Church I want to read. Not completely sure it’s about that, but seems like it might be.
6 comments not approved.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
KEN, think of the ‘collegiality’ of the Body of Christ. When an issue is very important to the whole Body of Christ, and even on outward to all of humankind;
bringing all who can contribute to understanding of this issue together to speak and to council will yield something that increases understanding, and promotes the common good.
Ken F wrote:
Business models change. Look at how they have changed over 2000 years. The serf could never own land was a business model. Slavery was a business model.
I think the worst were mega churches who employed the CEO/BofD model for the Body. So I know exactly where you are coming from.
But I do think the Body of Christ should be the light of the world in how it functions. Shockingly so. It functions that each part is needed and even considers the lesser parts as more important to bring them up to equal. That is how we grow people. It is facilitated not “led”.
okrapod wrote:
Like Mohler, some of these guys have too much success/power sooner than they are mature enough to handle.
I see in Jean Vanier’s reflection on the Body of Christ, something of value, something that is not ‘practical’, or would fit easily into ‘labels’, or even something people can accomplish without the way of grace:
“The Call to Wholeness in the Body of Christ (Jean Vanier)
He came to transform fear into trust, so that the walls separating people into enemies would disappear, and we could join together in a covenant of love,
‘So shall we fully grow up into Christ, who is the Head, and by whom the whole body is bonded and knit together, every joint adding its own strength for each individual part to work according to its function, so the whole body grows until it has built itself up in love.’
Yes, this is the vision of Jesus for our world
announced by St Paul:
one body –
with the poorest and weakest among us at the heart,
those that we judge the most despicable, honoured;
where each person is important because all are necessary.
His body, to which we all belong joined in love, filled with the Spirit. This is the kingdom.”
@ Gram3:
I am just confused at the timing on all this. Ware has presented to ETS in the past. His book on ESS is what? 10 years old or something. Many bloggers were debating this year ago but the theological academic world seemed to ignore it except a few brave souls who pressed against it. One comments here now and then, Jim G, who questioned Ware at ETS. Giles countered it head on but was relatively unknown here.
I just don’t understand where the scholars have been. Had there been serious push back perhaps it would not have become so ingrained in so many circles. Actually, many went along or stayed silent. I honestly think jobs were at stake in some of these quarters.
I haven’t gone through this thread since I was last here late Saturday night. Is that dude (with initials “A.H.”) still on this thread, or did he go away?
I see from a previous thread page he was questioning a lot of people about their beliefs but didn’t spell out his own. It seems as though he was toying with people.
It would help if that dude would explain what his views are and what he believes, instead of just asking other people questions about what their favorite Bible version etc.
Alan House wrote:
If you take the salvation of people seriously, and you’re apparently arguing for a complementarian / conservative interpretation of Scripture, the onus would be on you to explain that passage, which mentions women being saved through child bearing.
You’re not willing to commit yourself to a response there, yet at the same time, on previous posts, you’ve accused others of playing loose with Scripture, questioning God’s word, and you’ve claimed on older posts that Scripture is “clear” and even a 4th or 5th grader can understand it.
Lydia wrote:
Yes. Shockingly – Light blazing out into the darkness.
Not because we’re dressed in homespun, or have a beard, or managed to subdue the wives and man up the men.
Christ in you – a light radiating out through you, a river of living water flowing out of you.
If churches are spending time hiding their darkness under a barrel, then they and we are ‘doing it wrong.’
BTW: The council for not so biblical male supremacy are mentioned in an article at the Atlantic Magazine website:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/the-conservative-christian-case-for-working-women/490025/
@ Gram3:
Just went and read comments at Jesus Creed. Sometimes I think they should learn the Shema before Nicene.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Last I was here, late Sat. night, I did not see A.H. give an interpretation of that passage. I suppose he has in the meantime, and I overlooked it.
I still wonder if this guy was trolling people here, because your point 1 conflicts with point 2.
I (and a few others) already pointed out a page or two ago on Saturday that the Bible is not as clear as Christians teach.
I pointed to a link by a guy who used to be a Christian, but for one reason of several, became an agnostic when he noticed that Christians cannot agree on a lot of what the Bible says and have different interpretations.
He runs a video channel about this here:
Christian Diversity
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC46_vlosspJ-yLFqEK9j8LQ
You saying that A.H. gave one of several possible interpretations of what “women will be saved through childbearing means” just confirms my earlier point from Saturday night – one which he was denying.
AH seems to think that true, actual Christians will understand the Bible fully, on every point, and be in agreement with it – which is simply not so.
Lydia wrote:
Well, I do not have a timeline, but the current round may have started with Steve Holmes responding to the “we won” triumphalism coming from the Female Subordinationists. Was that about a year ago? I lose track. Maybe that was too much for Trueman to stomach. I don’t know. Maybe there have been strong emails flying back and forth, and Trueman was not getting anywhere. All speculation. But it sure makes for interesting reading.
@ Friend:
You’re correct. People might have dropped in to make an offering or pray (or both), but priests and their assistants (if they had any) were the only ones who were in and around temples on a daily basis.
@ Daisy:
This is a review of a review of that passage.
http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009_1tim_2121.pdf
@ BL:
Well… there were other shrines and temples, per archaeology and even things that have made their way into the OT.
@ Daisy:
And a couple of weeks earlier the same blogger posted this on Mark Dever’s view of complementarianism.
http://andynaselli.com/when-people-are-skittish-over-complementarianism-apologizing-for-it-i-know-they-are-probably-thinking-about-authority-in-a-wrong-way
Daisy wrote:
He got put on moderation.
Christiane wrote:
This is beautiful and biblical and so far from the CEO visionary leader model now so in vogue. (hmm. Didn’t the church used to concern itself with avoiding worldliness?) Perhaps that is part of what Jesus meant when he said that the way was narrow. That kind of church is not going to become “mega.” And that is bad news for the megas. It’s sad. So much carnage from striving for right thinking without regard to love (not that right thinking isn’t a good thing, but it’s not the ultimate thing.)
@ okrapod:
that is neither here nor there regarding what Dr. F was talking about, though.
About 1 Timothy 2:8 – 9 . . . .
“I desire therefore to pray men in every place lifting up holy hands apart from anger and dissension”
The word “men” is sometimes: ” Used generically of a group of both men and women” https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G435&t=RSV
I’m wondering if verse 8 & 9 might also have this meaning:
I desire therefore the men (meaning men and women) to pray, lifting holy hands without anger or dissension, also that the women should adorn themselves, etc.
OR
I desire therefore the men to pray, lifting holy hands without anger or dissension. In a similar manner, (i.e. I want the women to pray the same way), and also the women to adorn themselves, etc.
In Greek, in this construction, the word translated as “likewise,” or “in a similar manner” refers back to the preceding verb — which in most translations is implied to be “I want.” “likewise (I want) also the women to adorn themselves (etc.) But nothing was previously said about men’s clothing.
I’m wondering if including “to pray” in the implied verb can also be a grammatically correct translation.
Well, is that clear as mud? lol
@ Ken F:
Oh, I get where you are coming from Ken. I just wanted to point out that moving away from a hierarchical structure is the theory driving most contemporary instruction on leadership, and many companies make it work quite well. You had questioned if that was even possible. It is. That doesn’t mean it should apply to the church, or to every business.
@ Abi Miah:
Contrast Vanier with Charles Tidwell (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) who wrote “Leadership and guidance in deploying the church’s limited resources for ministry are essential if there is to be optimum effectiveness. Leading the church to discover and determine its purpose and objectives is imperative. Identifying the needs of persons and designing and developing the church’s responses to these needs are vital. Relating resources appropriately is crucial. The leadership and guidance required to achieve optimum effectiveness in these facets of ministry are precisely what comprise the field and function of church administration.”.(Church Admnistration:Effective Leadership for Ministry)
@ Alan House:
In the post you were quoting from, I did not see Velour mention the word “originals.”
You later asked someone else about the originals, too.
When or if Christians use the word “originals” in these discussions, they are more than likely referring to the LANGUAGES in which the Bible was written, mostly Hebrew for Old Tetament and koine Greek for the New.
The original documents, the autographa, are no longer in existence, but their readings can and have been reconstructed by use of lower textual criticism – by studying the surviving biblical mss (manuscripts).
After texts have been made based on those mss-
Translators have to decide how to choose how to translate from the host language to the target language when making a new Bible version.
Sometimes, due to their biases, which may include sexism (they don’t believe women should be in leadership roles, for instance)-
Biblical translators (usually male) have intentionally changed wordings around to eliminate the mention of women from the text, or to do things like change the female name of Junia (who is an apostle in the NT) to “Junias” to make her appear as though she were a “he.”
Will A Truly Honest Bible Translation for Women Ever Be Made? (part 1)
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/will-truly-honest-bible-translation-women-ever-be-made
Gus wrote:
That article is already getting push back from complementarians online. I’ve only read the first few paragraphs of it.
I am dumbfounded that complementarians are taking umbrage at that article. They are behaving as though Motherhood is under attack – but it’s really not.
Other than a sliver of extremely radical left wing feminists, I don’t know of anyone (including run of the mill left wing feminists) who hate motherhood and actively try to discourage women from being mothers.
Some of the left wing feminists I see on other sites are mothers themselves and enjoy being mothers.
Some of the complementarians are especially upset by this line in piece from The Atlantic:
Despite the fact this lady is trying to go out of her way NOT to offend Stay At Home Mothers (or other moms), complementarians are having fits about that line and the rest of the interview.
Compare her clarification that she does not think that SAHMism is sin to this comment by Owen Strachan, who was at one time, some head cheese with Christian complementarian group CBMW, and note he and they are not as gracious in how they judge their opposition:
Daisy wrote:
I’ve since read the entire page, btw.
I think complementarians are largely getting offended over nothing.
Not many women today – whether childless, child free, or single or married – can afford the SAHM life style. These days, it is often necessary for both the husband and the wife to be employed outside the home.
About 1 Timothy 2:11 —
“A woman in quietness let learn in all submissiveness.”
“a woman” — meaning in a universal sense as — any woman
“quietness” — This word does NOT mean silence.
Cognate: 2271 hēsyxía (from hēsyxos, “quiet, stillness”) – quietness, implying calm; for the believer, 2271 (hēsyxía) is used of their God-produced calm which includes an inner tranquility that supports appropriate action. >> ** This term “does not mean speechlessness, ** << which is more directly indicated by 4602 (sigḗ) (J. Thayer) See 2272 (hēsyxios).
2272/hēsyxios ("calmly quiet") describes being "appropriately tranquil" by not misusing (or overusing) words that would stir up needless friction (destructive commotion).
Imo, this word carries the same sense as the meaning expressed as "without anger/oppositions and dissension" stated in verse 2:8. That is, not engaging in disruptive speech. The Scripture is desiring the SAME thing for the women as for the men.
The term is also used in 1 Timothy 2:2 as something to be desired by *all*
believers.
"submissiveness" — i.e. subjection obedience — Cognate: 5292 hypotagḗ – submission. See 5293 (hypotássō)
Same word is used in 2 Corinthians 9:13 referring to the saints in Corinth.
"Hypotasso" is used in 1 Corinthians 14:32, "and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets."
In God's Kingdom, "subjecting oneself" is coin of the realm. Everyone is "in subjection" and "being obedient" all the time. This term is not at all repressive or disciplinary, of itself.
So, Paul is telling Timothy to let the women learn, subjecting themselves just as the men do, just as all the saints do, (i.e. conforming themselves to the established order) in peace (i.e. without 'quarreling and dissension," without disruptive talk.
Sounds like what any teacher would require in any classroom or learning environment anywhere on the planet. How can a woman or anyone else learn in a disruptive environment? How can anyone learn if they don't "get with the program?"(subject themselves to the teaching/teacher).
Seems to me Paul is pushing back against questions about women's full inclusion in Kingdom life. He's saying — sure let the women learn just like the men.
Don't the men also peacefully subject themselves when they are learning?
I can't think that they would be told to be disobedient and disruptive.
@ Lowlandseer:
I have in the past read other pages before that offer myriad interpretations of the “woman shall be saved via child birth” passage.
I think it was you (if not, I apologize, I am having a hard time keeping up with this thread, and I’ve had internet problems lately)
– who said that all interpretations of the “child bearing” verse should be treated with respect.
I disagree with that view, depending on what that interpretation is, and how it is used.
If an interpretation is used to limit women further, to argue women should not be leaders or teachers because biologically, most are able to have children, then no, I don’t respect that interpretation.
Also, I read an article a year ago which provides another take on that verse, one that I cannot respect – I can’t recall where that article was, or I’d give you the link.
The article talked about a woman in her 20s who was in a Christian class with a male guest speaker who was teaching that for women to receive salvation from sin, they must give birth to children.
That dude was taking the verse hyper-literally. He really believed that Christian women have to get pregnant and have a baby to be saved.
This woman explained to the male, Christian guest speaker at her class that she has some sort of health problem that prevents her from ever having kids. She is sterile. She medically CANNOT conceive and have kids. She is incapable of having children
So, she explained all that to the guest speaker who was promoting this odd ball view of natalism-salvation and she asked the guest speaker, “What about me?”
The guest speaker got frowny and said to her, “Sorry, I don’t know what to tell you, but I guess you cannot receive salvation and go to Heaven when you die.”
She broke out in tears or came quite close to it when she heard that, she said.
So – there are some complementarian / patriarchal crack pots out there who are teaching that women must literally become pregnant and have babies, or else they go to Hell when they die.
I’m over 40 years of age and still a virgin because I see the Bible teaches that “nooky” outside of marriage is a sin. So I’ve not been having sex, ergo I cannot get pregnant and have a baby.
I’m not going to go around fornicating just to get pregnant, all to have a baby, all because some complementarian, sexist kook thinks the Bible is saying women need to have a baby to receive eternal life.
(I just love how these complementarian men think I am doomed to Hell for actually following the teachings of God, that I forgo sex so long as I am single.)
I cannot respect “Christian” teaching that sets up two methods of salvation, one for men, one for women, and tells women who are barren or who are celibate singles they are heading to hell for not having babies.
Daisy wrote:
And for some women, left with children to care for, whose ex-husbands do not contribute, what happens then? Do they live under a bridge? Or in a cave? Or maybe in a car? I would like for people like Strachan to know that in the real world, ‘in the home’ may not exist as he knows it for many people.
Sometimes, the lack of empathy for people’s real situations just blows my mind. I don’t know Owen Strachan from Adam, but he needs to go out into those places where his man-made theology makes no sense, and there someone can help him understand that the true faith of Our Lord was meant to mean something even to the mother of four who must live out of her car.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I just explained in a post or two above why I disagree that I or anyone should respect all positions on the “women will be saved via childbirth” verse – because some are actually teaching that women must become pregnant to be saved.
That totally conflicts with the main message of the NT that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ (not child bearing). My post above explains more.
trs wrote:
Translators intentionally changed this word. Paul was writing about ONE woman (singular) and he called her “the woman”. That specific woman was teaching ONE man error. Paul wanted her to learn correctly first. The issue was not women teaching or carrying The Gospel, the issue was error. And that goes for ANYONE – man or woman – who teaches error. Be quiet, learn correctly first, then tell others.
Alan House wrote:
But that is just one of the outcomes of complementarianism: it conveys to women and girls that they are “cheap knock-offs.”
I think complementarians should accept the ramifications of their views – and that is one of them.
Alan House wrote:
I think it’s more a case the complementarian interpretation of the Scriptures make the Scriptures appear as though they are in conflict.
I think mutualist (or egalitarian) interpretation of the passages that talk about women and marriage make better sense of the text.
There are examples in the Bible of women being leaders over men, teaching, being apostles (such as Deborah, Priscilla, Junia, etc), and complementarians gloss those examples over or try to downplay them – which makes it look like Apostle Paul is in error when he talks about forbidding a woman to lead or teach men.
Paul was obviously not saying what complementarians think he was saying since there are instances in the Bible of God allowing or sending women to preach, lead, or teach men.
Alan House wrote:
I don’t believe you ever explained what “head” in reference to husbands mean, nor did you explain what “leader” means.
Most complementarians do in fact define and understand both those words to mean that men/ husbands have some kind of boss-like authority over women in general, or wives specifically.
Unless I missed it, you never did explain in practical terms (or even general terms) how you understand the word “head” in Ephesians, or what you think men in church being leaders men.
As such, I can only assume you are in agreement with how most comps understand “head” and “leader.”
trs wrote:
No, that is NOT what Paul was referring to. Translators who wanted to exclude women intentionally changed Paul’s word “the woman” (singular, a specific woman that Paul
was talking about) to “a woman”. The issue was not her being a woman, the issue was error.
She was teaching one man error. Anyone who is teaching another person needs to stop and learn correctly. There are plenty of men who teach error and need to stop speaking to others altogether because they have it wrong, wrong, wrong. Until they are quiet and learn correctly, they are not supposed to teach anyone.
Paul didn’t mean to humiliate this woman (“the woman”) or other sincere Christians.
Paul never meant to exclude woman from carrying The Gospel.
Wade Burleson’s (pastor here for E-Church on Sundays from Enid, OK) on this topic:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-woman-of-error-in-i-timothy-212.html
Gram3 wrote:
I agree completely.
The male complementarians also don’t give a monkey’s butt how, if, or when complementarianism negatively impacts women. They care more about defending a doctrinal position than they do that women (and sometimes men) are being harmed by it.
Lydia wrote:
I pray opposition to ESS comes from those who are very outspoken, and aren’t afraid to offend. Millard Erickson has expressed opposition. In conservative (Northern ) Baptist circles his views might sway these evangelicals. He is also egalitarian. I fear it may almost take a brash fundamentalist on the right side to make this an issue. I don’t know if any such person will come forward who isn’t afraid to offend, but this Arianism is serious stuff.
Daisy wrote:
You are absolutely right to question it, Daisy.
If you research it you will find that the original texts refer to the word as “the Childbearing”, a noun which refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus and salvation through
Him.
Some manipulative translators changed this noun to a verb “childbearing”.
You’re absolutely correct to question how this wording is contrary to The Gospel, because it is and those translators were deceptive.
trs wrote:
Paul was dealing with the fact that there was a pagan temple to a goddess in the community and people, including women who’d become Christians, were used to elaborately dressing according to the norms of the pagan temple. He wanted them to get rid of these pagan customs which weren’t necessary.
Lydia wrote:
I think Kyle Claunch is another guy to watch. His chapter in the “We Won” book is about 1 Corinthians 11:3. I think that one of the possible reasons there has been so much commotion *and* the reason for Ware’s latest clarification is that the Female Subordinationists must implicitly *not* embrace Eternal Generation. Ware waffles on that issue, not denying it but not embracing it, either.
IIRC, Grudem rejects it. And I think a possible reason he rejects it is that if “God is the head of Christ” means that the Son is eternally generated from the Father, then it does not mean that the Eternal Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. And it means that “man” being the head of the “woman” means that “woman” came from “man,” not that man is the authority over woman. Of course, Paul goes on to say that very thing in Chapter 11, but the Female Subordinationists gloss right over that.
If order does not confer authority, then the Female Subordinationist view of Paul’s reference to Eve in 1 Timothy (the omnipotent “gar”) falls as well. It’s like the clobber verses are on a big logical merry-go-round that you can enter at any point but which is circular and goes nowhere.
About 1 Timothy 2:12
The word “831. authenteó” means emphatically terrible things, about the most extreme opposite from “subject oneself” as possible. This autocratic behavior is totally unacceptable in God’s Kingdom.
Imo, seems like Paul is pointedly defending the Church’s reputation (and most likely referring to specific accusations or a specific incident — as has been mentioned) in saying a big NO to the teaching and exercising of autentheo.
Whatever the translation, I really wish we’d deal with this word. I read about this word for the first time at TWW. This word is used ONCE. The commonly understood word for “authority/power,” exousia, is used 102 times.
Imo, “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men.” does not convey the true meaning of the text.
Does any text say a woman does not have exousia in the Church?
To underline my point —
autentheo:
one who with his own hands kills another or himself
one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
an absolute master
to govern, exercise dominion over one (imo, meaning: like an abusive tyrant)
Short Definition: I domineer over
Definition: I domineer, govern, have mastery over.
{No one domineers over anyone else in the ekklesia.)
831 authentéō (from 846 /autós, “self” and entea, “arms, armor”) – properly, to unilaterally take up arms, i.e. acting as an autocrat – literally, self-appointed (acting without submission)
a. according to earlier usage, one who with his own hand kills either others or himself.
b. in later Greek writings one who does a thing himself the author” (τῆς πράξεως, Polybius 23, 14, 2, etc.); one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, equivalent to αὐτοκράτωρ an absolute master
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
govern, exercise authority
From a compound of autos and an obsolete hentes (a worker); to act of oneself, i.e. (figuratively) dominate — usurp authority over.
@ Velour
Thanks, Velour. I appreciate the input.
Do you know which texts were wrongly translated? The Greek I’ve seen does not have the word “the”, just the word for woman.
I totally agree though that the translations of these verses don’t reflect Paul’s meaning.
Reading here is an education for me.
trs wrote:
Welcome.
Here are some of (pastor) Wade Burleson’s articles on the top. (He is a conservative Baptist pastor in Enid, OK, who is the pastor here on The Wartburg Watch on E-Church on Sundays.) He has written about these errors.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-woman-of-error-in-i-timothy-212.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2007/01/strange-belief-that-woman-cannot-teach_19.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2007/01/sheri-klouda-gender-discrimination_17.html
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/03/memo-to-mars-hill-men-suppression-of.html
@ Velour
Good point about the clothing.
I am wondering about the grammar.
To me, the verses imply that the women, likewise, are to pray, lifting holy hands, and then Paul goes on to address another concern with them. However, a reference I read (don’t remember which) said that the text doesn’t support that interpretation.
I’m still wondering. Too bad I don’t know Greek.
trs wrote:
Yeah, I’m not seeing a definite article in the original Greek until it starts talking about Eve. I compared Scrivener, Stephanus, and SBL. Is there another manuscript that has the article?
However, the point in v. 15 that it’s a “she” and not “women” does support a specific person.
@trs,
I have another post to you, with several weeks, that’s in line waiting for approval.
Please check back later tonight or tomorrow for it.
Take care.
@trs,
Sorry, typo. “Links” not “weeks.
Max wrote:
I have sure noticed this. Maybe not just limited to New Calviists, but very conservative Christians in general.
A lot of them are perturbed any time a person mentions how a certain doctrinal position personally affected them. I guess they have a cold, calculating view of the Bible and how they interpret it – they don’t care at all how much a certain doctrine impacts people in their every day lives or if it hurts them.
They care more about protecting their understanding of the Bible on some point or another than if or when that understanding is hurting people.
Jesus used to have conversations with the Pharisses along similar lines: that they were placing their interpretations and allegiance to such, and placing doctrine and rules, above the welfare of people.
Gram3 wrote:
And I dearly love how if or when you cite biblical examples of women who, with God’s blessing or direction, spread the Gospel, taught and led men, complementarians either go mute at that point, or they dispute what those “clear” examples mean, or, they cite those women as being “exceptions.”
Ken F wrote:
Very interesting.
Imo, 1 Timothy 2:12 would more accurately read:
I permit no woman ever to autocratically, self-appointedly, abusively, tyrannically, maybe even murderously, absolutely-masterfully domineer over a man, but on the contrary, to be in Christ-membered, godly subjected, divinely inspired inner tranquility.
Thanks, Velour. For the links a-waiting.
trs wrote:
Throughout time don’t you think that most women were in danger, not men?
@ Christiane:
The whole “separate spheres” deal (women at home, men out and sbout) is a product of 19th c. thinking. There’s plenty of mstetial, from scholarly to popular, that deals with it. It seems to parallel the rise of a genuind middle clasd, in the UK and here.
Daisy wrote:
These men care nothing for the hurt they cause others with their words and deeds do they? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Their god has much more in common with the gods of the Egyptians and the gods of the Canaanites. The God of Abraham isn’t anything like that.
Christiane wrote:
When I was doing lots and lots of reading of Christian apologetics (years ago), this was something that brought up every so often.
This was not in terms of the roles of men and women, or should women be preachers (or any of that stuff), but in the context of, ‘is the Bible true, can it be trusted, is Jesus deity,’ and so on.
Several of the books I read said back in that day and culture, women’s testimony was not to be counted.
So, if the Gospels were a big falsification, it’s unlikely that ancient Jewish guys (or Luke the Gentile) would actually have mentioned that a woman (or plural: women) was the first eye witness to the risen Jesus, and that she was the first to proclaim it.
If the original human authors of the text were going to fool people and lie about the whole resurrection thing, they most likely (it was thought by the apologetics authors) would’ve said it was -A MAN- who was the first eye witness to Jesus’ resurrection and who spread the word – anyone but a woman.
@ ishy
To me, verse 15 blows away all complaints and questions about a woman’s status in the church. Seems to me like Paul is brilliantly, with astute word plays and implications, guaranteeing that women are co-participants in God’s Kingdom in every way.
I think the entire section is a pushback against those inside or outside the Church who were resisting the full inclusion of women.
I could be wrong though. lol Great brain have translated these texts for centuries and I don’t even know Greek.
Daisy wrote:
If someone states that “something” is universally true, then one exception proves that the “something” is not universally true. That is why they must explain Junia, Deborah, Phoebe and the others away. God violated his own Rule, apparently, because he was stymied by the failure of men. I don’t think so.
Muff Potter wrote:
I cannot figure out if it is the chicken or the egg. Do people create a cruel god because they are cruel or do they become cruel because they believe in a cruel god? One of the “elders” at my most recent former church was alarmingly cold. And I do not mean toward me. I mean cold toward people one would expect him to be warm toward. It was quite unsettling.
trs wrote:
I agree that a correct reading of v. 15 in the Greek totally changes the meaning of modern translations.
My brain is chewing on something in regard to v. 11-12. This discussion was somewhat helpful, though my Greek is a bit rusty in areas, so they were over my head a little: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=60810 Apparently, there’s a word translated as “or/not” (oude), which is rare and has an uncertain meaning to most scholars.
But v. 12 has that singular “she” again, as opposed to “women”.
Gram3 wrote:
That is the way my dad is, and I believe he has Asperger’s. He’s not a Christian, but he does not seem to feel emotion the same way other people do. I’ve talked with counselors about him, and we came to the conclusion that it just wasn’t the sort of thing diagnosed when he was a child.
My dad is very black and white, and anybody that disagrees with him is wrong, end of story. He’s not abusive, but he’s very difficult to discuss problems with. He did very well for himself in the business world, but when I visited his office, I could tell he was hard to work for.
He’s exactly the type of person I imagine would coalesce a theology like hyper-Calvinism.
@ Velour
Hmm. Apologies for not making my meaning more clear.
I’m saying:
The word “authenteo” has nothing to do with exercising authority in the Church.
I don’t think this verse prohibits women from exercising their God-given power (through the Holy Spirit) in the Church.
I’m contesting the way this verse is cited to mean that God does not give women authority in the Church.
I think Paul was addressing a different issue.
One context that makes sense to me is that non-believers “spied out” the ekklesia gatherings. For any number of reasons — perhaps jealousy, perhaps misunderstanding — they spread accusations that Paul was allowing women to have this really awful kind of power over men.
I mean, this word might even obliquely refer to human sacrifice — to have absolute power over the life of another person — which would be in line with the pagan practices at the time. As has been said, in one pagan cult, women did practice this kind of power.
I think Paul’s statement is a response to those accusations. He’s saying definitely that women in the Church do NOT exercise that kind of absolute mastery over a man — but I extrapolate to “any person.”
I was exaggerating the meaning of authenteo to make a point that the word does not translate well as “authority.” Translations need to give a better understanding of the meaning there.
The word is only used that one time.
Someone said to Paul, “You allow a woman (universal meaning) to authenteo
a man (universal meaning).
Paul says, “Uh Nope. I permit no woman EVER to authenteo a man.” on the contrary in the Church, they are in peace — the kind of tranquility that God works in a person.”
The point I was trying to make is that no sane person would ever WANT to authenteo ANYONE. Authenteo is an abuse of power. Authenteo has no place in Christ’s Church.
wakeupcall wrote:
Say what?
I don’t use the “feminist” label for myself. I don’t care for a lot of left wing, secular feminism.
I think you’re barking up the wrong tree and have some misunderstandings about this blog and the people who participate here.
Complementarianism is creating bitterness, resentment, and many other problems for Christian women. Doesn’t that concern you or bother you?
If you’re a complementarian, you need to examine the log in the complementarian eye, rather than focusing on what you perceive as the specks in the eye of feminism.
You might get something out of this:
Perhaps Feminism is Not the Enemy
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/perhaps-feminism-not-enemy/
@ ishy
Wow. I wrote and erased two posts due to not quite understanding how “ouk/oude” works. (Does the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth, or what?!!)
Lowlandseer wrote:
Why? People’s doctrines and theological beliefs don’t just exist in the abstract but can really impact people in real life, including how they think about God and themselves.
I found complementarianism similarly harmful to me.
Comp caused me to question the fairness and character of God (is God a sexist jerk? – etc), comp made me question my value as a person (even in spite of all that crud by comps, their repeated assertions, “Oh golly gee, no, we’re just saying you’re different in role, but we assure you that you are EQUAL IN WORTH” etc and so on.
trs wrote:
I am starting to wonder the same thing, studying the word.
For example, Thayer’s defines authenteo as:
1. one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2. one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3. an absolute master
4. to govern, exercise dominion over one
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
I’m sorry Elizabath – for all of it. The abuse, your kids leaving the faith, and maybe above all, that other Christians didn’t believe you or said what you endured was not abuse. 🙁
You know one of the hardest things for me after my Mom died – was not just my Mom dying and missing her (though that was really difficult), it was the lack of comfort, empathy that I received from other Christians, even when I went to them asking them for support.
I have a big sister who is a verbal / emotional abuser. This book helped me, it may help you (or you might just find it interesting or educational) – you can read a few free sample chapters here:
The Verbally Abusive Relationship by Patricia Evans
https://books.google.com/books?id=XWgxgogz3aAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
So here’s an interesting added note about 1 Timothy 2:11 – 12.
The interlinear Greek at Bible Hub reads:
v11) A woman in quietness let learn in all submissiveness
v12) to teach however a woman not I do permit nor to use authority over a man but to be in quietness.
I question why the verb “to teach” is in front of the conjunction “however”.
Can the words stay true to the text and read, (my paraphrase here) With God’s inner peace and in obedience to Christ’s way — just like everyone else in the Body — let a woman (universal meaning — i.e. every woman or any woman) learn to teach;
However I do not permit a woman (every woman, any woman) to EVER authenteo a man, but, rather to be in a state of godly calm.
I didn’t think that would work with ouk/oude but if the meaning is uncertain, or varies with context, the Greek does work.
Another Greek text I saw puts the verb “to teach” after the conjunction, though, so most likely the word goes with verse 12.
Fun to conjecture, though.
To be more clear —
Why doesn’t the word “to teach” go at the end of vs 11? Usually all the verbs in a clause go AFTER the conjunction. Anything before the conjunction goes in the previous clause.
I hope that makes more sense.
Lowlandseer wrote (to Gram 3):
Thank you for making one of my points to me.
I told that Alan House guy on a previous page of this thread that a lot of sincere, Bible believing Christians arrive at different interpretations of what some verses mean.
He just shoo’ed that away by saying someone who is “really” “abiding in the vine” would never question God’s word. Which is begging the question.
Anyway, he seems to deny that actual Christians can and do disagree with what the Bible says at times, (even conservative, sola scriptura believing Christians disagree with other ones).
Daisy wrote:
I meant FOR me, not TO me.
Gram3 wrote:
You’ll notice that her church’s doctrines / theological views (re: complementarianism) had negative consequences on her family and her, but some Christians think personal experience is irrelevant, as though doctrine exists in the abstract only.
Challies did the same thing to Ruth Tucker in his review of her book:
He pretty much declared her book on the ties between male headship (as taught by comps) and domestic violence as being nothing – because she was discussing in part the personal affects male headship had on her, as manifested in her abusive husband.
Lea wrote:
This drives me nuts. I see it in Christianity and other areas of life, including some of my family.
You have people or groups or organizations that set people up to fail, and when the people fail, blame them for failing.
Complementarianism sets women up to be abused, then blames them when they’re abused, and does not give them an effective way to escape the abuse.
Here’s my rationale concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34.
“the women in the churches let them be silent not indeed it is allowed to them to speak but to be in submission as also the law says”
The word “indeed” (1063. gar) is a conjunction. “gar” — for, indeed, (a conjunc. used to express cause, explanation, inference or continuation)
This conjunction connects two independent clauses. An independent clause can stand alone, without the conjunction. Everything before the conjunction goes with the first clause.
All the words before “gar” say: “Let not the women keep silent.”
None of those words can go after the conjunction.
All the words after the conjunction “gar” say: It is allowed to them to speak — except that they need to follow (subject themselves) the established tradition/custom/ way of doing ekklesia.
“gar” does explain cause. Let not the women keep silent — because/for — it is permitted them to speak.
Putting the “not” with the verb “to permit” in the second clause just doesn’t make sense to me.
(In any kind of meeting, someone will call out the background “buzz” of people talking. Universally people consider extraneous chatter, even during entertainment, to be disrespectful.
Imo, these verses are about Paul asking eager-to-learn, but “buzzing” women to hold the conversations at home (i.e. somewhere else.)
Friend wrote:
That goes hand in hand to what I’ve said on this blog a time or two before: if you’re in some kind of pain (abuse in marriage, having anxiety attacks, or are depressed), you get pragmatic.
It won’t matter any more if your church or Christians tell you that divorce is a sin, or taking anti anxiety medication is a sin, or seeing a psychologist is a sin. You want and need relief.
And if that means violating rules or views Christians have on how to handle mental health problems or an abusive marriage, so be it.
Back when I took anti-depressants, I had some Christians tell me (in person, or via books I read) that using meds was sinful, that God would be disappointed or angry at me for using them, rather than rely on faith for healing.
So I went off the meds, but after a few years, I was so desperate for relief, I no longer car if God was angry or hurt by me trying meds again.
I think Christians need to stop being naive about this.
Also, those sorts of Christians should stop lecturing other Christians to put up with situations or people they know they most likely would not.
@ ishy
Yep.
Too much verbiage in my post. My point got lost.
No believer would ever want to authenteo anyone.
This verse is way misapplied.
Daisy wrote:
And then I read in the Bible of people questioning God/Jesus like Job, Gideon, the Psalmists, the prophets, Mary and Martha, the disciples. I see Abraham bargaining with God and getting Him to agree to save Sodom and Gomorrah if He finds only 10 righteous men instead of the original larger number. I see Jacob wrestling a whole night with God. And God/Jesus doesn’t take offence.
Sarah K wrote:
Yes, that and some of the other things you said. I used to be a complementarian, so I am very familiar with what complementarians believe and why.
A lot of complementarians assume that people who disagree with complementarianism must be ignorant of it or what the Bible ‘really’ says on these topics, so they bring up many of the same arguments we’ve all heard before.
I do think it would be a good idea for Alan House (this is assuming he is legitimate and not a troll) to read books and sites by and for Christian egalitarians and consider their views and arguments.
BL wrote:
I’m with you, we would all be a lot better off with more facilitators in the church and fewer leaders.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Are you a Calvinist?
Are you saying your faith in Jesus kept you from harm, or your faith in Calvinism or John Calvin?
Just because you did not have a bad experience with Calvinism doesn’t mean others did not.
I think it’s okay for him to mention he personally knew someone for whom a certain doctrinal or theological position caused him harm.
There’s this (similar):
“Church Sued Over a Suicide Says It Will Change Training”
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/20/us/church-sued-over-a-suicide-says-it-will-change-training.html
trs wrote:
You can search for Andreas Kostenberger and oude. He says that both words/ideas joined by oude need to be either positive or negative. He says “teaching” is positive so “exercising authority” cannot be negative. Others say that “teaching” certainly is negative if it is false teaching, and false teaching is exactly the kind of teaching that Paul is addressing at Ephesus.
Nancy2 wrote:
Good. I am glad Allie the puppy dog is recovering! 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
I think it’s both: we become like that which we worship and we will have a tendency to worship ourselves. Since Protestants at least are all about interpreting Scripture ourselves, it makes sense that at least a person’s “bent” is going to show up in how he or she interprets it. One sees it in areas other than cruelty. For instance, if a person has a very low value for self, that person will tend to skip over verses about how she is loved by God and will tend to give more weight to verses that seem to say that she’s lower than a worm. Then because she believes Scripture is telling her that she should consider herself lower than a worm, it blocks her consideration of other ways of thinking about herself. Or for a man with a lust for power, it is apparently pretty easy to pass over scenes like Christ washing the disciples feet or “The Gentiles lord it over people…not so with you” and instead give weight to verses that say elders “rule” congregants, and again, believing now that God is telling them to rule, they are less likely to consider the possibility that they are doing something very worldly and unchristlike.
@ ishy
Keep posting your findings. Especially your thoughts on v.15
“childbearing” means literally — “through *THE* childbearing. This particular word is used ONLY in this verse.
Paul also tells all the Colossians — “provided you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast …. ”
Just like telling saying, “if the women abide in faith….” This stipulation is not unique to women, but applies to every believer.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I don’t know. I’ve stepped out of the Christian/ Baptist/ evangelical bubble I was raised in. I’ve been doubting the Christian faith the last few years.
I’m not in a bubble at the moment. I’m willing to reconsider that many to most of my previous views are wrong.
For years – childhood up to my mid 30s – I was a complementarian but am not one of those anymore.
Are you willing to really, seriously consider that some of your views may be wrong? Are you open ton honestly considering opposing views, that they may be right or partially right, or at least not as wrong as you think?
@ Gram3
Thanks!!
I’ll look that up.
Teaching anyone to exercise absolute power over a person is false teaching, for sure.
I appreciated you comment to me on the other thread. Thanks.
I actually gain a lot from all your posts.
Regarding 1 Tim 2v11 and the word ‘autentheo’. In the church in Ephesus there was a problem with a woman ‘autentheo’ a man. Nowadays, it seems that there are many men who ‘autentheo’ women, especially among the Complementarian/hierarchical persuasion.
trs wrote:
Plenty of self-professing Christians want to rule over other Christians, as we see in post after post on this blog, others, and many of us have lived through this kind of abusive authoritarianism in our own churches.
Then there’s the abusive authoritarian groups such as:
*Mark Dever/Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.’s 9Marks organization,
and as Christians here have pointed out that Dever’s 9Marks is just the 1970’s
cultic, abusive Heavy Shepherding Movement re-packaged with new language (some founders
repented and apologized for its abuses) and that the church is to have 1 Mark (LOVE)
which NEVER makes it to Dever’s list.
*Acts 29. More like above.
*Countless other abusive organizations designed to lord it over the flock and be authoritarian.
Daisy wrote:
John MacArthur may have claimed that they were going to change their policies/training at Grace Community Church, JMac’s The Master’s Seminary, and The Master’s College, after this young man’s death for untreated mental illness (and JMac blaming sin), but they have never done any such thing.
I’ve seen a sermon of John MacArthur talking about their being sued and whining on about this case, never saying they engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine.
They still teach and believe that the Bible is sufficient counsel for every problem.
It’s more of the same. It’s incredibly dangerous. And these men – including John MacArthur – all wear glasses and don’t treat their vision problems with Scripture verses but go to an eye doctor and get prescription glasses!
At my former NeoCalvinist church head by a JMac graduate as a senior pastor, they didn’t get an older woman alcoholic to a physician to supervise her treatment causing harm to her, her adult children, and church members.
They also didn’t get a woman with dyslexia and its attendant memory problems (short term memory problems and working memory problems) to special medical care for her brain disorder and she refused to go saying Jesus could hear her if he wanted to. She had no coping skills for her memory problems and lashed out at church members, lied about them (instead of understanding she was having memory problems), went to the pastors/elders and accused church members of lying, the pastors/elders were enraged and blamed other people including me.
I and others are NOT responsible for someone else’s brain disorder and memory problems.
We have doctors and special care for this medical problems for a reason.
Jesus expects people to avail themselves of it.
Daisy wrote:
Me too. I was praying for A.G.
Darlene wrote:
This brings to mind something else.
So far as I still pray at all and believe in God any more, I don’t “tip toe” around God or God’s feelings (nor do I understand Christians who act super pious about prayer or their relationship with God).
If or when I am disappointed or angry with God, I let God know it.
I don’t speak “winsomely” to God about it, either. I don’t walk on eggshells. I come straight out and (inwardly) scream at God and tell him I’m angry. I let God have it when I’m enraged.
I can’t figure out why complementarians would want me to have a less real and genuine relationship with a husband than I have with the God of the universe, who can handle my anger (not saying God is thrilled with it, but I think he gets it and realizes that being completely honest is necessary to have a healthy relationship).
Alan House wrote:
It would help clear up my confusion if you would explain clearly what you do think about some of these topics and how you differ from the Neo Calvinism brand of complementarianism.
You ask other people what their beliefs are, they answer, then you just ask them another set of questions. Mean time, you’re not explaining what YOUR views are. It’s rather confusing.
Alan House wrote:
I disagree. Jesus said you can judge a tree by its fruit. Good tree = good fruit, bad tree = bad fruit.
If a particular teaching has bad fruit on a regular basis, those who promote that type of tree need to take another look at it.
Alan House wrote:
There are other grounds for rejecting complementarianism that are not based upon personal experience, abuse, or excess. However, this blog focuses mostly on how churches or doctrines are hurting people, so it stands to reason most of their stories and posts are going to discuss those very things.
You can find other sites, blogs, and forums whose egalitarian (non Complementarian) participants don’t argue as much based on anecdotes and personal experience but who argue strictly from the biblical text and intellectual arguments-
Or, with some egalitarian sites, it’s split down the middle, with about half the arguments against comlementarianism being based on personal experience and the abuses of comp with the other half being intellectual.
Perhaps you would be happier going to a forum or blog by egalitarians who are of the more intellectual bent.
You keep saying you don’t engage in ad hominem attacks, but you have, several times. Then you feign innocents and insist you did not use ad hominem.
Even without some of the more egregious examples of abuse of complementarianism we see at this blog, complementarianism at its most basic is sexist and not supported in the Bible and can harm girls and women.
You need to accept the fact that teaching girls and women that they need male leaders or whatever complementarian nonsense you believe in does in fact have practical, very real, consequences on girls and women in real life – some of them negative.
Daisy wrote:
I would offer the ‘complementarians’ another biblical model for Christian marriage:
WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER . . .
1 Corinthians 7: 1-7
Directions concerning Marriage
7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman.’
2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 This I say by way of concession, not of command.
7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. ”
(Apostolic teachings do reflect mutual obligation of spouses to respect one another’s marital rights. The whole idea of a blessed Christian marriage is that Christ is the Authority in that union.)
If you continue to read the teaching into verse seven, you find these words:
“. . But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. ”
Notice how closely these words mirror the biblical descriptions of the Body of Christ, where the members each bring their own gifts to share with one another and to build up their union, with Christ at the head.
The language in verse seven is not a coincidence. It is very telling.
The connections are shown between:
A. the marriage union model (as the two becoming ‘one flesh’ under the Authority of Christ as the Lord of Life);
and
B. the descriptions of the Body of Christ (we are ‘in Him’ made one).
The Authority in each model resides in Lord Christ.
Daisy wrote:
Good for you. Prayers that God hears.
Daisy wrote:
On the one hand, if comp aids and abets an abusive husband and provides a covering for his evil, that doesn’t reflect on complementarianism.
Yet, on the other hand, they are urging their followers to put a good face on comp, to live it out in a “winsome” way so that others are convinced it’s a good thing…
So which is it? Personal experience means something or it doesn’t?
Gram3 wrote:
Maybe it’s a vicious cycle?
Daisy wrote:
You’re exactly right. They can’t stand even the slightest appearance of criticism, let alone real criticism.
Daisy wrote:
A woman at my ex-NeoCalvinist church went as far as telling divorced people that they weren’t divorced and that they had to call their ex-spouse their current spouse.
Rude, self-centered, without personal boundaries or social skills, she could ruin any social event and create strife and anger. And then there’s just the flat-out arrogance:
According to her the laws of our state (and others) don’t exist, legislatures, judges, courts.
If I’d known how to fold a tin foil hat, I would have made her one. Ditto for the other nuts at that church.
@ Daisy:
Hello Daisy. I appreciate that you are only now catching up with things after the weekend and you’ve asked me a few questions which I’ll try to answer.
Regarding childbirth, I don’t think that is being put forward as an alternative way of salvation for women because salvation comes through Christ alone. The writer puts it forward as a corrective to those women who have been influenced by false teachers. The contrast is between what they are now doing as a result of the false teaching and what they *should* be doing as Christian wives.
As for my reply to KenF; yes, circumstances affect our viewpoint and are part of our experience, but I was uncomfortable that someone else’s profound tragedy was being used to illustrate Ken’s point, which was that Calvinism played a major part in the tragedy. I used the example of my own experience to make the opposite point- that people can say it helped them. My own view is that daily living is a lot more complicated.
As for Calvinism itself, I can say that I don’t adhere to it as a system, nor do I think that salvation can be found in it. I enjoy reading Calvin’s Institutes and Commentaries because of the encouragement and help to my understanding they give me, much in the same way as I read other commentaries and works. But my main delight is in the Bible itself. Even after all these years, I find new things jumping out of every page and I thank God that He has given us such a Word.
You ask if I would seriously,consider changing my views or accept other people’s point of view. Only if I was persuaded they were right.
You ask what keeps me from harm. I’ve just bought a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism so I can answer by saying “That I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil. He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, all things must work together for my salvation. Therefore, by his Holy Spirit he also assures me
of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for him.” So it is not Calvinism or Calvin but Christ who saves.
The latest Mortification of Spin post on ESS lays bare what is at stake for Christianity. He says “Let there be no doubt of this: what is at stake is the honor of Christ and the good of His body. The call to the powerful is to act boldly on behalf of the weak. To be a man is to stand up for the women in our church who are being beaten over the head with this evil nonsense. If we stand by and say nothing we will never enjoy Christ’s smile upon our work and all the conferences in the world will not bring life and healing to our churches.”
The full post is here
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/we-cannot-but-speak?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=07f6435041-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-07f6435041-119263361#.V3zmZ5B4WrU
trs wrote:
Yes. that word, authenteo, is only used once in the NT. It has a deeply sinister meaning when found in other Greek writing.
I would add it is a singular woman he is referring to. The subsequent “she and they” is gune and aner usually denoting a wife and husband. He is not writing about all women in the Body.
@ trs:
Oops, I did not see this before I commented.
Max wrote:
Ware is entrenched at SBTS. There are other ESS promoters there like Burk. What I see Mohler doing is trying to present ESS as normal differences. Which is interesting considering how he responded to the Trad statement as implying it is heresy.
Mohlers patterns of hypocrisy are becoming too obvious to ignore.
Gram3 wrote:
I respect Dr. Kostenberger a lot, and I believe I’ve heard him talk about that in class. I wish now I had a better memory of the things I learned at SEBTS. Of course, I worked 30 hours a week, studied about 60, and rarely slept, so there’s only so much a brain can handle.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
I have been around long enough to see how it works. The young guys literally pledge themselves to Mohler/movement in hopes of the reward of inner circle.
It’s why I know none of them are independent thinkers. They are indoctrinated. I have no respect for any of them and only refer to them to point out the indoctrination. They parrot the gurus.
The first time I heard Burk preaching ESS was interesting. It was audio but came off as stilted yet declarative as if he did not understand it but if he yelled it people would believe it.
trs wrote:
You all outdistance me at night! lol I hit a wall and my brain is done for the evening.
I am working on refreshing my Greek skills. It’s gotten rusty. I studied it for three years in seminary, one at New Orleans via distance, and two at SEBTS. I absolutely loved Greek, and a part of me wanted to stay and do a PhD in it. Except, being a woman in the SBC, I knew I’d have no job if I did that. And I don’t have a huge desire to be a college professor.
I will start writing some blog posts of practicing my Greek exegesis. I don’t have any blog posts yet, since I just made the site, but I’m working on a few.
Lydia wrote:
This has been my experience as well, with those in the church and at seminary. They don’t study the Bible, to see what it says. Instead, they study Calvinista theologians like Piper. Most just answer in quotes when you try to discuss any topic with them, then say that anything you say is not “biblcal”, even though they aren’t engaging the Bible at all.
I have very little respect for people that make very definite statements and haven’t studied things for themselves. I do respect people who say that they don’t know.
Gram3 wrote:
Here is one by an SBC pastor. In this piece, 1 Corinthians 15 proves ESS.
http://sbcvoices.com/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-is-a-biblical-viewpoint-by-john-wylie/
I think a big problem is their lack of understanding Hebrew thinking and the father/son metaphor. A typical Protestant problem that early on eschewed any Jewish scholarship.
Ken F wrote:
That is how the Neo Cals did it but with stealth and deception. People will vote their freedom and personal responsibility away to others without thinking. Happens all the time.
BL wrote:
Yes. Just asking that question and thinking it through is one reason I am practically a done. I still visit around and enjoy different venues but joining an institution? I doubt it will happen in the future.
@ ishy:
Oh yes! I live at ground zero for YRR so I am quite familiar with the repertoire of proof texts and phrases. After a while it was obvious we are dealing with Stepford boys.
The typical Pew sitter is going to be a bit taken back when the over ripe Seminary boy ask them whether or not they believe God is sovereign. Well, of course, they answer. And from there the overripe Seminary boy now owns them. It really has been that simple.
Everything is presented in either/or terms accompanied with a proof text. That is the extent of their education that the pew sitter helped pay for.
Gram3 wrote:
Oh my word, yes! I just found a time to skim through it. Reading Ware is a chore, anyway, because he tends to edit his sources and lives complicating things .
I see “wills” has replaced the “roles” talk of the Trinity? Same essence different roles? Am I missing something or is this another nuance?
Anyway, one of the things I really appreciated about Cheryl Schatz’ presentation on ESS, is how she went through all of scripture from Genesis to Revelation and pointed out the instances where persons of the Trinity did some of the same things blowing the different wills theory out if the water.
ishy wrote:
I think they are going for 1,500 comments. And they are good, thoughtful comments. The neo-cal, fanboy, yes-men comments look like shallow and childish dribble in comparison.
@ Gram3:
Wow, I had not connected those dots!
ishy wrote:
I hate this for you.
ishy wrote:
I would love this! Be sure and let us know when you post.
Lydia wrote:
Talking points. They are like politicians, they memorize them and recite them, whether that is the question they were asked or not. It becomes rather obvious quickly that they don’t want to engage and don’t really understand the topic in many cases, beyond their one point.
@ Lowlandseer:
I don’t see women as inherently weak but I take the point. I do understand how they would be the weaker sex in the 1st Century as they were considered property.
Lydia wrote:
Politically and physically weaker, sure. I can see that.
Not mentally weaker.
@ Lowlandseer:
I respect what she is trying to do but her post is also so full of contradictions, it ends up negating her pleas for “truth”.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Excellent blog on ESS issue. I don’t believe Baptists and people from similar congregational free churches will do anything because we are into the cult of celebrity pastors and theologians. Maybe vocal opposition will have to come from those outside my tradition and heresy trials handled by their church courts. The publicity should be helpful. It’s about time for this test happen. ESS is scary and the evangelical industrial complex should be scared.
ishy wrote:
AHA. Been there. I ran into something in college that grabbed a part of me, would not let go, and for which I almost went for a PhD in botany, except….. I ‘knew’ that the real me was only accessed in some university greenhouse or trekking though Bernheim Forest gathering moss specimens, or something like that. I ‘knew’ that God did not really mean it when He seemed to be pointing me in a different direction.
But I went to med school, and years later when my youngest was in college he had a friend whose mother was a botany professor at a college and who kept thinking that maybe she should have gone to med school instead… Such is life.
Meantime I have run through a couple of hobby greenhouses one of which I designed myself, and now I have my ‘back forty’ which is only about a quarter of an acre but which was once like a park with a pathway and multiple specimen plants and was the comfort of my heart, and where I now battle man’s second worst foe-english ivy.
There is no need to give up something one loves even if one must make accommodations about what to do with it for whatever reasons. Between the ends of a continuum there are lots of stopping places between totally walk away or else become a professional. Best of luck with the language and the blog.
Lea wrote:
It wasn’t so long ago that blacked were believed to be mentally eager than whites. Sometimes I wonder if there is the same line of prejudicial thinking going on there!
Nancy2 wrote:
Autocorrect …….. Should be “blacks”!
Lydia wrote:
I think this was Liam again, not Aimee.
I don’t like that he throws in ‘we know they are good men’ stuff. I don’t know they are good men. I think they might be pretty bad men, actually. Maybe.
Lowlandseer wrote:
It is interesting to look at serious Calvinism in history. What happens. What happened to Geneva. What happened to South Africa and the Boers. What happened to the Puritans. What happened to slavery in the South? It wasn’t the Methodists insisting chattel slavery was biblical. Whitfield. Boyce and others were very influential pro slavery Calvinists. Many of the founders of the SBC were educated at Princeton Seminary which was radically anti Abolitionist during that time.
My point is that while history is nuanced there can be a case made for caste system thinking as Calvinism made its way West.
Velour wrote:
I agree completely with what you’ve said here, but I was brought up in this denomination and conservative Christianity, and I bet you anything the Southern Baptists will not look to themselves for how they might be alienating people but will claim things such as…
The are not being counter-cultural enough. Their solution will probably be to dig their heels in EVEN MORE on things like complementarianism. They will say they think they can change culture or attract people by being even more against women having equality, women leading, women teaching men, etc.
They will also just blame culture and say it’s how far culture has fallen.
Though I do believe Russell Moore’s solution has been to tell Southern Baptists to throw in the towel on the culture wars and cede that ground. He thinks Christians can have a bigger influence if they’re the minority oppressed voice in Christianity than if they were more in control. But then, I suppose that gets back to the first point: he’s going to claim that if Southern Baptists really buckle down on teaching against women being equals to men, that secular culture will find that message attractive, and they will get more members.
Imagine Homer Simpson slapping his forehead here and saying “D’oh!”
Southern Baptists clearly don’t get that some of their beliefs and interpretations of the Bible (such as the complementarian beliefs) are turning people off and driving them away. They are repelling people with their views – buckling down more so on that stuff is not going to attract people.
I can see how going against culture in some regards may attract non-Christians. I don’t believe churches trying to stay hip and relevant (such as, having coffee shops in the church foyer or pastors wearing skinny jeans during services) is going to help.
But churches are counter-cultural in some of the wrong ways, like pushing sexism against women, slapping the “complementarian” label on it, and expecting the secular culture to it appealing.
Daisy wrote:
Correction: I meant,
He thinks Christians can have a bigger influence if they’re the minority oppressed voice in secular culture than if they were more in control.
okrapod wrote:
This is a bit how I feel about history.
I am also very interested in viruses. I wonder if I were going to school now if I wouldn’t attempt to do something in virology..
Lowlandseer wrote:
That is your interpretation, but as I shared in one post on here, there are SOME complementarian or patriarchal Christian men who do teach (citing that verse about child bearing) that women must literally become pregnant and have a baby to be saved.
That is going on under the complementarian / patriarchal umbrella.
I would think that since so many complementarians make comp into a first tier issue that they’d try to get on the same page about something so vital, but they’re all over the place.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I am not sure why you’d feel uncomfortable about it.
A fact is a fact – Ken F. said some guy he knew was negatively affected by a particular doctrine. Not everyone’s experience with this theology was as nice as yours.
I often think that people who are not Calvinists see the logical (nasty, negative) outcomes of Calvinism itself and where it leads, but its adherents are blind to those outcomes or else don’t care.
In my case, complementarianism has had negative ramifications on my life, many of which I have explained in more detail in other posts on older threads on this blog, and some of which I have shared on my blog here:
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/
You would probably want to get into this thing about “But comp has worked so great for me and my wife.” Yes, it can possibly work for some, but it does in fact do damage to others.
By the way? For the men who say, “Comp works for me and my marriage!”
– I’d say in 99% of those cases, it’s because your marriage is actually egalitarian in function and complementarian in name only.
Ruth Tucker shared her negative experiences that were brought about or perpetuated by complementarianism, and people like Tim Challies and Mary Kassian (however her name is spelled) brush all these outcomes and experiences as though they don’t matter.
I think if you see a recurring patter of Christians who said they have been personally damaged in some way by doctrine X, Y, or Z, even though you yourself have not had a bad experience with X, Y, or Z, you might want to seriously pay attention to what these other folks are saying instead of feeling this need to defend your doctrine or theology.
@ Lydia:
Princeton is of particular interest to me because of John Witherspoon. As this Glasgow University article shows, the subject in his case is complicated and sometimes contradictory, as it is with the other things you mentioned.
http://runaways.gla.ac.uk/blog/index.php/2016/05/30/john-witherspoon-princeton-university-and-jamie-montgomery/
Lea wrote:
Good men do not have nefarious agendas.
I keep forgetting that Aimee quotes men for the most part on these issues. I do get why. I saw comp women do this a lot as sort of cover so the points would not be automatically dismissed.
Daisy wrote:
Some of those men think it works great for them because they don’t have compromise and just get whatever they want. In these cases, I might ask the wife how it works for them.
The other ones are egalitarian.
@ Daisy:
I’m surprised at your comments. I wasn’t offering a defence of anything. You asked me a number of personal questions which I tried to answer honestly.
Lydia wrote:
Indeed.
Lydia wrote:
I think in this case she also probably wants someone with serious training in that field that cannot be dismissed.
Aimee does seem to get that women are ignored regardless, though. She’s written several posts about it. I think this would have been a good opportunity for her to write the article, because it was supposedly in laymans terms..so that was confusing.
@ Lowlandseer:
Yes, the history is interesting before it split Theoligical School/ moved from college of New Jersey. It was a quasi hot bed of Revolution fervor early on.
One of my favorite Founders, James Madison, attended the College of New Jersey. He is the only reason we have any idea of the debates that raged in the Continental Congress. :o)
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Thank you for the link and words of encouragement.
I really do appreciate it. You and other people who post on these blogs and sites have shown me far more consideration and compassion than people in my own family.
I will bookmark that link so I can hold on to that. Thank you.
@ Lea:
Can there be layman terms for ESS? :o(
That would surely kill it. I always asked if Jesus was a lesser God and would get responses about essence, economy, ontologically, etc, which kept me busy looking them up as theological terms. Cheryl Schatz’ presentation really helpef with this. She did layman terms.
So it is hard to discuss if you are not from the world of lofty theological terminology. Then there is the “Incarnation” which they apply to eternity past and future as proof of hierarchy in the Trinity so you constantly have to ask if they are mapping the Incarnation to other meanings, etc. It is a black hole.
@ Lowlandseer:
I don’t know why you are surprised by them. I was being matter of fact, just explaining things. Maybe you’re picking up a tone that is not there – I was not angry when I typed the post.
My point is that what Christians teach about people or about God can and does sometimes have negative consequences on people. That being the case, maybe what Christians teach about God or about people should be reexamined.
Lea wrote:
If Aimee had written the first post instead of Trueman, there never would have been the discussion among the theologians. That is just an unfortunate fact. I wonder how long it will be before the women like Aimee and Wendy start to examine the textual evidence without assuming that the texts restrict women’s participation in church and their voice at home.
Daisy wrote:
Here at ground zero I have seen quite a few who were immersed in it become athiests. Some were pastors. It is interesting to hear their stories and how they could not make the leap from a determinist God to a God that allows freedom of conscious. The determinism was ingrained. That is the root of this Neo Calvinism and why it has so much in common with the Puritan strain. As Mohler said, ‘there is nowhere else for them to go’.
Except atheism, of course.
@ Sallie Borrink:
There was one thing I wanted to add about your link or post (which I still do appreciate) but didn’t think to speak of in my last post.
One thing that has been bothering me the last few years about God’s silence is that other Christians will regularly promise hurting people things like during your greatest times of trial or sorrow, God may not lift the trouble or trial, but-
1. God will allow you to feel his presence, or
2. you can expect to sense God near,
and/or
3. God will send people into your life who you can lean on to help you through the crisis
I’ve not experienced any of that stuff in the last few years, not even after my mother died. Her death was a very difficult thing for me to get through, and I had to do that alone (I’ve also been dealing with a few other things in my life the last few years).
I guess since God does not speak to everyone during their crisis, nor does God send them comforters, or allow his presence to be felt during a trial, Christians need to stop promising all that stuff in their books, blogs, and sermons.
But I hear those 3 points I listed above quite a bit when I look up or tune into Christian articles or shows about suffering, or things about, ‘why isn’t God responding to my situation or prayer.’
I’m surprised I haven’t heard from God, or sensed him, after Mom passed away, or during a few other things I’ve been enduring.
Gram3 wrote:
Absolutely.
Gram3 wrote:
If she does, she will simply be put in the ‘liberal feminist’ box and be dismissed even more than she already is. The trick is not to care. We’ll see if she ever gets there.
Gram3 wrote:
Very true. I sure would like to hear her own thoughts on it now, though.
@ Velour:
Regarding Kassian’s staged mountain climbing thing, photographed to illustrate some book/ article she was writing called “Vertical Living”:
this is one of those things that so turns me off about contemporary Christianity. It is so phony, fake, phony, phony, phony.
I admit grinning how the lawyer (or whomever wrote that page) said she appeared glum and despondent but was going on her way shortly thereafter to a motivational lecture she was giving. 🙂
Lea wrote:
Bingo. But it means being marginalized by the tribe you have been in for a long time.
Daisy wrote:
These things are personal and I shy away from turning them into such “God formulas”. We just returned from a car trip with the teens and this was a long topic of discussion. It is sad what is taught on this topic which makes people feel left out of the “God responses”.
What is faith, anyway?
Lydia wrote:
It is sad that people feel left out.
I do feel god speaks, but sometimes it’s not obvious. I prayed about something last year and got an answer – it wasn’t a thundering from the sky or a still small voice, but it was information. I had to seek it out, but I found where to look. Is that god? I feel like it was but I don’t know that it would be a testimony sort of thing.
But when and how does god speak is intensely personal. It doesn’t seem seemly really for people to be bragging about it all the time and making others feel bad or like they aren’t preferred.
Velour wrote:
By the way. That part.
I don’t want to put words in her mouth. I may be confusing Kassian with another complementarian woman who writes articles and blogs about complementarianism.
I’m pretty sure it was Kassian (though maybe not, maybe it was another complementarian woman), who wrote a blog post a few years ago I came across.
At that time, I was researching a topic that had nothing to do with complementarianism (or so I naively thought).
I was looking up articles on the internet about whether God expects people (especially women) to be passive.
I was NOT (not not not) looking for complementarian vs. egalitaran stuff, feminist documentation, or biblical gender role debate stuff.
But surprise, surprise, several pro-complementarian blog posts came up in my search results anyway.
I came across one or more blog posts by complementarian women (or maybe the same woman author).
It struck me how in one article, the woman complementarian author was arguing that comlementarianism does not teach or encourage women to be doormats, nor does it teach that women can only be wives and mothers.
The complementarian article was saying it’s okay for women to have careers outside the home if they so chose, and it’s okay for women not toadhere to a strict 1950s June Cleave wife role, etc.
But then, that same person, (or site), in some other article, contradicted that by saying things about how isn’t secular, left wing feminism awful, because it seeps into churches, and so now we have a bunch of Christian women who don’t realize that God designed them to be stay at home wives and moms and be submissive doormats to a husband.
It’s like complementarians speak out of both sides of their mouth on these subjects, and they’re presenting one side to their followers, where they ‘preach to the choir,’ but then, to make complementarianism seem attractive to newbies or to non-Christian women, they play down the sexism found in complementarianism.
To appeal to maybe younger and naive women, feminists, or to Non-Christian women, complementarians periodically write these snow job essays trying to say, “Oh no, we complementarians don’t REALLY think women have to be doormats to a husband, leave all choices up to a spouse, or only be a SAHM. We’re really okay with Girl Power and women being CEOs and being good at math, honest!”
But then their other essays argue against women being childless, single, or working at an office.
When they do their, “Rah rah, Girl power, we complementarians really respect women being leaders”, it’s all fake, meant to appeal to the unconvinced.
It’s just so fake. It’s all marketing. Like Kassian posing in rock climbing gear to make herself look like something she’s not, all to sell some book or article.
@ Lea:
Which does remind of one of my favorite jokes on this topic (although I think the last time I heard it it was a little different – Katrina related and a truck instead of a canoe maybe? Still:
A very religious man was once caught in rising floodwaters. He climbed onto the roof of his house and trusted God to rescue him. A neighbour came by in a canoe and said, “The waters will soon be above your house. Hop in and we’ll paddle to safety.”
“No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”
A short time later the police came by in a boat. “The waters will soon be above your house. Hop in and we’ll take you to safety.”
“No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”
A little time later a rescue services helicopter hovered overhead, let down a rope ladder and said. “The waters will soon be above your house. Climb the ladder and we’ll fly you to safety.”
“No thanks” replied the religious man. “I’ve prayed to God and I’m sure he will save me”
All this time the floodwaters continued to rise, until soon they reached above the roof and the religious man drowned. When he arrived at heaven he demanded an audience with God. Ushered into God’s throne room he said, “Lord, why am I here in heaven? I prayed for you to save me, I trusted you to save me from that flood.”
“Yes you did my child” replied the Lord. “And I sent you a canoe, a boat and a helicopter. But you never got in.”
@ Lea:
I think the version I heard repeated ended a little more like ‘I sent you a truck a boat and a helicopter! What more did you want?’
Daisy wrote:
And Tim Challis says that Ruth’s perspective doesn’t matter because she does have experience. I’m still floored by that.
Patriciamc wrote:
They like their theology clean and impersonal – they don’t want to deal with the messes left behind.
Lea wrote:
Yes, and to see the entire issue. If the exegetical evidence were so airtight, there would have been no necessity for George Knight III and those who followed his reasoning to ever invent ESS and the idea of “roles” in the Trinity. Persons of the Trinity are Persons in relationship; they are not Divine roles. Husbands and wives are persons in relationship; they are not role-players.
However, I think it will take more to persuade her to even ask the question of why Paul prohibits women from teaching men in the church. Is it because woman was made after/from man? Or because women are more easily deceived? On a plain reading of 1 Timothy, those are Paul’s rationales for limiting women. But then the question arises, “Where is that apparent appeal to Creation grounded in the Genesis texts– texts which Paul probably had memorized? I have not been able to find that text, and no one has pointed to it.
I have a *lot* of empathy for her and her position.
Daisy wrote:
She’s not a rock climber, but she plays one on the internet. If I rock-climbed–even at REI–there would have to be a hoist. So I’ll award both style and plausibility points for her rock-climbing apparel and adventures. 🙂
I did a fast search on that ‘should Christian women be passive doormats’ to see if I can find that same blog post again that I referenced in my post above
I didn’t find that, but I did find this post by Mary Kassian:
“7 Misconceptions about Submission” (pro complementarian essay):
http://girlsgonewise.com/7-misconceptions-about-submission/
I see several points on her page that other complementarians would not agree with, LOL.
I totally dispute this part of their claim on her page:
“MISCONCEPTION #7: SUBMISSION PROMOTES ABUSE—IT ENCOURAGES HUSBANDS TO BE DOMINEERING, SELF-CENTERED BOORS.”
Notice she has to couch her terms under point 7 by qualifying them with things like: “when complementarianism is properly understood and enacted….”
Mmm-hmm, yes, and what about all the times it is NOT properly implemented?
(By the way, complementarianism, even when “properly understood and enacted” is still sexism and harmful to women, as I outlined in one of my blog posts.
And sometimes, when “complementarianism” is “properly understood” (depending on which comp is explaining it and how) it looks suspiciously like – Christian gender egalitarianism or mutualism.)
How about the abusive men out there who use complementarianism to keep their wives in check? And the churches who misuse complementarianism to keep women trapped in abusive marriages?
This is also on her page:
“MISCONCEPTION #6: SUBMISSION PRECLUDES MUTUALITY—IT CREATES LOPSIDED, ONE-WAY RELATIONSHIPS.”
Under that she says in part:
Oh no, other complementarians would totally disagree with her that it’s acceptable for a wife to confront a husband’s sin (I assume that’s what she meant, though complementarians sometimes weasel word things, so who knows).
Also, depending on what breed of comp we are talking about, they do NOT encourage women to “speak truth” or “plainly” to their spouse: a guy like Piper insist that women dance around issues, sugar coat their comments, and be very indirect.
Complementarian women (wives especially) become very passive aggressive and rely on manipulation as a result.
John Piper and other complementarians would disagree with some of her other views on that page.
Gram3 wrote:
I do but she frustrates me. I grew up taking for granted what is now called ‘soft’ comp, i.e., no female pastors and some sort of every 10 year trump card in marriage.
But that is now how it’s pushed now. I was reading the ESS article over at Voices and the comments honestly make me ill. A bunch of men yammering on about how their wives should voluntarily submit to them, submission is one of the MOST holy virtues, not submitting is rebellion, etc… Gross.
And one woman, getting beat up on when she dares to mention the whole ‘submitting to each other’ version, which the new reason I’m hearing that it doesn’t matter is “Clearly verse 21 does indeed say, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” He is addressing the *church* relationship. This is a *general* admonition. But you must agree that scripture then becomes *specific*, not general, when addressing the *marriage* relationship.”
OY!
Patriciamc wrote:
This is a typical response to survivors. They (Challies and fellow travelers) are trying to position any survivor views as “emotional” responses. The irony is that Challies views are emotional responses. Is wanting to be on top not an emotional position?
LOL! (just the title alone is LOL to me – it’s a rebuttal to some Mary Kassian page):
“The Joyful Submission of the Plush Doormat”
http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2011/04/joyful-submission-of-plush-doormat.html
A blurb from that page:
————–
Kassian seems to have forgotten that most, if not all, of the Christian women who write against patriarchy and husband authority were in fact greatly harmed and even devastated by that very teaching. They know it was caused by husband authority beliefs because their husbands told them so—frequently—often ranting while they did so.
———-
From a comment on that page:
Daisy wrote:
Thank you! Just drop all of them to see what they are really saying. They try to soften it but that in itself is a tell.
Have a comment to Gram but it’s stuck for a bit.
Lowlandseer wrote:
The problem with this is that the “men” should not be the “powerful,” but only the stronger physically. They should be like everyone else. And women should speak up for other women as much as men when they see someone wronged. The BIGGEST issue is men and women should listen to women and men in need, not belittle or assume they created their own the problems.
Daisy wrote:
My own personal experience, which might only be anecdotal, is there is a certain personality type that disregards the importance of emotions and feelings. When this type of person is a Christian everything for them has to boil down to correct doctrine and logical proof. They might give a nod to emotions when it is convenient to support their doctrine. But they dismiss as anecdotal all personal and emotional experiences that don’t support their doctrine. I was like that myself. I thank God that he gave me the wife that he did. It’s been a long process of delivery from such an emotionally detached way of living. And it has not been easy on either of us. The path has been hard, I would not wish it on anyone. But I am grateful for where this path is taking me.
The fruit of Calvinism is Calvin’s Geneva. His support of brutal tortures and executions was certainly not anecdotal to the people harmed by it. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that it’s not anecdotal to the Trinity either.
Lydia wrote:
To be fair, men who are not the TGC elite do the same thing. Their entire philosophy is based on parroting their theologians, their “authority”.
Mark wrote:
The rest of your post raised some excellent points, but I wanted to say about that high lighted part –
Complementarians are ignorant of abuse dynamics, whether it’s physical abuse in a marriage or verbal or emotional abuse. I’d say they’re also ignorant of abuse dynamics in non-marital relationships as well, since the same principles apply.
The target of abuse is not the problem. It doesn’t matter what the target does or does not do, the abuser will always abuse him or her. So, no matter how much a wife submits to an abusive husband, he will still abuse her.
In other situations, in a non-abusive marriage, if a spouse is being a louse, a wife can possibly correct that behavior by enacting boundaries (ditto on work place bullying, school yard bullying).
But if we’re talking about a person with an abusive mind set (entitled mentality and thirst for control over others), no amount of boundaries and appeasement will work. The person will have to try to distance himself from the abuser.
I don’t think complementarians understand any of this. Telling a woman to just “submit more” or pray more for her controlling husband is only going to prolong the abuse, not end it.
The onus should be on the husband in these situations, not the wife, and churches should give women the option to divorce, if need be.
Ken F wrote:
I’ll go out on a limb and say that John Calvin wasn’t a Christian. There was nothing resembling his life that emulated Jesus Christ. I don’t care what John Calvin wrote
and how many people fawn over his writings. He didn’t walk the talk. (No fruit.)
I don’t idoloize thugs/murderers.
Daisy wrote:
True. The problem is they don’t care. If she submits more and is abused they rejoice. That is her cross to bear.
Sick men.
Gram3 wrote:
Paul wrote Timothy about one woman (singular, specific person) not teaching one man error and about her learning correctly first. The issue error not her being a woman. Paul wasn’t humiliating her either.
Manipulative translators changed Paul’s wording from “the woman” to “a woman”.
Wade Burleson wrote about it, here: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-woman-of-error-in-i-timothy-212.html
Daisy wrote:
But this sums up how they do church, as well. And the only way to be healthy is to get out of a church like that. They are trying to make sheep who are afraid to break ranks, because it’s the only way they can keep people in the seats.
Velour wrote:
I still don’t see this in three of the Greek manuscripts. There isn’t a “the”. It just says “gyne”. Burleson would have to reveal which manuscript he was using to support that.
But as we said above, there are some other words that cause problems, like oude, which has an uncertain meaning. And authenteo is only used in this passage, and it seems to mean a sort of violent authority. This word is never used anywhere else in the NT, and men do not seem to have this type of authority either.
This could cause a connotation of “I do not permit a woman to teach with unyielding authority.”
Lydia wrote:
Oh yes, there are double standards held by complementarians.
I just linked to a page the other day on here, this-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/the-conservative-christian-case-for-working-women/490025/
And the page has some complementarians upset. One reason of which is that the egalitarian lady interview in that article says that she does not think that being a SAHM is sinful.
Complementarians read that remakr and thought it sounded rude or condescending, I guess, but later, on the same page, the article quotes quote Owen Strachan as saying that people who reject comp views of gender roles are most definitely in sin.
So, an egalitarian tries to be diplomatic and does not deem the complementarian SAHM view to be sin, but a comp has not problem in immediately saying, “Yep, egalitarianism sure is sin.”
But complementarians who were social media-izing about that article the other day were offended by the egalitarian’s views.
@ Velour:
For a better informed view of Calvin, the following article is worth reading. It is quite long but it deals with all the usual canards.
http://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_078_4_Hughes.pdf
Velour wrote:
Calvary Chapel is no slouch either. They have a long trail of human wreckage too.
Lea wrote:
I read Voices rarely because the level of conversation there is so immature. They remind me of junior high boys. The ones who could never get positive attention and who knew everything worth knowing.
About the complementarian intra-party debate on ESS by a complementarian:
Some Random Thoughts on the Current Controversy
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/some-random-thoughts-on-the-current-controversy#.V30yy9QrLGg
Snippet:
Daisy wrote:
Many of them seem to think it’s rebellion against god to disagree with your husband.
ahunt wrote:
I am so sorry for your friend.
Yes, point 1 is a reality. Doctrines have consequences for people living out their daily lives, but those who promote them only think about them in the abstract.
Complementarians won’t care to factor in your friend’s personal experiences of complementarians but just brush it aside as though it’s nothing.
Per your point 2. Yes, most churches and all of Christian culture (evangelical, Baptist, etc) treat single adults like used kitty litter.
I’ve seen many adults say on other sites that they never realized how horribly churches treat singles until they divorced their spouse after so many years of marriage, or their spouse died, and they found themselves walking into a church alone in their 30s or older.
Then, they said, they had a shocking experience. Singles are not welcomed or ministered to.
Many to most churches are heavily marriage-centric.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Thank you for posting the link. It seems like a fawning article of John Calvin, putting the blame for his actions on others and that he was helpless to do anything. Nonsense. He was a wicked man, a ruthless, a tyrant, a bully, a murderer.
I’ll go as far as to say that John Calvin wasn’t a Christian because he did not emulate Jesus Christ.
Muff Potter wrote:
Indeed.
Gram3 wrote:
These are the kind of people who should never have power, I think. Church gives them an outlet to ‘lord it over’ someone, the way they couldn’t on their own.
It honestly disgusts me. I’m glad I know enough decent Christian men to counteract the attitudes I get from them. The thing is, most of these men are pastors! And they are rude, condescending and utterly lacking in love for anyone who won’t go along with them.
Is that truly the state of the SBC? Jesus wept indeed.
ishy wrote:
Women have carried The Gospel for thousands of years as the Scriptures have revealed.
Women have been faithful missionaries, teachers, and pastors carrying on the Great Commission.
Women pastors operate secret house churches in China.
All of these women honor the Lord Jesus Christ. The rocks would cry out if they didn’t.
The people who would silence Christian women have a lot to answer for when they meet up with the Lord.
Daisy wrote:
This has been my experience at Baptist church after Baptist church. I’m actually working on a series of blog posts about being single in the church and what churches could do to change. And the changes are really not hard, but it starts with acknowledging that single people are valid adults.
I’ve been attending a Lutheran church, and they’ve been wonderful.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Here’s another interesting link you will find at the Church Society: http://churchsociety.org/resources/page/complementarianism_resources_list/.
How shocking that a ministry that would fawn over Calvin would also support Complementariansism. Who would have guessed?
Velour wrote:
As trs said earlier in this thread, “authenteo” is a type of authority that no Christian should wield against others. It’s never used anywhere else in the Bible.
@ Lowlandseer:
The Church Society has a link to Complementarian publications. Check back later when my comment with the link gets cleared.
Ken F wrote:
Here’s a very on-topic section from that link:
“Mary Kassian, Women, Creation and the Fall (1990)
Old, but still good! Useful discussion of the key Bible passages and how they relate to the roles of men and women in marriage and in church order. Quite academic.”
Wow. I just ran into another person who is about to follow a dream. I went to the dentist, saw a new hygienist, and she told be all about how she has been accepted into nursing school and is aimed toward eventually the doctorate in nursing for nurse practitioner which one local university is offering. So we had the best old time with that. I do so love it when people just go for it, whatever it is.
Follow the dream. But it might not work out. Well, if you don’t try then you have failed already. You never know what might happen until you try. End of Okrapod’s Favorite Sermon.
@ Ken F:
Thank you for the link. All I would say in reply that it is not a fawning article on Calvin. It puts things in perspective. Secondly, there is nothing inherently wrong in providing a list of authors who support a particular view, which I assume the Church Society endorses. Thirdly, there isn’t a causal link between points one and two. Lastly, the Church Society, whatever it’s views on Complementarianism, conducts itself within and abides by the rules of the Church of England, which has ordained women to the priesthood.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Just because they are inconsistent does not mean that we should trust them. I had expected better from an Anglican organization.
Daisy wrote:
I noticed that, too. And you know what, she does look sad in the video on this page you posted earlier http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/perhaps-feminism-not-enemy/
She says women should not think about the fences containing us because the field we’re trapped in is so nice and large (my words)…
But, yes, she looks sad, she looks troubled, and her facial expressions make me wonder if she really thinks comp is so great. I think she is convinced that it’s what the Bible commands and she wants to honor God. I disagree that it’s what the Bible commands and I feel compassion for women trapped in this system. If it isn’t working for them, rejecting it must feel like rejecting God.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Thanks for the link – it is a good article.
There is one sentence, however, that caught my eye, which seem to exemplify how the male viewpoint of complementarians is ‘off’.
Is it really within the male purview to “make women great for God”?
Can God not be allowed to “make women great for God”?
Can women not be allowed to be “great for God” via their own direct standing and relationship with God as His daughter?
Do you see what I mean? – it seems to flavor and permeate how women are viewed – even by those who would speak up on women’s behalf.
Velour wrote:
I believe we reap what we sow either in this world or the next.
“…God counts the tears of women…”
— attributed to an old Jewish saying —
Velour wrote:
Wouldn’t it be wild if…
It turned out in the end that the whole verse was a corruption and didn’t belong in the scriptures at all, and all the men who built their doctrine around it had to face the Lord and explain why they were so eager to accept it at face value with no question…
Just a fantasy but an interesting picture, if you will…
BL wrote:
Everything about women, from what they wear to what they do to their relationship with god, revolves around men.
That’s what it means and yes, I do see it.
BL wrote:
According to them and what they believe the Scriptures ‘teach’? The answer is no.
BL wrote:
Yes, I agree- it is ‘off.’
They can see it in the ESS people because it is more exaggerated, but they don’t see the root of it in their own thinking.
Lydia wrote:
It is likely a short journey to atheism for some. Many of the atheists I know are determinists, they don’t think they have a free will but are victims of arbitrary biology and random synapses firing away. Their fatalism bears much resemblance to hyper-calvinism.
okrapod wrote:
Great story. Great encouragement. Thank you.
Muff Potter wrote:
Amen, Muff.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I think the most informed view is secular history, the plethora of Calvins letters, minutes from Genevan council meetings, etc, etc. the man was a disgusting tyrant. His Institutes paint an ugly picture of God.
Lydia wrote:
Agreed.
Lydia wrote:
Good point. The man is not exactly shrouded in mystery and lost to time. He wrote giant books and we know what he did.
ishy wrote:
Very true!
Bill M wrote:
I’ve noticed this too in addition to the extreme pendulum strokes of both fundagelicalism and rabid atheism.
Bill M wrote:
Absolutely! I have seen the same.
Daisy wrote:
Sigh…
I wonder how many women buy into comp because they feel called to be wives and mothers first and foremost, and they feel they need it to support that choice? I think the comps take the most virulent feminist positions and exaggerate them, to keep women thinking that way. Again, it’s the false dichotomy: two choices only and one is presented as unthinkable. Yet in the real world there is no reason at all to have to make such a choice.
I chose to be a SAHM myself, because children are my joy and delight. Child development is a fascinating interest to me. It worked well for my family. But I do not buy into comp teaching at all! Women should be free (and so should men) to make choices that work for their own lives, without others looking down on or judging them. And I think most egalitarians and feminists agree with that perspective.
siteseer wrote:
I don’t know.
I wonder if part of it is because they took that path they don’t see how it hurts people who didn’t? People who wanted to be married but aren’t. Wanted to have children but didn’t. Wanted to stay home but couldn’t.
Christianity should have some compassion here, and love.
siteseer wrote:
They have no answer to the question, “What does a woman do if she finds herself in an abusive marriage and she has not prepared herself to provide for her family?” I think that there will be more Anna Duggars in the near future.
All my pronouns above were kind of a mess, but hopefully you get the idea.
Some people don’t want any of those things, but for different reasons. But we should all be able to make CHOICES. The choices that work for us, without judging others for their own (unless they are harmful).
Velour wrote:
I hope “real” good fruit becomes fashionable again. Soon.
Gram3 wrote:
This is the crux of the problem, with abuse.
They have no answer.
Lea wrote:
Because real life is hard, but theologizing is easy. Selling implicit guarantees that their secret formula will lead to peace and prosperity is not a new thing, but that is exactly what they are selling. Instead, they should be encouraging men and women to press on to maturity in Christ and conforming themselves to his image. Instead they keep people as spiritual sucklings who have to return every week once or twice to get their dose of milk. Calling milk meat does not make it meat.
Imma just going to put this here and y’all ca do with it what you like.
I was brought up short some years ago when considering the doctrine of the Trinity how the Nicene creed was written by a bunch of men. And the closest anywoman ever got to being an influence on the creed was that some women no doubt cooked and cleaned for the great churchmen.
At that point, the Nicene creed became as nothing to me. And so much of Christianity is like that, seen through a man’s eyes and defined by men.
Another reason I’m outside the charmed circle of the household of faith.
Bridget wrote:
This resonates with me. The seeking or holding of power is of the world system, it is not supposed to be so with us. Power belongs to God, he alone can wield it righteously. And look at the example he gave us:
If a man would have Christ as his example, how can he concern himself with power?
How can he concern himself with the question of “who is in authority over who”?
Even the best of comps only want to be benevolent rulers. They do not want to let go of that position of authority they believe they deserve.
In the parable, the slave beat and imprisoned his fellow slave who owed him a small amount after the king had forgiven him a huge debt he, himself could never repay. Christ emptied himself to the point of death on a cross for our sakes, and yet we have believers seeking power and authority over one another? They should be ashamed.
Lea wrote:
Amen.
Lea wrote:
Amen again!
siteseer wrote:
I think the “best of comps” don’t let go of that position because they earnestly believe it’s what the scripture teaches. When you’ve been told for years that scripture teaches something and to believe differently is to be of the world and not of God, it’s difficult to go a different direction without a big event prompting you.
There are two levels to this- at the top level are the big important people hashing out theology and influencing the masses to side with them. The second level is people just doing life, mostly in an egalitarian way, just trying their best to live what they are being told. Of course, there are some in that second group who have a more sinister agenda and use this teaching like a license.
The thing is, the people living mostly in an egalitarian way still end up doing oppressive things without even realizing it, because the message itself is oppressive.
@ mirele:
Yes, and at what point were women ever involved in translation or even just the copying of the scriptures?
And, btw, on that note, here is an intriguing story of a remarkable woman: https://books.google.com/books?id=R3r_CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=first+woman+bible+translator&source=bl&ots=PrsgZgcV4E&sig=xF-Em_L6Q_kfgbR-TXLCkPJApT8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKnvrMvt_NAhVX_WMKHaimAvoQ6AEIbzAP#v=onepage&q=first%20woman%20bible%20translator&f=false Julia Smith, the first female Bible translator.
Muff Potter wrote:
Ditto this observation with me as well. I get very much the same vibe or spirit from the young, smug, full-of-self, ignorant atheist as the young, smug, full-of-self, ignorant neocalvinist determinist. I’ve said before that they are flip sides of the same coin.
mirele wrote:
I think I understand. The only thing I can offer in response is that God brought about the birth of the Savior in an extremely patriarchal setting using only the obedience of a young woman and her betrothed. It is not *necessary* for women to have a voice in order for God to speak (he is not limited by any human), but it is also true that it is *beneficial* for all who have the Spirit indwelling them to exercise every gift the Spirit gives. That said, I admit that I often have a similar attitude toward the conservative Baptist church. What do they have that I need, and does it really matter?
Gram3 wrote:
Are they even selling that, though? It seems to me that they are just whitewashing it.
They don’t need mature Christians. Those Christians would leave. They need dependent children.
Jeff S wrote:
Exactly my experience. Also I want to say I wish you would comment more often.
ishy wrote:
I think they are selling a guarantee. Children need guarantees. Adults know that life does not come with guarantees and needs to be walked out and worked out in wisdom. I totally agree that they do not want mature Christians but rather immature babies who must be fed on a regular basis because they do not know how to get their own food. The most galling thing to me is that they pretend to be so deep theologically and pretend that they want believers to be mature. Adults question things. Children learn that it is best not to question.
Lydia wrote:
Heh. Nailed it.
Gram3 wrote:
I dunno. It may be true, and they just don’t get soteriology, in the traditional evangelical view of free salvation is exactly a guarantee. It seems to me like they are promising something they don’t have, to be one of the “Elect”.
Maybe they’re just selling a pyramid scheme? The ones at the top get the prize, and the ones at the bottom are just paying everything into it without reward.
ishy wrote:
Though I honestly believe that they will be pretty surprised when they stand before Christ to give an account.
Today I’m struggling a bit with not just hyper-Calvinist complementarianism, but fundamentalist and all other complementarianism. Something happened with a Christian friend today to remind me of things that have happened in the past, and I feel like the sexism inherent in the church still rears it’s ugly head all the time.
Women are supposed to just let men walk all over them, and if they say “No” they are treated like horrible people.
Add the younger generation’s feeling of entitlement, and it’s caused some real problems. I know men that say they are egalitarian, but they are either vicious or lascivious to women. They pay equality lip service, but if it doesn’t serve their self-interests, it’s tossed out the window.
The combination of complementarianism and entitlement is very frightening to me.
Jeff S wrote:
I also think that some of these ‘best of comps’ have underlying fears. At least sine if the male ones. I had a discussion with a man who had been abused by a woman. Can’t remember if it was a mother or wife at this point. It was a long time ago.
Anyway, this man had an actual heart for abused women due to his own abuse.
But he also had a huge blind spot.
In his place of perceived authority he could do something meaningful concerning abuse, really helping people, women in particular. He had a deep heart of compassion.
But his blind spot was huge. He absolutely did not want to be put in the position of submission to a woman, mutual or otherwise. That was not for him. Yet he didn’t mind telling women that they MUST obey scripture and make themselves submissive and vulnerable to men. Women just had to trust the good men to step up and do what was right.
He couldn’t see his hypocrisy, ordering others to do things he was unwilling to do himself. He was motivated by a fear that blinded him to any objectivity, logic, or reasoning on the topic.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, youth are more easily indoctrinated. That’s why New Calvinist leaders are targeting seminaries, Christian and secular colleges, and planting churches in yuppie communities. They know they can alter the theological direction of the church in one generation if they reach enough young folks now. A Pied Piper strategy that appears to be working. May God have mercy on their souls.
ishy wrote:
It should be. In his book, “Why Does He Do That?”, Lundy Bancroft, co-director of the first US program for abusive men says it takes two things to create an abuser: a sense of entitlement and cultural support. The Complementarianism supplies Christian subculture support. of course, our culture is tainted with support as well (entertainment industry, etc.)
Christiane wrote:
Yes, complementarianism as taught by a lot of American complementarians cannot be lived out by everyone.
Their view on gender roles ends up only being doable and pertinent to a certain demographic slice of the pie.
@ mirele:
I pretty much feel that way about all Creeds, confession and think they were more historically political than people will admit.
ishy wrote:
Bingo!
Gram3 wrote:
This is sort of related to that:
Who Blames the Victim?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/who-blames-the-victim.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0
That article discusses common personality traits among people who tend to engage in victim-blaming.
Gram3 wrote:
🙂
I read and lurk, but I just don’t always feel compelled to comment. I caught on to this particular thread a bit late, and the number of comments was a bit daunting!
@ ishy:
Your father sounds similar to mine in some ways, though I don’t think the cause is Aspberger’s in the case of my dad.
I think with my dad it’s more that he was a product of his time – to show emotion is thought of as weak and it shows vulnerability.
Oh, and it’s shameful to admit to other people if you’re hurting or going thru a rough spell in life. You’re supposed to keep all that to yourself, and pick yourself up by your bootstraps.
Though I would have to say that my father is slightly, on occasion, verbally or emotionally abusive.
My big sister is like my Dad but to the extreme – she is ten times worse and is consistently verbally abusive.
ishy wrote:
Indeed. The men pushing this are making a grave mistake pushing submission over love. And they will not be the ones to pay, it will be the women caught in the system.
I have decided that right now I cannot be in a church that does not respect women. I think that is going to be what it takes, for this to go away. Leave these churches to the men, and see how they do without us. Who will be left to lord it over?
Abi Miah wrote:
I would like to see him deliver this talk to every complementarian in America at this point. Because that is terrifying in light of what is being taught.
Lea wrote:
I’m in the same place. But I am honestly dreading looking for a new church after we move.
Abi Miah wrote:
I’m not really surprised, as that was exactly the end in Geneva from Calvin’s “reign”.
I saved that book to my reading list.
Jeff S wrote:
Yes.
Earlier there was a post about Calvin by The Church Society. That site has a list of Complementarian resources, which include links to TGC, Piper&Grudem, Kassian, etc. One of the links from that site is to Reform: http://www.reform.org.uk/about/what-is-reform.
Here are two interesting quotes:
“Who we are
Established in 1993, Reform is a network of individuals and churches within the Church of England. We are committed to reforming the Church of England from within according to the Holy Scriptures.”
“Our aim
For the glory of God and the salvation of many the Church of England is well placed to bring the gospel to this nation but only if it stays true to the Bible. Reform members are working to identify practical ways of reforming the Church of England to enable the clear proclamation of the gospel that Jesus Christ is Lord.”
“The unique value of women’s ministry in the local congregation but also the divine order of male headship, which makes the headship of women as priests in charge, incumbents, dignitaries and bishops inappropriate.”
“The urgent need for decentralisation at national, diocesan and deanery level, and the need radically to reform the present shape of episcopacy and pastoral discipline, to enable local churches to evangelise more effectively. ”
I don’t have time to dive into it, but this almost looks like it is doing to the Anglican church what TGC and related ministries are doing to the SBC. If that is their intent, this would be a good method.
Lea wrote:
It will be their daughters who must suffer before they wake up. The daughters will pay, and the fathers who failed them by promoting this false gospel will pretend they had nothing to do with it. Or they will repent and speak out against it.
I hasten to add that there are entitled women who abuse men within the system by saying that they are failures if they are not Jesus. As you say, when the System is not about mutual love and mutual respect, it will be about power and control. There are fake submissive female abusers hiding in plain sight in “complementarian” churches just like there are fake servant-leader abusers hiding in plain sight.
AI read as many of the comments on Wiley’s post on Voices as I could stomach. My take on the comments: they are coming as close as they can to say, without actually saying, that Jesus is God’s puppet. Therefore, is is a wife’s biblical duty to be her husband’s puppet.
Ken F wrote:
Sorry, four. I found two more that called for attention.
Nancy2 wrote:
It was gross.
Gram3 wrote:
Sure. It’s not good for any of us, this system.
But it is being largely pushed by men, and the power is being wielded by men. Women use covert power as way of getting around these systems.
Ken F wrote:
Because they cannot bring the gospel to the nation until women are out of the priesthood. They are being hindered from making a clear proclamation of the gospel that Jesus Christ is Lord because women priests. Because Divine Order of Male Headship (somewhere in the text though no one is quite sure where in Genesis that male hierarchy ordination text is.)
OK. So the guys in the CofE are stymied in their gospel proclamation by some women. How weak is that?
Something I wish the complementarian crowd would address:
As a man, I am appalled, offended, embarrassed by the idea that women have limited roles based on their body parts. In fact, men who constantly babble about this come across as weak and pathetic to me. When are the complementarians going to address the fact that many men (probably most) don’t actually want women to be restricted to only certain jobs or roles? In my opinion, the Lutheran concept of vocation is far more helpful here than “gender roles”.
Earlier there was a post about Calvin by The Church Society. That site has a list of Complementarian resources, which include links to TGC, Piper&Grudem, Kassian, etc. One of the links from that site is to Reform: http://www.reform.org.uk/about/what-is-reform.
Here are two interesting quotes:
“Who we are
Established in 1993, Reform is a network of individuals and churches within the Church of England. We are committed to reforming the Church of England from within according to the Holy Scriptures.”
“Our aim
For the glory of God and the salvation of many the Church of England is well placed to bring the gospel to this nation but only if it stays true to the Bible. Reform members are working to identify practical ways of reforming the Church of England to enable the clear proclamation of the gospel that Jesus Christ is Lord.”
“The unique value of women’s ministry in the local congregation but also the divine order of male headship, which makes the headship of women as priests in charge, incumbents, dignitaries and bishops inappropriate.”
“The urgent need for decentralisation at national, diocesan and deanery level, and the need radically to reform the present shape of episcopacy and pastoral discipline, to enable local churches to evangelise more effectively. ”
I don’t have time to dive into it, but this almost looks like it is doing to the Anglican church what TGC and related ministries are doing to the SBC. If that is their intent, this would be a good method.Ken F wrote:
Here’s a link between TGC and The Church Society: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/help-me-teach-the-bible-lee-gatiss-on-malachi. Lee Gatiss is the Director of Church Society and is a Council Member for Reform (the ministry I mentioned above).
Stand by UK. It’s coming soon to a neighborhood near you…
Ken F wrote:
I just now made a comment that included too much from my earlier comment, so it went into time-out. Here’s the shorter version.
Here’s a link between TGC and The Church Society: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/help-me-teach-the-bible-lee-gatiss-on-malachi. Lee Gatiss is the Director of Church Society and is a Council Member for Reform (the ministry I mentioned above).
Stand by UK. It’s coming soon to a neighborhood near you…
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Because it’s another thing that will cause their authority to crumble.
Rule #1 of Calvinista club: Don’t disagree with Calvinsta club.
not surprised, but I tried:
I just got deleted over at Denny Burk’s blog, this:
” Christiane Smith July 6, 2016 at 1:39 am #
An alternative ‘model’ for Christian marriage which is also biblical:
WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER . . .
1 Corinthians 7: 1-7
Directions concerning Marriage
“Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman.’
2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 This I say by way of concession, not of command.
7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. ”
If you continue to read the teaching into verse seven, you find these words:
“. . But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. ”
Notice how closely these words mirror the biblical descriptions of the Body of Christ, where the members each bring their own gifts to share with one another and to build up their union, with Christ at the head.
The language in verse seven is not a coincidence. It is very telling.
The connections are shown between:
A. the marriage union model (as the two becoming ‘one flesh’ under the Authority of Christ as the Lord of Life);
and
B. the descriptions of the Body of Christ (we are ‘in Him’ made one).
The Authority in each model resides in Lord Christ.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
I can’t remember who it is, but someone here has mentioned a number of times the difficulties they have had with men coming out of The Masters Seminary (MacArthur). I believe the idea that was expressed was condescending and know-it-all.
I’m glad I had that information in the back of my mind because I had a run-in with one on FB. Oh. my. Condescending doesn’t even begin to describe this pastor. Then when I and another woman weren’t responding properly to his instructions regarding what kind of women we should be, he said it was no longer profitable to speak to us and wanted to speak to our husbands.
So, thank you, whoever it is!
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Well I’m one of them. My ex-pastor was a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary and The Master’s College.
From what I can tell, all it is a money-making scheme with seminary graduates being franchisees opening up “shop” under the MacArthur brand. No different than 7-11.
Gram3 wrote:
I can’t help but wonder if they actually believe women do not have souls.
Ken F wrote:
On The Gospel Coalition link above, TGC lists Gatuss’ book “The Forgotten Cross.” The two endorsers on Amazon are JI Packer and Timothy Keller, both vocal Calvinists. Dr. J. I. Packer was the ESV General Editor (http://www.esv.org/about/oversight-committee/). Timothy Keller is co-founder and vice president of The Gospel Coalition.
Does the book reveal Ruth’s first husband’s name? Has he been prosecuted?
Daisy wrote:
Daisy,
I don’t have any pat answers and don’t want to add to your pain by offering any. I can say that I’ve been going through the hardest time in my life the past several years and God has been pretty quiet. Small things here and there, but not like at previous times in my life. I have chosen to keep moving forward, trusting that He is right there even though He is not confirming it in ways that He did in the past.
I’ve focused on these few verses a lot.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” Hebrews 11:6
It seems there is a level of faith that He calls us to at some point in our walk with Him. Will I walk with Him even when He is silent? Even when nothing makes sense? Even when it feels like He has abandoned me? Even when it feels like He has stopped caring? That my prayers are just bouncing off the walls?
The visual in that devotion was powerful for me. It spurs me on to not focus on the silence, but on the trust Jesus is putting in me. I want to be found trustworthy.
Nancy2 wrote:
I do not know what they believe except that some, at least, believe that the way we bear God’s image is derivative and not direct. Yet we are somehow equal??? It is nonsense, and they choose not to disclose how they connect the dots. They do not want to show their work. They just want to say that mutualists have abandoned the authority of the Bible. Yet when challenged on the exact location of the supposed male supremacy verse is, they go silent or change the subject.
I expect that these Reformists are linked with the Sydney Anglicans, though I have not looked at the Reformist site.
Gram3 wrote:
How was theologian Bruce Ware borne of a woman – his mother who was somehow a derivative of God and not made in the image of God – and yet Brucey was made in the image of God?
I’ve said before that I don’t think John Piper could pass a drug test (he acts like he’s smoked copious amounts of weed and done LSD). I don’t think Ware could pass one either.
These guys are just nuts!
Estelle wrote:
Good point!
Gram3 wrote:
Let’s not forget that the angel came to Mary first. He did not speak to Mary through Joseph.
Velour wrote:
I used to have depression, and other Christians would try to convince me that using anti depressants was wrong and showed a lack of faith.
I was also discouraged by Christians from seeing psychologists and psychiatrists.
I recently came across this (the guy in this video does not agree with the JMacs of the world – he says it’s okay for Christians to use psychology):
Are Secular Psychological Principles Compatible with the Sufficiency of Scripture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcu0EsEUYeY&feature=youtu.be
Gram3 wrote:
It’s like this for other topics as well. I’ve been trying to get them to answer my penal substitution questions and i mostly get silence. A couple sites referred me to the same old arguments built on unverified premises but went silent when I pressed for real answers. I got a pretty good scolding and some lame excuses from one of the sites, but no solid answers. People need to press their “leaders” harder for answers or else this movement will continue to run amok.
siteseer wrote:
I’ve noticed that sometimes complementarians use their personal experience to sell or market complementarianism.
I’ll either see everyday complementarians show up on blogs like this, or write in their online articles, how complementarianism supposedly really helped their marriages and so on and so forth.
So, they are fine with people appealing to personal experience to make a point, so long as it backs up complementarianism. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Gus wrote:
And I noticed that those complementarians who were upset with that article at The Atlantic didn’t acknowledge how comps like Strachan were referring to egalitarianism as being sinful.
ishy wrote:
Then you would probably really, really respect me. 🙂
There may be a few things I still feel sure of, but as I was saying in a post the other day, I’ve been questioning a lot of my beliefs on different things the last few years.
Sometimes, I’m just plain confused, tired and don’t know what to think about anything.
@ Ken F:
The Church Society isn’t Reform and Reform isn’t TGC. The C of E is a broad church and the High and Low wings have lived together for many years. It’s also a worldwide communion accommodating a variety of cultural positions.
Daisy wrote:
There’s nothing wrong with not knowing. God is much bigger than our brains. I am going through a similar process, except that I have ideas about what I believe, but they don’t seem to match up with anybody else’s. So I don’t know where to go.
The single thing is a problem, too, because the people the might have me in theology, wouldn’t have me because I’m not married. It feels awful.
Ken F wrote:
I don’t know, KEN. The women in Britain have lived through two world wars. They have a lot of ‘keep calm and carry on’ going for them. So if some jerk comes in and tries to start trouble with the ‘Divine Order of Male Headship ‘, my thoughts are that the British women are quite up to taking care of themselves. 🙂
Lydia wrote:
The few times I’ve been to churches the last few years, it felt surreal. The churches with big video screens and happenin’ cool rock bands on stage. I felt like I was at a circus, not a church.
I could hear this music in the back of my mind when I was sitting in those churches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjedLeVGcfE
Daisy wrote:
It never in my life occurred to me that it might not be. It’s so strange to find out these teachings are not solely relegated to cults.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Yep. All anecdotal. Nothing to see here.
Lea wrote:
As far as upper body strength goes, I’d agree that most men are more stronger than most women.
However. I don’t think most men could withstand menstrual cramps. I’ve never given birth, but I’ve heard women who gave birth talk about it, and from what they say of the experience, I don’t think most men could withstand the pain from childbirth (if they were capable of having kids).
I’ve also noticed over my life that a lot of men can’t handle getting the common cold or flu or whatever very well, or not as well as women.
The Chair Experiment
(Women can do it, Men cannot)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW0ZTvRCS1o
@ Lydia:
In his guest post at Byrd’s blog, he says this:
Regarding the part in bold face – I have been noticing for ages now how some portions of complementarianism either resembles Mormonism or Islam.
I don’t know why more complementarians don’t notice the similarities and recoil from them.
@ Daisy:
I saw that and thought the same as you. The foundational premise is the same.
@ Ken F:
I was told I could not be saved without believing in PSA. I said, I can understand the SA but not the P. Where is the P? I was told I just couldn’t understand it. You know, being easily deceived and all….
(Btw: ESS does not work without the P. Ponder that one!)
Lea wrote:
I think that’s true for some men, maybe the really abusive, entitled ones.
Complementarianism is virtually indistinguishable from codependency.
One thing I’ve learned from a lot of reading about codependency is that normal men get bored, tired, or feel unfulfilled after being in a relationship with a compliant “Girlfriend-Bot” or Stepford Wife who caters to his every need, never has an opinion of her own, after so many months or years, and they break up with the woman.
The books I’ve read by counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals have seen many, many codependent women patients over 20, 30 or more years, and these doctors say that these women practice these doormat behaviors thinking it can earn them a BF or spouse in the first place or ensure that he never dumps them.
But these women find that normal guys will in fact dump them because they want an actual life partner, an equal, to face life with – not a child-like girl-woman who makes him feel like a Father Figure or pampered poodle.
The doctors then explain to women reading the books how to stop engaging in this people pleasing (complementarian) behavior, since it’s self-sabotaging and ruins relationships.
Gram3 wrote:
I wonder about all that too. I also wonder how much longer before Ms. Byrd and the other complementarian ladies start to realize what a sham comp is and finally dump it all together.
I think Byrd may possibly be at the very beginning stages of seeing how terribly women are treated by complementarianism.
Lea wrote:
This has always bothered me. Many complementarians assume any and everyone (especially women) who reject complementarianism have done so due to influence of left wing, secular feminism.
I have never in my life been left wing, and I don’t care for a lot of views of left wing secular feminism.
I was personally convinced of the “wrongness” of complementarianism on its internal inconsistencies, that it doesn’t square away with the Bible, and that it was harmful to me, and I can see how it has hurt other women.
I suppose complementarians find it much simpler to just toss the phrase “secular feminist” at people such as myself rather than really grapple with the fact that their position has serious flaws within itself.
Nancy2 wrote:
Excellent point! He also didn’t speak to her through her father, pastor, ot other male covering.
Lea wrote:
I don’t think complementarians realize that their views on gender and gender roles don’t work for all women in all life stages, ages, economic situations, or marital statuses.
See for example this page:
Biblical womanhood, or cultural womanhood?
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/mutuality/being-woman-after-gods-own-heart
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Lowlandseer wrote:
Lee Gatiss is the Director of Church Society.
Lee Gatiss is listed as a Council Member of Reform.org.
Lee Gatiss is featured in an interview on The Gospel Coalition, and his Church Society position and book are listed on the page with the Interview
Lee Gatiss wrote a book endorsed by Dr J.I. Packer and Tim Keller.
Lee Gatiss is listed on Crossways list of authors.
On one of his blogs on Reformation21.org he wrote “I was interested to see that TGC have launched in Australia. I hope and pray it will be a great support and encouragement to gospel-minded people down under.”
The Church Society list of complementarian resources leans heavily on material from TGC, CBMC, Piper, Grudem, Kassian, Orlund, etc.
The Church Society list of complementarian resources includes several link to Reform.org.
The Church Society and Reform both share the same goals of reforming the CofE by changing both its governance and theology.
Are all these connections purely coincidental?
I did not take much time to look for connections. I went with Lee Gatiss because the name is unusual enough to not yield too many results on search sites. It’s possible that mine was a lucky guess, but I would think it more likely that there are more connections with other names that I did not explore.
It’s possible that they have very good and noble intentions for the Church of England and that their work is exactly what is needed during a time such as this. But the connections with the YRRs makes me wonder.
Christiane wrote:
How freaking immature of him. If he can’t stand the heat of common sense doctrine, then he needs to get out of the kitchen.
SDr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Thank you!
Gram3 wrote:
Older arguments for barring women from teaching, preaching, or being equals in marriage were no longer working, so complementarians had to cook up something new.
This guy outlines the shifting goal posts of complementarianism nicely, towards the end of his page (which I know you’ve seen before – I’m thinking of any new people to the blog who may not have seen this already):
Reflections on a new defence of ‘complementarianism’ by Steve Holmes
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507
by S. Holmes:
Lea wrote:
And what do those men do when their wife refuses to voluntarily submit to them? Resort to violence to force their wives to submit (then it stops being biblical submission).
About all they can do is guilt trip women and scold them, and try to convince them they are being ungodly, bra burning feminists who shun God and the Bible is they refuse to buy into submission or complementarianism.
Unless they want to start writing blog posts advising men to employ tactics abusive husbands do, such as cut off the wife’s credit card (assuming she is a SAHM with no income of her own), or beat the wife up.
I have often wondered what they do, or advise, when or if a wife refuses to go along with the complementarian teachings about submission or anything else.
I have wondered about that stuff for years now, and about a year ago, this guy wrote this blog post mentioning some of the same things:
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:
That’s definitely something to think about. All through the church’s history, there have been people who call themselves Christian, yet have rotten fruit. Religion is very powerful, so I think it attracts a certain thpe of bad person who sees it as a way to gain power. That’s exactly what we’re seeing with the neo-cals and other comps. There’s also something about women in general. We’re also powerful in our own way, so the bad guys, and Satan too, desperately want to silence us and take away any power we have because we can be very effective for Christ.
Patriciamc wrote:
I think Denny allows what he can, in the way of ‘dialogue’, and my experience there is that, on the subject of ESS, the door shuts firmly against real dialogue. The reason I tried with that comment was that his post was about a coming dialogue among those who do not share a lock-step approval of ESS.
At least on one of his posts to do with ESS and the Holy Trinity, I was allowed this comment: “Si comprendo, non es Deus” (if you comprehend, it is not God) from Augustine.
Truth is, I don’t think the comment was understood there in the way that I intended it, or it also would likely have been blocked. Well, trying is important. And I did that with good will. And I accept the rejection also with good will, as I know that folks can only tolerate so much for reasons I may not be privy to.
(It was GOOD comment… . about Christian marriage modeled on the structure of the Body of Christ, with CHRIST as the Authority in the marriage, and I backed it up from Corinthians. Oh well …)
Lydia wrote:
The older I get, I cannot comprehend why people believe that having “emotional” reasons for disagreeing with ‘X’ is invalid.
I see this come up with complementarianism every so often (comps accuse egalitarians as having nothing but emotional motives for dumping complementarianism), as well as in other debates, such as Christianity vs. Atheism.
Most atheists I see online (or TV) insist that they left the Christian faith not due to emotional reasons, but purely intellectual ones.
Some of them may be telling the truth there, but my suspicion is that with many more, there was some emotional reasons – which is fine.
I have seen squabbling back and forth, like in an interview where a Christian guy says he is now Atheist, or an Atheist says he is now Christian.
If you look at the comments in the com box, you will see Atheists screaming and yelling that the conversion was based all on emotion, no reason, so it doesn’t count.
Some on the Christian side will do the same thing: “Well, this guy left the Christian faith for purely emotional reasons, so his de-conversion story doesn’t count.”
I think having emotional reasons are not completely illegitimate reasons to dispute a doctrine or faith system or whatever.
You have to deal with people where they are, not how you wish them to be.
Suppose someone did in fact leave complementarianism or atheism or Christianity over emotional reasons. How would you try to persuade them to reconsider and rejoin their former belief? I don’t think purely intellectual debates will do the trick for that.
Patriciamc wrote:
At on the right side of the screen here is the My Comment Got Deleted thread.
Don’t forget to post it over there so it’s logged.
@ Velour:
Yep. Thanks for the reminder.
Daisy wrote:
Hey Daisy. Sorry I didn’t post this sooner, but I’ve been super busy with the parental units. What you’re going through with not sensing God, not hearing from God, etc. is one of those things about the Christian walk that we’re never really taught about or prepared for well enough in advance. Someone on this blog recommended the book Disappointed with God by Philip Yancy. If you haven’t read it, give it a try. He’s got some good info about the hard times with God. I read it at the same time I was reading a book on the same topic but written by a fluffy comp woman. Her advice was so fluffy and so not helpful and looked even more ridiculous in comparison to Yancy’s book. Another book I’ve got on my list to read is How to Survive a Shipwreck by Martin and Niequist. It’s supposed to be good. I hope this helps.
Daisy wrote:
For purely emotional reasons like grief, anger, etc.? When did emotions become bad? I do think a lot of atheists actually do believe, but are angry with God, and quite frankly, many with good reason. Wrestling with God is never easy.
Lea wrote:
True, some of them believe that.
Complementarians (and just a lot of Christians in general) seem to think marriage is not about personal happiness at all, you shouldn’t think of it in those terms, and if marriage is making you miserable, that’s great!!, because God is (they say) supposedly using it to refine you and sanctify you.
I don’t think I buy into “God doesn’t want you happy, he wants you holy” theology, whether it’s applied to marriage or other facets of life.
(But I’m not in on the other extreme, usually Word of Faith-ism, either, which says God ALWAYS wants you healthy, blessed, wealthy, etc. I see problems with either extreme).
ishy wrote:
I saw several blog posts years ago by a never married woman in her 40s (I think it was) who got so fed up with being overlooked by her Baptist church that she jumped denominations.
I can’t remember which church/ denomination she ended up joining, but she had it up the wazoo with how Baptists (mis)treat singles (or just totally ignore them).
siteseer wrote:
One thing that is frustrating for women such as myself is that this false dichotomy scenario depicted by complementarians (pitting extreme feminism against complementarianism) often finds its adherents assuming that any and all women who are single or childless are so by choice.
I had wanted to be married, but I never happened to find the right guy. There aren’t as many single Christian men as there are single Christian women in churches.
Do complementarians factor any of that into the equation? No.
Most of their writing I’ve read on these topics holds this view that all Christian women who are single and childless past the page of 25 or 30 intentionally put off marriage and motherhood, or that they hate marriage/motherhood.
The reality is, plenty of us wanted to get married (or have kids) but we never met a “Mr. Right.” I’m kind of single against my choice, or against my will, but every other editorial Al Mohler or CBMW composes tells me, “You bought into dirty horrible liberal feminist thinking, you hate men and marriage, that is why you’re single. Well, marriage is great! Stop hating marriage you feminist harpy.”
My reaction in my head after I read such stuff: “What?! I don’t hate men or marriage. I even want to be married. Why are these complementarian guys and conservatives always assuming I’m single because I loved having a career more than the idea of being married, or that I hate men???”
Daisy wrote:
I admit, I intentionally didn’t get married. I could have. I still have the wedding gown in my closet. But I knew I would have been miserable.
The way extreme complementarians treat women, why would we want any of them? If that makes me a feminist harpy, then so be it. Honestly, I could call them worse names.
@ Mara:
“Women just had to trust the good men to step up and do what was right.”
And you’ll notice a lot of these complementarian men fail to do that. When women go to them for help (like if they’re being abused by a husband), they are just told to go back and submit more.
That patriarchal guy who teaches that men should protect women was fondling his teen aged nanny:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/pastor-accused-of-using-nanny-as-sex-object-2/
Trueman is not letting up on this issue. Guess he didn’t take Mohler’s hint that he should shut up already.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-fulfilled-prophecy-and-another-guest-post-from-mark-jones
Gram3 wrote:
Your comments reminded me of this:
The disturbing differences in what men want in their wives and their daughters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/27/the-disturbing-differences-in-what-men-want-in-their-wives-and-their-daughters/
Nancy2 wrote:
I know I’ve said this before, but in light of how complementarian men are about marriage and women, and they actually publicize their views on sites (surely they must know that women can lurk on those sites?), who are they hoping to marry?
I don’t know of many women who would knowingly walk into a marriage to men with their mindsets (unless she has issues left over from child hood she’s not worked through, that convince her she doesn’t deserve better, etc)
Daisy wrote:
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/category/organizations-movements/doug-phillips-vision-forum/
Daisy wrote:
I was excommunicated (“keyed out” Gram3’s TM) from my ex-NeoCalvinist/9 Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church [senior pastor was a graduate of The Master’s Seminary] for not being a doormat or wall-to-wall carpeting like the rest of the compliant women.
Any critical thinking skills got one in meetings with the pastors/elders, threatened in person, by phone, and before the entire church. They did it to a godly woman before me who wanted to leave that nutso church. Such a dear woman. She left for a saner denomination and they arranged to have her harassed for leaving!
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Those are good points.
I would think men who are secure in their masculinity and/or just mentally healthy would find complementarianism embarrassing.
Sort of like how teens are embarrassed to be seen in public with their parents.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
What do such sexist yea-hoo’s do if the women to whom they are conversing don’t have husbands? Some are divorced or widowed or what have you.
Daisy wrote:
I had to tweet that. Not that anyone follows me except my other account.
@ Sallie Borrink:
🙂
Gram3 wrote:
Since so many complementarians have a low view of women (though they claim not to, I am aware), I wonder why they bother preaching the Gospel to women at all?
But (going by their ESS beliefs and so on), if there are no women in heaven in the afterlife, they wouldn’t really have anyone to lord authority over, I suppose.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
My experience with a TMS pastor under whom I served as an elder was that his ethics, theology and emotional maturity were essentially a dumpster fire. At that time in his life he was a full-blooded fellowship destruction device.
Daisy wrote:
I’m pretty sure the Calvinistas define “gospel” as “the authority of the church”.
Law Prof wrote:
This is very poetic.
@ Patriciamc:
Thank you for the book suggestions and everything.
Your book with the word “Shipwreck”in the title reminds me of this book:
“How to Avoid Huge Ships: John W. Trimmer”
People left a lot of funny reviews about that book on Amazon’s site. You can read this page for more:
http://gcaptain.com/avoiding-huge-ships-amazon-trimmer/
Daisy wrote:
In my case, that is soooo true!
Patriciamc wrote:
I agree with your assessment there, but I have seen atheists who get angry at that (hopping angry!). They really want the world to think they have purely intellectual, rational reasons for not believing in God.
I wish people would stop feeling it’s bogus or wrong to have emotional reasons for doubting stuff or struggling with ideas, faith, etc. (whether it’s God or whatever or whomever it may be).
@ ishy:
I was engaged to a guy, but he was all wrong for me, so I broke up with him. I guess complementarians would assume I should have married him anyway. We would’ve divorced had we married. There is no way I could’ve endured a lifetime with that man.
@ Velour:
Your former church sounds nuttier than fruit cake!
Patriciamc wrote:
Neecha (Nietzsche) said the very same thing.
Velour wrote:
I wonder then if in turn, MacArthur gets a piece of the action. We’ll probably never know cuz’ these guys do not have to follow the same transparency rules other non-profits must adhere to.
Gram3 wrote:
I’m sure glad Jesus didn’t speak in terms as “hypostases”, “ad intra versus ad extra”, “hypostatic is not an ontological category”, “authority/submission model is at the center of his Trinitarian metaphysics”. To the author’s credit he did say “It is confusing stuff”.
@ Ken F:
You miss one fundamental point. The structure of the Church of England is such that a”takeover” is impossible. At best evangelicals can be placed in an evangelical church – neither the congregation not the local bishop would allow anything else.
One final point. I mentioned that the C of E is a world- wide communion. If you look at this particular debate through that lens, you will see that complementarianism isn’t an issue for the vast majority of the flock. Egalitarians not only live in their own egalitarian bubble, their bubble is also inside the bubble of western, liberal culture. That makes the egalitarian bubble very small indeed.
@ Lowlandseer:
I am getting confused here. Are you saying that there is a world wide communion of ‘the Church of England’ and also a world wide ‘anglican communion?’ Or are you using the terms interchangeably?
Here in the US, and even in my town, we have various sorts of either episcopal or anglican churches, and to confuse matters the episcopal church (the denom) is part of the anglican communion and some of the anglican churches are not though they retain the word ‘anglican.’ And now there is the larger matter of the episcopal church being in time out so to speak from the anglican communion, though still affiliated with it, So, you can see how I am confused by what you are saying. Bluntly, we here we do tend to wrestle with issues, choose up sides and go our separate ways, including the ‘anglicans’ and ‘episcopalians.’ You seem to be saying that people who are actually Church of England in the UK do not do that. Am I understanding you correctly?
All — I believe Ruth’s ex-husband, the child rapist, is Lyman Tucker: http://www.veromi.net/summary.asp?from=kwVX00000000&vw=people&fn=Lyman&mn=R&ln=Tucker
She doesn’t mention his name in the book, but this guy, age 72, also lived in NJ and Grand Rapids, and is a “possible relative” of Ruth Anne Tucker, and Carlton Tucker.
Lyman is still alive, and walking free.
Lyman raped Deana as a child, and Deana is dead.
Mary Kassian attacks his ex-wife, Ruth, hs victim.
It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.
These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.
Daisy wrote:
That sounds very similar to me. We were on the right path, though, then things changed in his life and he decided to change with them. He ended up being a very different person than he was for much of our relationship.
Bill M wrote:
Here is some more fun reading for you. An inline response to Ware’s clarification:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/07/07/holsclaw-responds-to-ware/
Daisy wrote:
What makes it even better is that he’s single. So he’s a single pastor instructing married woman (who have been married 19 and 35 years respectively) on their roles as women on the internet.
Max wrote:
“Give me your children for five years and I will make them Mine. You will pass away, but they will remain Mine.”
— A.Hitler, cult leader
Sallie Borrink wrote:
It’s always those who have NEVER been there who are first (and loudest) with all the glib advice for those who ARE.
Just ask Job.
Sallie Borrink wrote:
Next time, tell him you want to speak to his mother!
Lea wrote:
DYING OVER HERE! ROFL!
Oh, I am SO BUMMED I didn’t think of that. (Insert head banging emoticon here)
Daisy wrote:
With me, it’s one of these two, depending on mood:
Light — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEZNpjiaPY
Dark — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwSTe9uit48
Christiane wrote:
When my mother went to college, she worked in the kitchens along with a young man who was studying to be a minister. They used to use the time they had, doing manual stuff, to debate anything & everything. And they always did just this: made up all the cards for their individual sides, & then switch cards. She said it was better than any class could have been, because they were constantly having to argue for the opposite.
When you told this, I was reminded of her; she ended up teaching a high school class in speech & debate, & Boy! was she tough! Becauise this is the same way she had learned. Thank you for a happy memory.
Daisy wrote:
Indeed it was, Daisy.
@ Max:
Thank you for this!
Abi Miah wrote:
This. Is. AWESOME!
Ken F wrote:
I’m so glad, Ken! God sent you here—and the rest of us strugglers too.
ishy wrote:
I’d venture to say that salvation is THE primary issue.
Debi Calvet wrote:
Certainly! That’s what the Great Commission is all about! If you diminish God’s plan of salvation by relegating it to a lesser tier in a theological triage, you are desperately off-track in your belief and practice.