"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?
Hey… first? 😉
The question of whether women will be eternally subordinate all depends on the answer to this one question:
Ahem ….. Will there be soap bubbles in Heaven?
Doesn’t the CBMW’s ideal husband/wife relationship match D. Wilson’s ideal master/slave relationship, almost to a T?
I posted this earlier today on the last thread and thought I should post it here, too. Thanks.
I’ve posted another update on the open discussion thread. Thanks.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-10/#comment-264068
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I lost my post I was typing. I accidentally deleted it and didn’t save it! Nuts!!! I am going to head to bed, as I will start fresh in the morning.
Speaking of which this is what I got up last night:
The Necessity of Finding Closure: What the Evangelical Church can Learn from a Meeting Between Brenda Tracy and Nebraska Football Coach Mike Riley
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/the-necessity-of-finding-closure-what-the-evangelical-church-can-learn-from-a-meeting-between-brenda-tracy-and-nebraska-football-coach-mike-riley/
Dave (Eagle) wrote:
Thanks to the jumping cursor on my stupid laptop, that happens to me quite a bit. But the laptop was free, so…
I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something in Mary’s invitation to Ruth, some subtle sign that Ruth needs to be fixed, that hanging with Mary will put Ruth on the correct path. Maybe it’s just my BS meter going off.
Kassian “Ruth’s experience led her to believe that the doctrine of headship promotes abuse. ”
I’m with Ruth on this one. From my earliest grade school days I observed that groveling only encouraged more abuse from bullies. Reflecting on observations over the decades since then makes me believe doormats do not gain the loving relationship they want in return for their one way submission, instead they get one of disrespect.
I’ve been reading more than contributing but having finally gotten around to finishing the Esther Hamori book I’m proposing a polemical idea in which the complementarians debating things in terms of the nature of the trinity itself seem to be skipping all the OT narrative literature. The comps who are arguing the Trinity SHOULDN’T EVEN BE on the table for this debate are the ones with a reasonable case. hamori’s book makes a few assertions I disagree with but her book is a good overview of women as prophets and women who make use of divination within Hebrew contexts. There are times when it seems the CBMW crew want women in a role that is actually more subservient than would be the case for women in Iron Age patriarchal monarchies.
I just put up a typically rambling post on that stuff here:
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2016/07/while-some-complementarians-debate.html
numo, if you haven’t seen the earlier recommendation for Esther Hamori’s book I left I discuss it in slightly more detail at the post.
Ms. Kassian writes, “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.”
Loving male headship is, indeed, very sound bible doctrine. Now, how that loving male headship is worked out in any given relationship can be anywhere along a continuum from “husband willingly sacrifices his life to save wife” to “husband murders wife.”
This is not an “oh, NOW I’ve got the concept” type of teaching that can be instantly and successfully applied in all circumstances from this time forward and forevermore. It will take learning and work and love and sacrifice from both parties over a long period.
From my reading of the scriptures, I would have to say that the weight of responsibility for the relationship working happily and according to scripture falls primarily on the husband.
Confusing loving, sacrificial, male headship with it being OK to be a horse’s a## [ed.] (or worse) is going to produce abuse, period.
Whether this confusion is coming from the pastor and elders or it is on the part of the actual husband the result is the same, abuse.
Pastors and elders should be the very first to realize that abuse is not only possible, but will be a regular difficulty for any church that leans hard on or even takes delight in this particular doctrine.
The doctrine, itself, is good and proper. The outworking of it needs careful, diligent, and discerning pastoral oversight in many cases.
The pastoral teaching on this should be heavily weighted on the husbands responsibility before God to actually be sacrificial and loving before expecting the wife to just jump immediately into line whether or not the husband is fully committed to the sacrificial aspects rather than just the authoritative ones.
And that requires a LOT more work and love than just blaming the wife. Always blaming the wife.
Loving, sacrificial, male headship: Very Good
Assuming the wife is the problem 99% of the time: Very Bad
Failing to hold husbands accountable in the first place: Enabling Abuse
Only someone who is a real jerk tells (or insinuates) that they deserved the abuse they experienced at another’s hands. For such a “biblical” person, I am surprised she did not have verse and chapter on how Ruth deserved such things. Then again, I am not because she would be hard pressed to find such things.
Anyone with a basic education about power knows that it can and does corrupt. Certainly, men in the Complementarian framework are given or supported in a position of power by that teaching. That is different than an Egalitarian framework, and it is a difference that matters even if one is pro-Complementarianism (not saying that I am here).
Finally, it did not shock me to read the story about abuse and cheating. They go hand and hand as is my experience supporting faithful spouses at my blog. An over commitment to keeping a marriage is essentially a permission slip to abuse, which too often is given in churches.
If divorce is always intolerable, then anything else in the marriage is acceptable. God divorced over cheating (Jeremiah 3:8) and tells us to allow an unbeliever to leave, which I would consider a abuser to be–personal opinion, here (I Cor. 7:15).
Patriciamc wrote:
It made my skin crawl.
Patriciamc wrote:
I think the main thing she wrote that sets off my BS meter is this:
The implication is the if Ms. KassIan can just get her hands on Ruth, then Ruth will see that Ms. Kassin is right. The arrogance, when you ponder this statement, is staggering…I saw my former pastor’s wife use this syrupy tactic on one of his victims. In their sick and twisted relationship, she (the wife) took on the role of damage control. When she was unable to intimidate the woman into leaving town, she sent a letter stating that ‘all was forgiven’ and she (the wife) wanted to take her (the victim) to a womens’ conference and ease her back into the fold. The object? Control. Damage control. Fortunately, this particular victim didn’t fall for it. My (unsolicited) advice to Ruth? Stay the heck away from Mary Kassian.
Divorce Minister wrote:
Kassian is saying that Ruth made a bad decision, therefore the abuse is her fault. She never says anything about holding Ruth’s ex accountable for anything!
Victim blaming.
Women like Mary Kassian frustrate me greatly. They have the freedom to advocate for women to put on chains forged by men who fear women, men who would even twist long-settled doctrines in order to push the subordination of women. That freedom to speak was hard-fought, not by complementarian women, but by those “evil” women who pushed abolition of slavery and advancement of women’s rights**. Kassian has this freedom, yet instead of advocating for her sisters, she uses it to put down women like Ruth Tucker, who lived with the expected results of male superiority Kassian argues for.
I’d also note, yet again, that the comps don’t know how to deal with single adults. And this is a huge problem for them, because the *majority* of adults here in the USA (since 2009) are single. Over 50 percent! Their “gospelly gospel” only applies to a minority! They don’t speak to the majority.
If you’re reading here, Mary Kassian, go back to CBMW and the rest of the gospelly comps and ask them to tell us what the gospel is for middle-aged women who have never married, who have no children and who live independent lives. Or, if that’s too hard for you, why don’t you deal with the real elephant in your living room, the abused wives of men who take comp doctrine as a license to abuse. No cappuccinos here, I’m asking for serious consideration of how your comp doctrine harms the very women it’s supposed to ennoble.
**Sarah and Angelina Grimke were, firstly, abolitionists, and their speaking went against what was was expected in Quaker congregations, which were more liberal than the general public, since women weren’t supposed to speak in public at all. They then incorporated feminism into their speaking. They were the first women public speakers in America, quite scandalous!
A few observations came to mind while sipping my freedom coffee this morning and perusing this (excellent as usual) piece. First, Kassian comes off (in this piece – to be fair, I didn’t read the original) as condescending. As well, the odd bit about sipping cappuccinos did not come across as emotionally healthy. Second, Kassian has a point, although I will have to make it for her, since she seems to just dance around it – we don’t have any statistical data to correlate domestic abuse with theological endorsement…but I would like to see that. Barna? However, I have read studies that compare domestic abuse to nation – and the most egalitarian nations have the lowest domestic abuse rates by a staggering margin. I am a little concerned that Kassian seems to have no interest in facts or curiosity in learning. Third, Kassian appears to be claiming that the husband was abusive for reasons other than his theology. That, however, is not at all a good point to make. Assuming her claim is factual, the immediate response by a reasonably curious person would be, “Well why did he choose that belief system?” You don’t see serial killers knocking down the doors of Peace Corps, after all. All that to say that this really just comes across to me as the typical head-in-the-sand thoughtless noise that CBMW and their allies have been trumpeting for some time now.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Freedom coffee – love it! You make some excellent points.
Nancy2 wrote:
Holy smokes, Indy. I never thought about that before, but you are completely correct. Gag.
“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 do understand where folks are coming from here but to do this takes an understanding of the innate value of each person. When we view others in terms of submission or sacrifice we miss the point.
People are fair and just to the degree they value themselves and others. If they are “entitled” because of gender they are devaluing others. It can quickly become one sided or an impasse.
The one anothers apply no matter the gender or marital status. Paul is horribly misunderstood. And confusion reigns.
I wonder just how many women suffer in America in this abuse? I am talking about under “Comp Control?”
Hundreds of thousands? Ten of millions?
I posted this on the open discussion a few days ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/who-blames-the-victim.html. It’s very applicable to this thread.
Lydia wrote:
I was thinking the same thing. It’d be enlightening to compare their descriptions of women to their descriptions of men in the stuff they put out.
Nancy2 wrote:
This is VERY typical in large parts of evangelicalism. Even from women. It keeps the problem secret. Shame. Blame. Abusers love it
Has anybody read the latest post on Spiritual Sounding Board?
Nancy2 wrote:
Oh man, I could see Mrs K.D. jerking that paddle out of my hand so fast….Biblical or not….for fun or not….I’d wind in the hospital….Mrs. K. D. threw the discus in high school, and she is not that large a woman….
K.D. wrote:
What kind of man does this to a woman?
Nancy2 wrote:
I hadn’t heard of that site, but the story was heartbreaking. I hope she gets far away from her husband.
K.D. wrote:
I continue to be shocked that women in my denomination–SBC have bought into or are tolerating this abuse?
Alan House wrote:
The husband and wife both have responsibilities before God to love their neighbor, and neither of them have “authoritative” responsibilities.
mirele wrote:
Quaker women had been speaking in meeting since the start of the denomination in the mid-1600s (Samuel Johnston had commented negatively on it in the mid 1700s). Margaret Fell, one of the early leaders of the Quakers, had written an essay on Womens Speaking Justified. Quaker women had been advocates (though not necessarily speaking from a stage to the general public) on various public issues before (e.g., Elizabeth Fry primarily on prison reform); however, custom varied from meeting to meeting and over time. The Grimke sisters do seem to have run into trouble with their own meeting; however, this was also a time when American Quakers were fracturing.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Good point.Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Darn good comment!
@ Jeannette Altes:
I, too, found her arrogant as i have found a number of posts, statement, etc. through the years. She is not an example of a loving, kind person. She has made herself a shill for the super authoritarian crowd and she loves her position.
K.D. wrote:
There’s really no way to know since comp churches handle these matters IN HOUSE through their ‘Biblical’ counseling.
@ Divorce Minister:
Last night, i was having trouble with my computer. It kept erasing all of my corrections, putting in the original mistake. At about 1AM it dawned on me that i should have made a statement about men who have been abused. I am sorry that I didn’t get around to it.
@ Dave (Eagle):
I have done this about a half dozen times. It is so frustrating. Last night, my computer kept erasing my corrections to the post, putting the wrong words back in. I had forgotten to reboot my computer. I am going to have read thru this post today and I bet I will find more problems.
Dee,
Do you remember who came to speak at your former church not long after you resigned your membership? Mary Kassian.
We began blogging one month before that women’s event. Now that was definitely providential. 😉
@ dee:
Highly unlikely. The thunderstorm woke up Coconut at 3:00 a.m., and we couldn't go back to sleep. I decided to get up and read through your terrific post. Made a few corrections along the way. 😉
mot wrote:
A sorry individual.
K.D. wrote:
I’m 5’6″, 135 lbs. My husband is 6’2″, 185lbs. He would very easily overpower me. But, as my granddaddy used to say, ” There’s always more than one way to skin a cat.” I’d find a way to “skin that cat”!
K.D. wrote:
Who is sorely in need of a spanking himself?
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I could be wrong – I hope I’m wrong – but, everything of hers that I’ve read seems to have a “holier than thou” tone.
@ Deb:
Oh wow! Thank you! I was tearing my hair out at 12:30AM as i would make a correction and it would revert. You definitely do better than me on little sleep. Keep Polly in your prayers. She is very weak.
@ Deb:
Quite a former church! To think he denied to my husband even knowing CJ Mahaney! Then he features him in a church service Yuck!
@ Nancy2:
Now, now Nancy. She did *study* systematic theology on a *doctoral* lever. Submit to your betters.
dee wrote:
I’m very good at math. It doesn’t “add” up!
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy2 wrote:
Or was never paddled as a kid….and is spoiled rotten…
mot wrote:
I think it’s all in the teachings – or in the lack thereof. I once attended the young adult Bible Study class under the instruction of my church’s most powerful deacon (the one who always waited until the deacon that usually didn’t agree with him was out of town on business to push through his agenda on everything.) We were working through John MacArthur’s “Right Thinking In A World Gone Wrong” and were on the lesson about divorce. After class was over, I pointed out that there was no exception for abused women that permitted them to leave their husbands. His answer was: “Huh. You’re right. There is no exception for abuse. The only reasons a woman may leave her husband is because of sexual infidelity or if he is an unbeliever.”
Now me, I had grown up watching Day of Discovery and had seen video series such as this one: http://dod.org/programs/when-love-hurts-understanding-and-healing-domestic-abuse-when-abuse-is-worse-than-divorce-part-i/ and I had already decided that I wouldn’t accept it. So I opted to believe in my prior teaching that stated that women can and should leave their abusive husbands rather than my deacon who obviously didn’t believe it to be permissible. At least I had an alternative teaching to fall back onto, a second opinion. If I hadn’t watched DoD growing up, I wouldn’t have had an alternative … most people don’t get taught alternative perspectives in their churches. My deacon wouldn’t have dreamed of ‘weakening’ his own teachings by allowing for anything different from what he teaches because he’s always right and anything that isn’t what he teaches is wrong.
dee wrote:
As well as you, your husband, and your children, Dee.
May this trying time make your family stronger and closer.
AImee Byrd is someone I look to for wisdom on a lot of spiritual and biblical matters, despite our agreement to disagree on the cop/egal issue. As she gets stymied by the patriarchy crowd it becomes even more obvious that many of those folks are not interested in fellowship within the kingdom of God but only in supporting and seeking out those who think as they do.
“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.”
Here is where abusers thrive. They push the boundaries a little at a time to see what they can get away with and the next thing you know the victim is fully in line and they are led to believe that everything that happens to them is their fault.
Any relationship is susceptible to abuse. However, any belief that places one person lower or higher than the other is at higher risk. Beliefs that place women and men in different “roles” allow the introduction of one being more powerful than the other. Which is a perfect breeding ground for abuse: power and control.
But those at CBMW will say that it’s all about respect and that there should be no power struggle between believers. I call bull honkey on that.
From the OP:
Yes, complementarians often teach there is nothing wrong with real, true complementarianism.
That a “real” complementarian man who is correctly implementing complementarianism makes a great spouse. This is sort of what she is getting at.
Which brings me to these links:
John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html
Not All Comps
https://natesparks130.com/2015/11/17/not-all-comps/
Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/even-warm-and-fuzzy-true-correctly-implemented-gender-complementarianism-is-harmful-to-women-and-its-still-sexism-yes-all-comps-refuting-not-all-comps/
mot wrote:
A pervert.
Patriciamc wrote:
What I heard was presumption that Ruth would agree with her about abuse. Maybe Ruth thinks that Female Subordination is inherently abusive. In which case, there is not enough “frothy cappuccinos” to bridge the divide and make them BFFs. I think you are right about the subtle put-down.
Tim wrote:
Which is not characteristic behavior of citizens of the Kingdom. There is little in New Calvinist ranks which demonstrates the Kingdom of God on earth in the here and now. Control, manipulation and intimidation are not gifts of the Spirit; pride and rebellion are not fruit of the Spirit. The new reformers are missing out on the joys of the Kingdom when they prefer hanging out with their own, rather than Jesus.
Another thing I wanted to mention about this:
From the OP:
Pat Robertson, who is regularly on the Christian TV show “700 Club” every so often gets viewer letters who have questions for him.
About once a month, Robertson gets letters from Christian wives who are married to men who are abusive or jerks.
I have seen one or two instances where Robertson sided with the abused wife and told her to leave the bum of a husband. These have been instances, IIRC, where the husband’s behavior was extremely abusive (involved severe beatings and / or numerous extra marital affairs etc).
Like on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being a great husband and a 10 being a really abusive husband, these husbands are a 10 or 20.
But most of the time (I’d say around 98% of the time), Robertson blames the woman. Even in cases where the wife writing in describes a man who sounds like a 7 or 8 – really bad, but not a “10” level as bad – Robertson basically tells the lady this:
“You chose this man, lady. You’re stuck with him. You don’t really have biblical grounds to leave him.”
Sometimes, Pat will tell these wives they should have seen far ahead the kind of creep they were dealing with and dumped him rather than marry the guy.
There was even a case where Pat’s lady co-host had to educate Pat that sometimes abusive men act fake, until after they marry a lady, so the lady cannot tell during the dating stage that the guy will turn abusive until after they marry.
See the Second letter on this video and Pat’s response (he blames the lady for marrying a jerk, as though she should’ve known during their dating that he was a creep)
-(the FIRST letter on the video is from a woman whose husband is a guy who retired from the Army, the letter I refer to is AFTER that one):
Pat Robertson blames a woman for marrying a jerk:
http://www1.cbn.com/video/bring-it-on-line-tithing-and-the-poor
Sometimes abusive men or creeps do give off red flags during the dating stage, so I feel it’s important for girls and women to be aware of that and to be on the look-out for those flags, but they don’t always do so.
Some men keep their abusive side hidden until after they marry.
@ dee:
Praying for your MIL Polly.
Gram3 wrote:
I believe MK’s goal is to bring Ruth around to her way of thinking.
Jamie Carter wrote:
How anyone can read the whole new testament and come to this conclusion, I do not know. They are lacking in the ability to digest the scriptures and use them to inform their own conscience and reason. They need a black and white sentence that spells out each possibility or they are unable to connect the dots. They search the scriptures for rules to follow and miss the spirit, the point. They nit-pick over technicalities and miss that the Christian life is to be a life of love. In their mind, it is better for a home to be filled with hideous, ungodly abuse and cruelty than that a contract that has already been violated and nullified in spirit be set aside. And these are people who presume to lead and teach other people!
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Yes. And I think that egalitarianism does not guarantee a good marriage just as Female Subordination does not guarantee a good marriage. When both people strive to imitate Christ, the probability of a good marriage or relationship is greatly enhanced, IMO, since Christ is the Perfect Human as well as God.
Another thing that annoys me is that they go back and forth from husband/wife to male/female, depending on which serves their purpose. Does Eve represent wives or females in general?
Mary Kassian is either a smug elitist or she does the perfect impersonation of such. I would rather read Owen BHLH any day than Mary Kassian. Probably because Owen reminds me of a junior high girl who may possibly mature, and Mary reminds me of the Church Lady.
K.D. wrote:
Because of the men who who also suffer, I want to emphasize that not all abusers are male, and not all abuse is physical. Emotional abuse is soul-destroying, and male victims are often reluctant to say anything in Comp circles because they are supposed to be Jesus. This pernicious ideology afflicts men, as well. Put a good guy and an entitled woman together and marinate them in this toxic ideology and you will get abuse.
Where Byrd writes,
That sounds to me more like the Christian egalitarian / mutualist perspective, and how egalitarians / mutualists understand what the Bible to be saying about marriage.
What she describes as a type of hyper complementarianism, one that values submission/ authority over actual complementarity, is precisely what complementarians believe in and promote.
The sort of complementarianism that CBMW types promote is not about women complementing men (and vice versa), but really about Male Control, Male Power, Male Hierarchy, and Female Subordination.
Have only read the beginning, but kassian sounds like a word I can’t say here. deeply hurtful and mean.
From the OP:
I’m sorry that this is a tad off topic from the main point of the post, but this drives me nuts. At times, I’m not sure if I still believe in God or not (which has been going on the last few years).
One thing that bothers me is over the last few years maybe longer if I stop to think about it), my prayers bounce off the ceiling.
I can’t get the most basic of requests answered by God, or not even a sense that God cares or is listening.
But Christians like this (the guy in the OP) swear up and down that God e-mails them every noon, and phones them every morning, comments on their Instagram snaps, likes all their Facebook posts, and God tells them who to marry, where to work, and what to eat for dinner tonight.
In the meanwhile, can’t even God to so much as say “Hello” to me, no matter how long and hard I pray, even about things that really bother me or matter to me.
The wife mentioned in the OP:
Oh no, my father is a negative nancy and a perfectionist and finds flaws in everything I say or do (or in what others say or do). I learned years ago, you cannot please people like this, so stop trying.
You can stick a person like this in tropical paradise, and they will complain about the sand, heat or salt water. Stick them in Heaven, and they will complain the gold streets are too shiny. Save your sanity and realize you you can never be good enough or perfect enough for these sorts of people.
The OP:
Author Patricia Evans hammers home in her book on verbal abuse this is the S.O.P. of abusers: they will present a ‘Nice Guy’ face to the public and will only abuse their target(s) in private, with no witnesses around to see or hear.
I’ve experienced this very behavior with my older sister since I’ve been a kid, and somewhat with my father.
Both my sister and dad appear very friendly (well, usually) out in public, or around other people at dinner parties or family get-togethers with extended family, but behind closed doors, the friendly mask comes off and you see all the nasty behavior. Abusive husbands do the same thing to their wives I’ve read in yet other books.
The OP (the wife’s comments):
About the “pray the abuse away” rhetoric. A Christian made movie called “War Room” gave that advice in their movie.
The character in the movie was married to a guy who was somewhat abusive, and the movie had the wife go into her “War Room” (prayer room) to pray about her marriage. Even Christian Hollywood perpetuates these messages that churches are already giving to women.
About this:
“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?”
That doesn’t mean a woman has to stay in an abusive or terrible marriage. It’s not the wife’s duty or responsibility to “fix” the husband – these types of guys cannot really be “fixed.”
Or abusive men choose not to be ‘fixed’ (change their behavior), because they benefit from being controlling and abusive (they get all their needs met without having to meet a woman’s needs).
>>>Our friendship grew quickly and within months we were meeting with the elders to get their blessing on our engagement,
I wanted to comment on this. I think this too quick courtship/marriage thing can only be exacerbating the problem. The article on narcissists talks about how they come on strong, romantic, attentive from the beginning and sweep you up in a whirlwind and it takes a while to figure out that that wasn’t who they really were. I think it takes a lot longer than a couple months, for instance.
The article linked at the top about Patrick Stewart is excellent, btw.
Patrick Stewart speaking of his father, from the article:
And some think God is perfectly fine with this, that he cares more about a marriage license than human beings who are being violated and brutalized…
What kind of a god do they worship? How do they understand the statement, “God is love”? Is it easier to them to redefine the meaning of love than to come to the obvious conclusion, that this marriage is a failure and does not express anything honoring to the God of love?
As Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?” Or as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren?”
“Expel the wicked person from among you.” 1 Corinthians 5:13
OP (quoting Byrd):
And you have adults who never marry. There are adults who are divorced or widowed.
All this marriage analogy misses the mark.
Jesus says there will be no marriage in the afterlife.
Single, divorced, and widowed women are never given a specific command in the Bible to submit to all or any man, either.
It’s like the CBMW type complementarians are trying to make a round peg fit into a square hole, or just ignoring the round pegs altogether, if it doesn’t fit their male hierarchy beliefs.
Alan House wrote:
It’s not there. It’s an American, conservative, cultural ideal that Comps have promoted that they proof-text to say that God supports their ideas/agenda. Plenty of conservative Christians have said this nonsense was never widely taught before the 1990’s.
I’ve seen posts from conservative Christian women who have said that they don’t identify with this Comp nonsense. One woman tweeted from her tractor on her farm, where she farms thousands of acres. Comp doesn’t apply to her life and is ridiculous and she’s a conservative Christian. Another woman tweeted from her cattle ranch in a remote state the same: She’s a conservative Christian and Comp is nonsense and doesn’t apply to her life.
We are a priesthood of believers. Neither male nor female. We are to serve one another. Comp is an insufferable yoke. Southern Baptists have promoted it and now have the highest divorce rate in the nation of ANY denomination.
Alan House wrote:
Are you saying that comp teaching (female subordination) is good and proper? What about it is good and proper?
in the ‘soap bubble’ story, we see the undoubted attempt of a husband to humiliate his wife …. the story was taken down as it was said that people ‘misunderstood’ it
I’d like to know it what light, in what universe, that treatment of another human person would NOT be seen as an attempt to humiliate and embarrass?
something is wrong with HOW these hyper-comps are understanding what they are doing; something has gone wrong at a very deep level
Dee wrote “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.”
Oh yes, Driscoll proclaimed “I see things” (e.g., pornographic images/visions of church folks in affairs). I wonder what Driscoll will “see” after his unrepentant comeback. And, of course, Mahaney was a self-proclaimed “Apostle.” New Calvinist followers who are falling for this stuff ain’t got a lick of sense!
My daughter’s first husband was abusive. She is wildly independent, egal to the max. He was a total unbeliever at that time with no theology driving the abuse.
Once she got out and got secular counselling, her counsellor did give her some advice that at first stung, then made her really angry, then made her laugh, and then when she took it to heart has resulted in a wonderful second marriage.
The advice? “If he behaves like a horse’s patoot before marry him, what makes you think he won’t behave like a horse’s patoot after you marry him.”
Second time around she investigated how he treats his family, his friends, his coworkers, store clerks, in short everybody.
None of this made it her fault one iota that the first husband behaved like a jerk. But it did help her heal and find a better one.
And happily for the grandkids, hubby #1 is no longer a horse’s patoot.
Just our experience and your mileage may vary.
siteseer wrote:
It took me nearly two decades as a teachee under the Calvary Chapel brand to realize that this is bass ackwards at best. It’s the God given Jiminy Cricket (conscience) within that should inform us about Scripture, not the other way round’.
Katharine Bushnell said it way better than I can almost a century ago:
“If we find even in the Bible anything which confuses our sense of right and wrong, that seems to us less exalted and pure than the character of God should be:
if after the most patient thought and prayerful pondering it still retains that aspect, then we must not bow down to it as God’s revelation to us, since it does not meet the need of the earlier and more sacred revelation He has given us in our spirit and conscience which testify of him.”
Nancy2 wrote:
Someone has to rinse those bubbles off and the men shouldn’t do it.
I often find attitudes like that -where some men think a woman should rinse bubbles off- makes those men look weak or inept. There is no reason a grown man cannot rinse his own stupid glass off and do a great job of it.
Christiane wrote:
There is a common saying, perhaps not the best theological wording according to the calvinists but nevertheless easy to understand. They say about somebody who is more or less a professing christian but has done something egregious, or is a bully, or lives a disreputable life style, “He ain’t all the way saved.”
Alan House wrote:
Alan, I don’t mean to be rude. But, why don’t you get in your vehicle, roll on over here to the Ft. Campbell, Ky area, and tell that to some of our young military wives whose husbands have permanent disabilities such as brain damage and missing limbs?
Ruth Tucker responded to Mary Kassian here awhile ago (I don’t recall seeing this in the OP and thought people might want to take a look at it):
Mary and Me and Complementarianism (by Ruth Tucker)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/05/12/mary-and-me-and-complementarianism-by-ruth-tucker/
Daisy wrote:
Just across the county line, there are two churches directly across the road from each other – one Baptist, one Methodist. My granddaddy told me this story: when he was a young man, he and a neighbor were going to get some farm equipment. Those two churches were having revival services at the same time. As the men passed by, one church choir was singing, “Will There Be Any Stars in Heaven”, while the other choir was singing, “No, Not One”.
Now I have this thing going around in my head ……… “Will There Be Soap Bubbles in Heaven”, “No, Not One”!
Bill M wrote:
Yep. Yep. Yep. I wrote some very long blog posts pointing that very thing out at my “Miss Daisy Flower” blog weeks ago.
My mother was into this traditional gender role stuff that CBMW promotes (back in her day, I don’t think it was called complementarianism”), but traditional gender roles / complementarianism is indistinguishable from codependency.
I was taught under those belief sets that good Christian girls don’t have boundaries, are not assertive – because having boundaries and so on is selfish and un-ladylike.
I noticed as I grew older that the nicer I was to bullies, the worse they treated me.
When and if I stood up to bullies (the few times I did), and I was assertive and used boundaries, the bullies usually left me alone and backed off.
But the church doesn’t understand these things or refuses to accept it, and they keep telling women to be doormats for all men, even jerk ones or abusive ones.
In some cases, it may be too dangerous for a woman to stand up to a man (like a marriage where the spouse is very physically abusive), in which case, a Domestic Violence shelter can help a woman safely escape such a scenario.
But by and large in the normal course of life, if you stand up to most jerks, they back down, but they will bully you much more if you never stand up for yourself but just sit there and take it.
Telling women to submit to a jerk or abuser (which is what churches do 99% of the time) is just a recipe to prolong the abuse, it won’t put a stop to it.
Alan House wrote:
I’m not sure I completely agree with this, because even complementarianism /female submission taught and understood “properly” is the equivalent to codependency for women, which is something God does not want any woman to be.
I explain more of that and what I mean by that on my blog – just click on the screen name “Daisy” on this post and find the blog post called:
“Christian Gender Complementarianism is Christian-Endorsed Codependency for Women (And That’s Not A Good Thing)”
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/christian-gender-complementarianism-is-christian-endorsed-codependency-for-women/
Divorce Minister wrote:
Your quote got me to thinking of this page from the NY Times:
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
Divorce Minister wrote:
That is a good point. If you communicate that NOTHING justifies a divorce, it gives the selfish jerky types a “do anything I want to my spouse no matter how horrible” card.
If there are no consequences for their negative behavior, of course they’re not going to change and/or the victimized partner ends up being treated horribly for years, unnecessarily.
Max wrote:
The only thing he sees is $$$$$$$ !
Nancy2 wrote:
Exactly. Good people in life – women and men – step up to the plate and meet life’s challenges.
@ Daisy:
One other point related to those I wanted to add.
One thing I’ve noticed in reading many, many stories of Christian women who married Christian guys who abused them verbally or physically, or who did things like had many affairs:
Even in these cases where the women said they made an honest go of following complementarian advice to the letter – (they prayed for the husband for years, they submitted even more, etc.) –
They said after decades of seeing no change in the husband, they got fed up and divorced the abuser anyway.
There comes a point in time where a Christian woman gets fed up being treated horribly after 5, 10, 20 or more years and says to herself,
“Enough! And I don’t care WHAT my local preacher, John Piper, or complementarians think, I am done with this.”
I went through something like during my years of depression. Other Christians discouraged me from seeing doctors for the depression or taking medications, so I stopped all that.
But when the depression got really bad, I gave the meds and Doctors another try.
You get to a point where the pain is so great, you simply want relief. Any ideas you had about doctrinal purity, or making God happy, or whatever other religious reasoning, get tossed out the window.
So, complementarians can lecture abused wives all day long it’s some kind of biblical duty or expectation for them to stay with an abuser, but eventually, many of these wives will be like, “forget that, I want out, I’ve had enough” and will walk way anyhow.
I don’t think complementarians grasp that at all.
Tim wrote:
… and incentivizing poor leadership.
I would like to see some of these “dozens” of “heart-wrenching” stories showing harm coming from egalitarianism. If she means in spite of egalitarianism, well, duh. But show us some cause and effect- how exactly does being equal harm people?
I also think it is interesting the way she puts it is that she “could tell… stories” “to persuade you” rather than ‘giving examples’ that ‘prove.’ Hmmm.
It is the old “stray out from under the umbrella and God will smite you” fear mongering.
Gram3 wrote:
True.
@ Muff Potter:
Yes! The Godhead is always about basic right/wrong and truth.
Many people have been convinced that they cannot or are unable to know basic right and wrong or seek truth.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Sometimes complementarians get clever about this.
Any example you point them to in the Bible (OT or NT) of women who led or taught men, or who went against the grain of gender comp role ideals for women, the comps will explain them away.
Take Deborah in the Old Testament, for instance. She was a judge of Israel and led Israel into battle. The comps say Deborah does not count, because God would have used a man, but had no choice but to use a woman.
Some male biblical translators in centuries past refused to believe that Junia was a woman apostle (she is mentioned in the NT), so for years, they changed her name to a male form in the biblical text, so people would think it was ‘Junias,’ a male apostle.
Sometimes, comp men flatly disagree with the biblical text, like an egaliatarian woman on Twitter asked a complementarian man something like, ‘Since the NT says the first people who announced the risen Jesus were ladies, would you not be okay with women today declaring the risen Lord to men today?’
The guy she was speaking with (sorry I forget who), said, “No.” He still would not permit women to proclaim Jesus today, even though NT records women doing that very thing.
And not even though that guy’s view was contradicting the views and practices of Jesus Christ Himself.
dee wrote:
No problem. As far as I can tell, the system in much of Christianity is tipped to benefit the cheater regardless of the gender. If it is a man, then the church assumes the woman isn’t giving him enough sex, taking “care of” her body, or submitting enough. If it is a woman cheater, her husband is assumed to be failing in providing emotional attention and she is treated like a damsel in distress generally speaking. It is ALL evil supporting evil, IMO.
“The problem of violence against women is one that I care about deeply. I’ve helped battered women get out of abusive relationships. Their stories are heart-wrenching. Disturbing. Frightening. I think of the woman whose face and arms were shredded by flying glass when her enraged husband pulled the china cabinet down. Or the husband who rolled up and immobilized his wife in their living room area rug, and then proceeded to beat her with a baseball bat. I could tell you accounts of women who were burned, punched, kicked, locked up . . . the heinous acts make my blood boil.”
Above is MK’s introductory paragraph to her review (condemnation, actually) of Ruth’s book. I can’t help but wonder ….. Did she imply to all of those women that the abuse they suffered was their faults …… They should have known better …… Didn’t they heed the red flags?
Daisy wrote:
Thanks for posting that, it’s very good. Here’s a quote-
siteseer wrote:
I always figured that statistics weren’t on her side. It’s not possible that 100% of all domestic violence incidents happen in the 25%-33% of the population that identify as not Christians. It seems that all too often emotional abuse and manipulation that doesn’t leave a scratch or a bruise isn’t considered abuse – so a great many believers might be unaware of ongoing abuse precisely because there isn’t any physical violence. So even under the umbrella, there’s no protection.
Daisy wrote:
I’ve heard that argument. Out of one side of their mouths they talk about the absolute sovereignty of God. But out of the other side of their mouths they talk about a God who is constrained by pressures over which he seems to have no control. They do this on many levels
mirele wrote:
Point 1- very astute!
Kassian is benefitting from accomplishments of women in the past who were not acting like little complementarian women, in order to get more freedom and equality for all women. She is apparently oblivious to that.
Point 2.
Yep, that is something I’ve been saying for a long time now. Complementarians ignore any person (especially women) who are not married and parents.
And because there are now more singles in the United States than married couples (and a lot of people are forgoing having children, whatever the reasons), complementarianism will wither away from that alone.
If your entire theology about gender is primarily built around “wife and motherhood,” but most women are single and childless, your movement is going to die and blow away.
Not that I want complementarians to start dictating their sexist nonsense to singles and the childless (and childfree), but I’m just saying if they keep disregarding singles, or shaming them for being single, they are going to be left appealing only to a small percentage of the demographic that grows smaller with every passing decade.
siteseer wrote:
It’s true. Kassian needs Ruth’s cooperation much more than Ruth needs Kassian’s.
Lea wrote:
Yes, it takes much longer, and not only is time important but having the opportunity to see how this person responds to differing circumstances and incidents that come up, in the course of time. There is an old German saying that you do not really know a person until you have eaten a pound of salt together.
Daisy wrote:
I do think that the Calvinistas are starting to experience a lot of blowback from both authoritarianism and complementarianism, to the point where they will lose all their credibility and popularity. Aside from the fact that it’s not logical or sustainable, their justifications for both are very weak, and mostly based on a few verses, while leaving out most of the others.
They had a brief period of popularity, but it’s time for the movement to dissolve.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
That’s a good point, but my other concern is, even if you want to argue that complementarianism does not cause abuse, it sure does help to prolong and perpetuate it.
It does so in part because complementarianism conditions women to think they have to be ever-loving doormats and stay in a marriage, no matter how abusive it is.
If an abused wife does seek out counseling or help from a comp church, she will seldom be told it’s biblical and okay to divorce the abuser.
She will most likely be fed the same, ineffective advice churches always give in such situations: go home, cook him his favorite meals, submit more, pray for him more, give him as much sex as he wants, try not to “set him off.”
Even if comp does not ’cause’ abuse, it sure does feed it and prolong it. Makes it much easier for a guy to get away with it.
ishy wrote:
Cherry-picked from letters written to certain people who were living under very different circumstances, laws, and social customs/norms than we do.
ishy wrote:
If they merely dissolve it could lead to another resurgence. I’m praying they will go down in flames in a way that no one will try to repeat their disaster.
Ken F wrote:
Considering that the heart of the teachings, the submission of one person to another, has been one of the oldest and most difficult ideas to defeat – it’s like the undead. Once you think you’ve defeated slavery, at some point the shepherding movement picks up the idea again, and once they go down, it returns in the form of complementarianism. I’m afraid that even if complementarianism goes down, the same idea that one person must submit to the authority of the one over them will rise yet again in some new form.
mot wrote:
Secular culture relays the same information to girls and women that complementarianism does – the stuff about staying in gender roles.
Girls and women are supposed to be meek, mild, demure and un-assertive.
As I saw mentioned in one book, Churches should be correcting that view that secular culture gives women, but they instead re-enforce it even more so, by telling girls and women it’s God-ordained, God-designed and biblical, for women to be second bananas to men and be doormats.
Complementarians are not “counter cultural” at all – but they claim they are.
American culture has been communicating to girls and women for a good, long while to be quiet, compliant, sweet, (and up until so many years ago, to marry and have children and shame on them if they do not do both).
Complementarians have been echoing secular culture on those counts for many years.
Gram3 wrote:
I think you are absolutely correct about everything in that post. 🙂
siteseer wrote:
That, a million times. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
wrote:
Here is what I will say. I can see how someone could read the no female pastors/wives submit from the bible. I get that interpretation and I think if you emphasize love above all else that it can work out ok.
However, I think there is zero need to teach this wives submit thing and am now deeply suspicious of those who do. Teach believers to submit to each other then maybe I will able willing to hear what someone has to say on this.
@ Lea:
“The doctrine, itself, is good and proper. The outworking of it needs careful, diligent, and discerning pastoral oversight in many cases.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Somehow, that statement makes me think of communism, Three Mile Island, agent orange, Chernobyl, ……….
Daisy wrote:
IMHO, “Complementarians” picked up the battle flag when they realized secular culture was losing the war.
Velour wrote:
I come from a Southern Baptist upbringing, and my parents believed in complementarianism.
I had doubts in the back of my mind that comp was true, but I tried to be on board with it.
The older I got, I started noticing comp didn’t line up with the Bible.
I also noticed weirder and weirder things. At some stage in the 1990s (maybe mid 90s?) there was this controversy in the news.
Some Southern Baptist muckity-muck released an official statement on behalf of the SBs or one of their colleges, or he made these comments in an interview…
Where he brought up day care centers.
His comments had something to do with assumptions that all women should marry and be mothers, and he said something like if you are a mother, it was wrong and selfish for you to have a job outside the home and to drop your children off at day care centers.
This was back before many people had the internet. Most folks go their news from TV or daily papers.
Even though I thought of myself as a complementarian at that time (but with niggling doubts in the back of my mind), even I thought that guy sounded sexist, out of step with the times, and like a wacko.
Nancy2 wrote:
That sounds about right – I’ve been hearing a lot of Ref. Comps talking about being feminine is sending a subversive statement telling the gender confused world that you’re different. It’s like up to a point, Christianity and the World closely mirrored each other, but when the world change, the Church decided to remain the same and now they say they’re counter cultural.
I honestly can’t stand Mary Kassian and I haven’t for a long time. I’m glad others are starting to question her and see through her.
I don’t know why she writes books about sexual abuse (her own personal experience in childhood), promotes them heavily on the internet (and in my twitter feed), and yet
she is so sick and unhealthy.
Oh, I forgot she collects a paycheck from a Comp promoting seminary where she teaches.
So she is keeping the party line. Ditto for her being over at Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and doing same.
I refuse to read any of her books, because in my opinion she doesn’t see how unhealthy she still is and how much SHE needs to grow.
Daisy wrote:
I think in a Lundy Bancroft talk he was talking about the idea that women in abusive relationships often come from abusive families and he said, actually it’s about as likely to get into an abusive relationship regardless of background…what it does affect is how long it take you to get OUT. I think that is likely to be at play here.
What would I tell someone being abused? Leave. What would your average pastor tell them?? Which answer is more likely to result in a longer abusive relationship and more pain as a result? That answer is probably obvious.
siteseer wrote:
That part of her quote raised an eye brow with me too.
Egalitarianism does not come with the built-in rationalizations that would give a husband an excuse or cover to abuse his wife and expect the wife to put up with it the way complementarianism does
Divorce Minister wrote:
Isn’t it interesting how some comp churches only care about a woman’s emotional needs if there’s an affair situation, but they don’t give a squat if it’s a case of the husband if emotionally or physically abusing the wife?
All the sudden when the case is male- abuse- towards- the- female, the church tells the women to just suck it up and get over it.
Nancy2 wrote:
I was just saying in a post or two above (which haven’t been published yet) that Pat Robertson does this on his Christian show on a pretty consistent basis.
Not always, but usually.
About any time he gets letters from women married to jerks or abusers, Pat will tell them,
“You married him, lady. You should’ve known what you were getting into,” and he proceeds to inform the wife she has no biblical grounds to divorce.
I have seen him a time or two say divorce for abuse is okay, but like, 95% of the time, he blames these women for marrying jerks, he says they should have known they were walking into a terrible marriage.
I don’t think much will change when this sort of thing is being taught in theological colleges and in “approved” commentaries.
“Husbands and wives (1 Peter 3:1–7). In the husband/wife relationship, submission is again enjoined. Here Peter was addressing a problem that exists today, when Christan wives are married to men who “do not believe the Word” (v. 1). Peter did not suggest aggressive evangelism. Instead, the wife is to adopt a course of aggressive submission. Quietly demonstrating the inner beauty Jesus brings, wives are to communicate the Lord through the holy way of submission.
Of course, believing husbands are to be considerate (v. 7). But, as the slave is not released from the holy way if he has a harsh master, neither is the wife with an inconsiderate spouse.” (Lawrence O Richards – The Teacher’s Commentary)
Bridget wrote:
Bridget, you’re totally right and Alan is totally wrong.
That unselfish-giving love thing is not something that is taught, although it may be modeled, and was most surely modeled for us by Christ Himself. And we won’t find it in a ‘consequence’ of the sin of Eden which ‘authority/submission’ results, no. Unselfish love is not rooted in evil, nor could it ever be. I think it must come from Our Lord who heals and brings to life within us a part of what WAS damaged in Eden. Something that was never lost, or completely destroyed in us, but waits to be restored, renewed, salvaged, reclaimed . . . Our Lord reconciles us to Himself and to the part of our humanity that He has taken up in the Incarnation. And ONLY through Him, is it possible to live the kind of love for others that was possible in our humankind before the Fall. He reconciles us to God and to one another.
In a Christian marriage, Our Lord’s is the ONLY authority we need to realize that love of ‘either for other’ involves unselfishly wanting only good for the sake of the ‘other’ without needing recompense. And that understanding of Christ’s role as the model of love in a Christian marriage rules out any ideas of ‘authoritative husband, submissive wife’ because the patriarchy model does not celebrate the unselfish love Christ has willed for us that enables our reconciliation with one another in Him.
@ siteseer:
She is right that domestic violence is one of complementarians’ most vulnerable areas, but another one (as someone else here and I have mentioned), the fact that the American population is over half single (and many are childless) is another chink in their armor.
Not many women are marrying or becoming mothers anymore, but 99% of complementarian attention, concern, blog posts, books, and seminars are about marriage and motherhood.
The complementarian world view and scolding is completely irrelevant to over half the American population. A lot of other nations are also seeing declines in marriage and procreation.
Ken F wrote:
That is a good observation. I agree.
Daisy wrote:
I was reading down the thread and saw this (by me) which got me to thinking about something else.
That complementarianism is all about male headship over women becomes glaringly apparent when you realize that they do mostly ignore single adults.
(Or maybe their play with the E.S.S. doctrine is an attempt to rope -ALL- women into subservient positions?)
As it stands, there is no Bible verse that calls out single women specifically to be under male rule or headship.
So complementarians have no way of saying men can and should control Un-married women, and God wants it that way.
Complementarians are really, primarily focused in limiting women, especially in the context of marriage, and of ensuring that husbands get to be the Boss in marriages.
If comps were truly concerned with how the sexes complement one another, one would expect them to focus less on “Husbands Are Final Authority in Marriages Above Wives” type commentary and more articles which include all women, even single ones, widowed one, and divorced ones.
But I don’t see them saying much about unmarried and childless men and women.
Nancy2 wrote:
I agree. 🙂
@ Lea:
I think everything you said there is spot on.
Daisy wrote:
No, there isn’t, but I’ve heard complementarians say that single daughters are under their father’s headship and since all children are told to submit to their parents, the idea is used to explain why single daughters are under some form of male authority. Single sons just don’t matter and usually aren’t grafted in the same way as they usually graduate to their own umbrellas because they’re male.
@ Alan House:
“The doctrine, itself, is good and proper. The outworking of it needs careful, diligent, and discerning pastoral oversight in many cases.”
+++++++++++
This is a highly impractical ‘doctrine’ if the margin for error is so high. And who’s going to provide the careful, diligent, and discerning oversight for all the pastors?
The experts, the keepers of the doctrine over at CBMW can’t even decide what is biblical headship and what is not.
Lowlandseer wrote (quoting some other guy):
One thing I remain curious about – supposing that a wife divorces such a husband anyhow.
What then? Do the comps propose she should be thrown in jail, or that God will take away her salvation and send her to Hell when she dies? Do they advise that the woman should be stoned?
The fact is a lot of Christian wives do leave their abusive husbands. I don’t think any amount of shaming or finger-wagging is going to change that.
Why don’t they just help these women instead of passing judgement on how these women decide to handle things?
Daisy wrote:
In the bylaws of my last SBC church, divorced men can be considered for leadership in the church on a case-by-case basis. If their wives divorced them (but not the other way around) they’re still considered technically faithful. Women just don’t seem to matter.
Jamie Carter wrote:
I think there may be examples of that in OT patriarchy, but there is not a single verse anywhere in the New Testament that teaches this.
Regarding marriage and women, they can only point to a twisted interpretation of Eph. 5.22, where it says, “and wives, submit to your own husbands.”
There is no Eph 5. 22 and- a- half which says, “Likewise, single Christian women, you must submit to all men, and stay under your father’s headship unless you marry.”
I did have a pro-comp woman on some other site make an appeal to an Old Testament passage to “prove” her position.
But we’re not Israel living under the Old Covenant.
Daisy wrote:
That’s like the Baptist church a few years ago that stated that they didn’t believe in mothers working outside of the home and were therefore closing their day care immediately. That left a lot of people scrambling to find day care the next day.
Daisy wrote:
He is less than a gentleman and she “complements” with her wife response (and God-given role) of pretend it never happened.
siteseer wrote:
The husband being the head of the wife is clearly scriptural.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Whoa!! See. That’s what they really think.
Didn’t Paul say slaves should get their freedom of they could? I think he’s majorly misunderstood by the way. He knew there had been multiple slave revolts that failed and that the rules were in place on women and the New Testament is very clear that we as Christians are to take care of our own houses not fix society. That doesn’t mean he agreed with society.
Nancy2 wrote:
Not rude at all. I don’t think missing limbs disqualifies a christian man from loving, sacrificial leadership in his family. Brain injuries are another, more difficult, matter.
Daisy wrote:
Well, we have to give some kind of meaning to “the husband is the head of the woman” otherwise we are setting aside scripture.
Lea wrote:
There are going to be times when a husband needs guidance in leading and there will be times when a wife needs guidance in following. I am attempting to be quite clear that I think this idea of nearly universally impugning wife for not following perfectly is a very shallow and hurtful application of scripture.
Law Prof wrote:
You seem to be coming from an egal standpoint.
Alan House wrote:
Especially in a society where women are chattel?
It’s also clearly scriptural that the Ten Commandments only apply to men. Ex. 20:17 makes that clear.
Velour wrote:
Notwithstanding, in a christian marriage, Our Lord has, in scripture, clearly designated the husband as the leader. It is a solemn responsibility.
Nancy2 wrote:
I don’t follow but I am interested in your ideas.
Law Prof wrote:
Very succinct.
Alan House wrote:
within the whole of sacred Scripture, we find the ‘role’ of a wife or the ‘role’ of a betrothed woman is so closely defined. Quite the opposite.
Two examples: “But God told Abraham, “Do not be upset over the boy and your servant. Do whatever Sarah tells you, for Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted.” (Gen. 21:12)
And in the moment of her ‘fiat’, we find the betrothed of Joseph, Mary who realizes to Whom she has the greater allegiance:
“Then Mary said, “Truly I am the Lord’s servant. Let everything you have said happen to me.” Then the angel left her.” (Gospel of St.Luke 1:38)
At the critical moments of God’s moving among our kind, I’d say that He honored women greatly as being able to do what is right at His command without the need of any man to be ‘in control’. So, in that context, all changes perspective.
“And she went and proclaimed The Good News to those who had been with Him, who were mourning and weeping.” With her words, Our Lord’s chosen “apostola apostolorum” , (The Apostle to the Apostles), Mary Magdalene, fulfilled her commission from Christ and spoke of the Risen Lord, Whom she had seen. It was He, Who sent her on her Apostolic mission to inform those who had been with Him.
At key moments, it was ALSO the women God used. The sacred Scriptures bear witness to His doing this. And these accounts of Scripture cannot be denied or diminished, no.
@ Christiane:
correction: ‘ is NOT so closely defined ‘
(I must learn to proof-read, ‘sigh’)
elastigirl wrote:
When I say doctrine, I mean a teaching that finds its origin in scripture. The husband being the leader in the home is quite scriptural. None the less, this is not a license for the husband to abuse the family members placed under his headship. As for your margin of error argument, John 3:16 seems to have a quite large margin for error.
Lea wrote:
I never heard this stuff growing up. A pastor would have been considered a busybody unless he was specifically asked for counsel. I am a bit alarmed at how much things have changed. How people operated in their marriage was Nobody’s Business unless they asked for counsel.
The first thing my parents would have asked is if the pastor himself was properly submitting if that’s the case..
elastigirl wrote:
Ideally, the elders.
Alan House wrote:
That phrase is in the Bible, but what does that mean to you? How do you understand it?
@ Alan House:
It was a foregone conclusion in the 1st century where most were Loveless arranged marriages. Think of it in that context.
I honestly have no idea what’ leader in the home’ looks like.
Can you spell it out for me in practical application
Alan House wrote:
And I just asked you in a post above, what is your understanding of the portion of the Scripture that refers to husbands being head of the wife?
Also, what do you make of Ephesians 5.21,
“21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Lydia wrote:
When there is a scriptural admonition, it becomes the business of the spiritual overseers to become involved for the good of the couple and the church. They have to answer to Our Lord for their actions or in-actions where the flock is concerned.
Alan House wrote:
Your sentence seems to suggest that male headship could be set aside if the husband has a badly damaged brain. Who is to decide whether the brain is sufficiently damaged? What about damage to other organs? Surely pastors could never come to agreement. And that strikes me as a legalistic and simplistic approach.
It seems to me more sensible and Christian to admit that the healthier member of a married couple should take care of the less healthy one, whether the patient is the husband or wife, and whether the condition lasts a day or a lifetime.
I’ve seen wives in military hospitals, beaming with love and pride, and often dressed to the nines, demonstrating love in every way to their blown-up, busted-up husbands, even when the husbands don’t seem aware of their surroundings. These women radiate strength and power.
I have also seen military men suspend their careers to care for ailing wives.
And yes, there are women military members too, and I know one (healthy) couple in which the husband, a military officer, gave up his career and raised the children, while his military wife went on to a stellar military career.
Male headship doesn’t seem necessary in a Christian marriage. Insistence on it just seems to throw up a lot of road blocks in good times and bad.
Funny memes pertinent to this thread and a few recent ones
(please see #s 3, 8, and possibly 7):
http://www.thethistlette.com/2016/07/02/10-christian-feminist-memes-you-need-in-your-life/
In order to really appreciate # 8 on the list, it helps a little bit if you saw the movie “Mean Girls.”
#7 – helps if you’ve seen the movie “Office Space.”
Daisy wrote:
The question is, how was Kephale viewed in the 1st century context. It was radically freeing. Paul did not use archon.
Lydia wrote:
The wife rinses the soap bubbles off the glasses to the husbands satisfaction?
Ouch. Sorry Lyds. I can’t get that out of my head, and I couldn’t resist!
Alan House wrote:
How about:
“There are going to be times when a husband needs guidance in following and there will be times when a wife needs guidance in leading.”
Alan House wrote:
Yikes!
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
If that theological endorsement includes a marriage hierarchy, there ARE data and research from Univ. of Minnesota. Here’s a start:
https://www.prepare-enrich.com/pe_main_site_content/pdf/research/abuse.pdf
Research abstract: “Spouse Abuse & Marital System Based on Enrich”
Shuji G. Asai and David K.Olson, University of Minnesota
One conclusion: Only 5% of marriages with significant compatibility and shared responsibility experience abuse, compare to 221% of hierarchical marriages—over 4 times more.
Alan House wrote:
Are you under some kind of odd impression that most participants on this blog are complementarian?
Daisy wrote:
My understanding is that God has given the responsibility of household leadership to the husband and has given the wife the responsibility of working together with him under his loving, sacrificial leadership.
Alan House wrote:
The Bible doesn’t say that the husband is a, or “the” leader in a marriage.
Alan House wrote:
Who makes sure the elders are honest, truthful, trustworthy and wise. And if you say ‘those who elect them’ then that means those who elected them can recognize such things and can self-govern.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Great comment! Those who are so quick to emphasize the parallels between Father/Son (in ESS) and husband/wife in Christian marriage miss out on some other opportunities to draw analogies on other controversies, like: 1) ideas about slavery (considered nearly universally to be an inhumane institution, but referenced throughout scripture) and household structures; 2) heliocentricism and evolutionary science. I guess parallels are useful to consider only when convenient for furthering a pre-selected agenda.
Eph. 5:22 actually leaves out “submit” for the wives in the Greek, only using the word to refer to the church. It’s inferred in English translations.
There’s no evidence that being the head means leading or leadership, in fact Paul’s definition of being the head seems to be washing her (feet?) and sacrificing everything. Jesus said leading means being a servant. The idea of leadership are inferring things into Scripture which are not clear from the passage.
Daisy wrote:
LOL! No, but there are degrees of comp(s). I don’t belong to the radical group.
Alan House wrote:
The word “head” as it refers to the husband in Eph does not mean “authority over,” “leader” or “boss.”
As to this:
“None the less, this is not a license for the husband to abuse the family members placed under his headship.”
But that is precisely how abusive husbands use that belief of “husbandly leadership” or “male headship”. And comp churches back them up.
Lydia wrote:
God has His ways of overseeing the overseers.
Alan House wrote:
Who fail at this all the time. As do other positions of leadership in churches. Most of this blog contains case study after case study of them failing.
As but one example, do see this blog’s posts about Village Church:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/?s=village+church&x=17&y=11
Friend wrote:
I’m sure a wife could have a doctor write a medical affidavit to her pastor, so that she can assume headship in a scriptural lay acceptable manner.
; ^ )
Alan House wrote:
The older I get, the less I say No to this sort of thing.
People over 30 especially are old enough and mature enough to make choices for themselves without a bunch of other adults sticking their noses into their affairs and telling them what they think they “should” be doing.
Alan House wrote:
There is supposed to be mutual submission in marriage per the Scriptures from our Lord, not authority (which is from the curse and is a sinful desire).
Daisy wrote:
And when comp churches back up husbands who need discipline and counsel, they are very wrong to do so. Notwithstanding, we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Lydia wrote:
I see what you mean, and I was getting at the same thing by asking him what he thinks it means.
I would assume, seeing what he’s said so far in this thread, he probably regards “head” in the Eph passage to mean something like “husband is the boss man and in authority over the wife, but husband should be a nice, benevolent dictator like boss.”
Alan House wrote:
So, there is something like a papal chain of command?
Daisy wrote:
Well, Daisy, the over thirty people you know that are utterly Spirit-led in every area of life are a very blessed group. Out here in the rest of the world, Christians of all ages need continuing scriptural feeding and care.
Alan House wrote:
The Bible does not refer to the husband as a Leader.
Nancy2 wrote:
LOL! Not exactly. But there are God given roles of responsibility.
Alan House wrote:
Well, even the soft comps, the kind and gentle variety, are promoting codependency for women under the comp teachings, which I blog about here:
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/christian-gender-complementarianism-is-christian-endorsed-codependency-for-women/
Even complementarianism that does not result in a man beating his wife physically is still sexist at its core and creates other harm to a woman and to girls.
Daisy wrote:
Seems clearly inferred by “head”.
Alan House wrote:
Like what?
God does not usually intervene in human affairs, for whatever the reason.
Alan House wrote:
Yes, we should, because both the baby and bath water of complementarianism are wrong and bad for everyone (especially for women), as I explain here:
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/even-warm-and-fuzzy-true-correctly-implemented-gender-complementarianism-is-harmful-to-women-and-its-still-sexism-yes-all-comps-refuting-not-all-comps/
Lydia wrote:
Really! They can answer to the county sheriff and the local judge first.
Alan House wrote:
The Bible says all believers are priests with need of only one high priest. It also says that all believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide them.
Adults don’t need other adults treating them like clueless children, and telling them how to maintain their marriages and so on.
Alan House wrote:
In Genesis, God said it was equally the man and woman’s responsibility to rule over the earth. It doesn’t say that was given to the man only.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, if the idea of the husband being the head of the wife aggravates you, you are certainly not alone. Maybe you have had bad experiences that you attribute to the idea of the husband’s place of leadership in the home. At the same time, Scripture does not change because it is wrongly interpreted. God will hold the wrongful interpreters accountable.
Alan House wrote:
Exactly, you’re assuming that “head” means “leader” as you are reading your cultural and current day understandings of the word back into the text.
Headship Madness: An Introduction to “Headship”
http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/headship-madness-introduction-headship
Alan House wrote:
Please show the Biblical definition of “leader”. Because there is one, and it’s not the definition you are using. You are using the secular world’s definition.
Hint: Go look in Mark 9.
Daisy wrote:
Godly counsel never infers that any adult is a clueless child. Although, some adults, even some you know, act like clueless children.
Alan House wrote:
I thought it was a good question. I think it requires some thoughtful consideration and an examination of some of the cases that TWW has brought here for everyone’s enlightenment. Honestly, some of the mechanics of extreme patriarchy are FAR more ‘hierarchal’ than anything in my Church, except that in my Church, we at least have some collegiality wherein women’s voices are not silenced, but heard and considered as providing a needed perspective.
It was a GOOD question. Not laughing at it, here.
Alan House wrote:
I get the feeling you are trolling myself and others here, and I got that vibe several posts ago.
I don’t care if husbands are the “head” of the wife – what I disagree with is the complementarian interpretation of what that means. And it doesn’t mean “leader.”
What does “headship” mean in Paul? By Lucy Peppiatt
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/02/12/what-does-headship-mean-in-paul-by-lucy-peppiatt/?platform=hootsuite
Alan House wrote:
I don’t need or want other adults directing me on how I should live my life or make choices. Which is what you’re promoting along with so many other Christians who are obsessed with church authority.
Daisy wrote:
In the doctrinal epistles, the husband is responsible for the leadership of the home.
Christiane wrote:
Honestly, and seriously this wife<husband<pastor<elder stuff sounds like umbrella theology with a few more umbrellas thrown in! And, of course, the wives are always down at the mud puddle level!
Alan House wrote:
The meaning given to that small portion of scripture, which has been taken out of its context, has been used in the most hideous ways. You are doing something quite similar with it.
Daisy wrote:
I grew up in SBC churches with little or no church discipline. I am not obsessed with it. It is not pleasant for any who are involved. But, there are clear scriptural reasons why it is necessary for the health of the body.
Bridget wrote:
You and I don’t know each other and you imagine me to be much MUCH more comp than I am. When there is a clear command or admonition in scripture, we cannot just discard it because it is wrongly understood in some quarters.
Alan House wrote:
And there it is.
Church doctrine does not come from God, or Jesus. It all revolves around the letters written by the Apostle Paul when the new churches were having so many problems, and most of the women were either property or prostitutes.
Daisy wrote:
You have my word I am not trolling. Yes, a lot of comp teaching is off the deep end. Nevertheless, it is clear from the doctrinal epistles, that the husband bears the responsibility of leadership in the christian home.
Divorce Minister wrote:
That is an important insight, IMO. Thank you.
Alan House wrote:
There is no “baby” to throw out when you believe Scripture teaches mutual submission and not hierarchial, authoritative, headship.
Alan House wrote:
You’ve inferred all this without actually using any Scripture here today. I question whether you’ve actually studied it, or you just have listened to other people talk about it.
Again, please show where “head” means “leader”. I actually can accept leader, but I disagree with how you are defining leader. The Biblical definition of leader, according to Jesus, means “last”. Not leading in a decision-making sense. Nothing about making decisions, or responsibility, or anything like that. Paul says the responsibility of the husband is to be a sacrifice like Christ, which lines up exactly with Jesus’ definition to be last.
You’ve added corporate-style leadership in to your definition based on the world and some churches’ definition, not the Bible’s.
Alan House wrote:
The implication is yours being the correct interpretation even though it conflicts with so much else taught by Jesus. I am weary of “scripture” being one or two passages.
Nancy2 wrote:
Welllllll, Nancy, that is certainly one of the more novel hermeneutical constructs I have heard recently.
Alan House wrote:
Scripture, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and fellowship are excellent provision for this.
Nancy2 wrote:
In imitation of Our Lord, ‘he’ who would be greater must take the role of a SERVANT, not a dominant master, in the Kingdom of Our Lord
There is only one Master in the Kingdom of Our Lord, to Whom a Christian wife bends her knee. And if her husband is a Christian, he also bends his knee to the same Lord, Who has the Name above all names.
I was surprised to see that Mary Kassian's review of my book was featured here today—–glad there are some other stories as well. I did not agree to meet with Mary even though she offered to fly anywhere so that we could get together. I was skeptical about her over eagerness to spend time with me in person before we interacted through email, and right off the bat she appeared unwilling to agree that domestic abuse is a crime that must be first reported to law enforcement—not to church leaders. But another issue that relates to her review is that she comes across as though she is discovering what a horribly bad person I was/am. Truth be told, I really beat myself up in the book, and rightly so. I confess that I made some terrible mistakes that I will regret the rest of my life. Was it really necessary for her to pile on? And she mentioned nothing about the fact that after I separated from my husband and we went to a complementarian Bible church pastor for counseling, he told me I had done the right thing by not reporting my ex-husband's sexual abuse of our foster daughter. I made sure our foster daughter was transferred to another home, but I failed her miserably (and sinfully). But John Piper even today seems to be saying that submitting to a husband is my first obligation and Mary Kassian would probably say the same thing.
Bill M wrote:
OK. What red-letter scripture is at odds with “the husband is the head of the wife?”
Ruth Tucker wrote:
Oh, Ruth. I’m so sorry you had to go through all of this, and that your foster daughter did as well.
Thank you for writing the book. I mean it from the bottom of my heart. I will pass it on to anyone who might be struggling with something similar.
Alan House wrote:
Maybe He will say they did the best they could with what they understood.
@ Ruth Tucker:
Kudos to you for having the courage to be open with your experiences. Hopefully, your book will prevent other women from making the same or similar mistakes!
Christiane wrote:
Granted. Leadership is clearly taught in the NT as a form of servant-hood.
Alan House wrote:
They are letters written to specific believers, in specific locations, for specific reasons. We can glean much from them if we don’t forget their purpose within their context.
Bridget wrote:
I agree 100%! And scripture gives us clear guidance with reference to certain relationships!
Alan House wrote:
Your presupposition is that your quarter has it right and everyone else is discarding “the” correct meaning?
I’ve been led to believe by experts on the ancient languages and the NT that “head” in that context meant “source”, which would be true to the Genesis narrative, and that one of the reasons that Paul was stressing this was likely because he had to contend with a protofeminist cult that was asserting a false creation narrative in which the woman was the source of the man. There was serious issues with this cult, it was infiltrating the Christian fellowships both in attitude and practice, as we can see from some of the concerns expressed by Paul in his letters to the Corinthians. Really just the flip side of the modern cult of ESS and male dominance.
A problem exists when one who is ignorant of such nuances and committed to a certain agenda takes a word translated out of another language, i.e., “head”, then starts building a theology based upon other uses of that word in the modern language into which the ancient language was translated. Another issue arises out of a stubborn refusal to consider cultural context (i.e., women were essentially chattel in that culture), but of course, ignorance, commitment to agenda and stubbornness are part and parcel of the complementarian perspective.
Bridget wrote:
Agreed, with this proviso, your qualifiers are subject to industrial grade subjectivity.
Alan House wrote:
Here is my problem Alan, there are no qualifiers in your statement. How about “it is clear” to you? Instead I hear you have taken the high ground and asserted the correct understanding and it should be “clear from the doctrinal epistles”, a formulation itself full of hoity toity gobbly gook. Rather than assailing your elevated perch I will just say “nuts”.
Jamie Carter wrote:
What is really subversive is people loving one another and considering the interests of others. That is a message that this selfish, me-centered culture needs to hear. It is an apolitical message that would work for everyone if everyone did it.
Rules never make a good person better. At best, they *may* constrain evil, but they can never promote virtue.
Ruth Tucker wrote:
Hi RUTH,
my goodness, only the powers of darkness would have wanted for you to stay with that monster and to let him continue with the abuse of your foster daughter. In all the ‘cover’ that patriarchy provides sick males, I can only imagine the pain suffered as a result.
May God help you to heal and bring peace to your heart.
@ Law Prof:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/search?q=+Ephesus
Law Prof wrote:
It is a serious thing to negate any scripture. I can always hear, “Oh is THAT what God said?”
softly in the background.
Bill M wrote:
I thought you wanted to engage. Sorry.
Alan House wrote:
YES. And that rules out the ‘domination/subordinate’ pattern that God describes as a result of the sin of Eden.
‘Either to other’ is the traditional model for Christian marriage. Out of ‘the unity of the two’, there cannot emerge the division of a ‘dominant’ authority and a subserviant submissive, no.
Alan House wrote:
Ah, so is it safe to assume that you greet all of your Brothers in Christ with a holy kiss?
Bridget wrote:
My supposition is that the rabid comps take the scriptural command(s) regarding husbands too far.
Ruth Tucker wrote:
If our errors are our greatest teachers, maybe Mary Kassian’s lack of understanding is because she hasn’t made enough mistakes yet. A safe comfortable life often yields undue confidence until you get mugged by reality.
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy, there are some brothers I do kiss. I am guilty of not greeting every one of them with a kiss. If I am remiss in this, it does not change the scriptural command.
Christiane wrote:
This is at odds with clear NT teaching. I do not equate typical comp dogma with scripture.
Alan House wrote:
He isn’t actually called to ‘lead’ his wife. This is an interpretation of head that may or may not be correct. He is very clearly called to love her and love is clearly defined. Maybe preachers should concentrate on all that.
But what about believers submitting to each other. Have you EVER heard a sermon about that? Ever?
Let’s hear one.
For anyone interested in “My Complicity in Sexual Abuse” or “My Story of Rape,” you can go to ruthtucker.com and see where I’ve just posted excerpts from my book Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife.
Alan House wrote:
Ha! We see how well that works out when they are
Handpicked by the pastor to be yes men.
And no women are ever listened to.
Daisy wrote:
There is a grain of truth in that, but the fact is that all of us have done foolish things, and ignoring red flags or explaining them away is just one of the foolish mistakes that people make. The fact is that abusers hide who they are, and they are experts at playing the role of the good man/woman. Playing a role. Where have we heard that before? Once they have love-bombed someone (and most of us are vulnerable because Ego) then they set the hook. The church, certainly, should come alongside the victim, and the church should make sure we know who the real victim is, because abusers are very good at reversing the Victim/Perpetrator role. There’s that word again. Churches like “success” stories, so they will badger the real victim because there is no chance of changing the abuser. They do not have a problem, so why should they change? If everyone would just do what they want when they want it and exactly how they want it this time, then all would be well. If only *she* would submit more graciously. If only *he* would forgive and sacrifice like Jesus.
ishy wrote:
OK, lets start with this. Do you think Moses was the leader of Israel?
Alan House wrote:
They are supposed to be leading by example!!! Not being busy bodies when they aren’t wanted. Sheesh.
Lydia wrote:
They are not always going to get it right. That does not nullify the clear teaching of the NT.
Lea wrote:
If God has chosen them as overseers of a flock, they are not being busybodies when they are correctly carrying loving admonition. Sometimes they will get things wrong. That does not mean the scripture is wrong.
Gram3 wrote:
AMEN!
Lea wrote:
I agree that there are grievous mistakes made. Mistakes that hurt deeply and lastingly. Still, mistakes made by men are not evidence that scripture is wrong.
Alan House wrote:
I’ll take a risk and jump into this conversation. I’ve been wrong on many “clear” issues in the Bible. I once believed in young earth creationism because it is the clear meaning of Genesis. Until I learned that the clear meaning is not as clear as I had been led to believe. I also once believed in penal substitution because the Bible is so clear on this issue. Until I learned that the clear meaning is not as clear as I had been led to believe. I once believed in limited atonement because it’s so clearly taught in the Bible. Until I learned that the clear meaning is not as clear as I had been led to believe. Based on experiences like this, I’m no longer sure how to interpret the “clear” scriptures that prove husbands are the heads or their wives. I do know that there are some basic differences between men and women, for which I am very grateful. After just over 25 years of marriage, I treasure my wife as my best friend and soul mate. I value her now more than ever. We’ve gone through a lot together, and I don’t think we would have made it this far if she had not been such an amazing ally. Have I “led” her all this time? I hope not in the way CBMW so clearly describes.
Alan House wrote:
I believe Jesus changed the definition of “leader” in Mark 9, and intentionally opposed the traditional Jewish definition of leader as seen in the Old Testament. The OT way did not work for Israel. It didn’t even work for Moses. He never got to step for in the promised land because of it.
Alan House wrote:
Hi ALAN,
if you have an interest in ‘the unity of the two’, you may wish to read Section 10 of this letter:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html
Lea wrote:
Those pastors and elders who are especially enamored of comp teaching should DEFINITELY put heavy stress on what loving, sacrificial, servant-leadership looks like. And they should let the husbands know that the pastors and elders are not going to countenance any macho BS that is not nurturing the marriage relationship.
Gram3 wrote:
Somebody owes me a new keyboard!
Nancy2 wrote:
Surely yes indeed.
On a very grim note, this reminds me of a friend, who was married to a young athletic man who was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor. For awhile he was physically strong but very unstable due to the tumor. Because of his cancer, this formerly gentle husband repeatedly r#ped his wife, my friend. She went to clergy to ask permission to take birth control pills so that she would not get pregnant by her violent and dying husband. She was otherwise willing to put up with his attacks, voluntarily taking that on as part of her commitment to him throughout a long, deadly illness. Her concern was only for the safety of any baby she might conceive.
Clergy accused her of cheating on her dying husband and said no to the birth control.
For those keeping score at home, that was one less Christian. My friend got the pill from her doctor.
Christiane wrote:
Hi Christiane, I do NOT wish to offend you or any other Catholic readers. But, in my opinion, the roman pontiff is, himself, at odds with clear NT teaching. (He thinks the same about me.)
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
You didn’t “baptize” your keyboard, did you?!!!
May God block this garbage and those who promote it from ever passing the doors of the women’s shelter where I volunteer.
Do women need to be taught to pay attention to red flags? Yes. A million times yes. I dated an abusive guy my senior year of high school and wish someone had taught me what to look for and not to put up with it.
But for Pete’s sake, abuse is NEVER the fault of the victim! Why, in 2016, in a Christian context, does that even need to be said?!
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Our recommendation… Drinking your favorite beverage and reading our blog along with the commentary should not go together. 😉
ishy wrote:
God had given Moses a clear command. “Speak to The Rock.” In a fit of sinful anger, Moses struck the rock (a second time) and received a terrible judgement from Our Lord. To whom much is given, much is expected. To say God’s program for Israel did not “work” for Moses is not exactly something that one would refer to as being “crystal clear” from scripture.
OK. Old Testament, NOT APPLICABLE. Fine.
Do you think there where any leaders at the Jerusalem conference(s)?
Marie wrote:
AMEN!
Alan House wrote:
Um, dude? If the Bible actually teaches the unhealthy and moronic idea of “loving male headship”, then why wouldn’t we set it aside?
@ Alan House:
I am not offended, ALAN. I don’t know what ‘clear’ NT teaching means, in the sense that many use that word ‘clear’, but I do know that when Christian people of good will respectfully share their perspectives, it increases the chances of a win-win.
As to Francis’ thoughts about you, I wouldn’t know specifically, but he held the door open to people of many denominations AND many traditions when the subject of Christian marriage was being discussed. That is because he wanted the collegial shared wisdom of the Body of Christ on a subject of importance to all Christian people. I suspect, he may not view you at all in the same way you view him. In any case, it was John Paul II who wrote the letter. It’s section 10 is much referred to in discussions involving ‘he shall rule over you’ and ‘the unity of the two’ as opposing one another in spirit. Have a great weekend and thanks for responding.
ishy wrote:
I am 100% opposed to the “pastor as CEO” leadership paradigm exemplified by Andy Stanley, Mark Driscoll, and the other big names and wannabes trained by Peter Drucker. There is no place for that kind of thinking in the NT church.
Deb Willi wrote:
Yes, absolutely. There are many studies correlating beliefs about marriage with rates of domestic abuse.
Christiane wrote:
Very glad you did not take offence. My definition of clear NT teaching is when a 4th, 5th, or 6th grader can read a passage in context and give a simple explanation of what it means. I do not believe (and I doubt you do either)that the scriptures were written mainly for Rhodes scholars.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
If you are able to discern which teachings of scripture are unhealthy and moronic, I fear for you.
Alan House wrote:
Scripture, please. Paul knew the words for “leader” and “authority” and didn’t use either one in regard to husbands in marriage. He did, however, mention mutual submission (Eph 5:21) and mutual authority in 1 Cor. 7.
@ Ruth Tucker:
Thanks so much for taking time out of your Fourth of July weekend to comment here. I am so grateful for the bold stand you took in speakng out via your book. What a great title!
Mary Kassian is nothing more than a mouthpiece for her complementarian cronies. I have never considered her to be an authority on anything, and I never will.
What concerns me greatly is the promotion of ‘Biblical’ counseling in many Neo-Cal churches as a way to solve every problem. Those who are being abused must notify the proper authorities FIRST! I hope Biblical counseling is not being used in lieu of contacting the authorities.
Ken F wrote:
Hi Ken, thanks for your good input. I am NOT a apologist for CBMW and I think they are way overboard on some things. Your testimony about the value of your wife speaks volumes as to why you are together and happy 25yrs later. Congratulations! To me, “clear” is when a 4th, 5th, or 6th grader can read it in context and give a simple explanation of what it means. If it takes advanced degrees to figure it out, I start getting a little skeptical because I do not believe the scriptures were written to Rhodes scholars.
Victorious wrote:
Does Jesus have authority over and give leadership to Christians today? Do you see what scripture is coming up next?
Alan House wrote:
Hi ALAN, on the topics of ‘context’ and the NT, I can offer this insight:
” The New Testament lies hidden in the Old
and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.”
(Augustine)
I am a great admirer of this phrase that was removed from the Baptist Faith & Message ’63:
” The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”
The word ‘clear’ is related to ‘the light’. Christ opens our minds to understand the Word of God, without which there is only the darkness.
Alan House wrote:
Both extremes are problems. I am suspicious of simplistic answers.
@ Bill M:
Or she hasn’t confessed her mistakes….
@ Ruth Tucker:
Love you, Ruth. Kassian did a number on you and, unless she apologizes, she is on my “rather a jerk” list.
@ Alan House:
Then you believe the earth is 6000 years old and women should wear head coverings?
Alan House wrote:
Except again, Eph 5 makes no mention of authority and/or leadership of Jesus. It does, however, speak of His “giving Himself up.” Sacrificial love is the example for husbands. To read leadership and/or authority into that is to assume Paul didn’t know the words to use to clearly express those “responsibilities.”
He referenced Jesus who “gave” (G3860)Himself….
paradidōmi (G3860) Strong’s
From G3844 and G1325; to surrender, that is, yield up
paradidōmi
Thayer Definition:
1) to give into the hands (of another)
2) to give over into (one’s) power or use
2a) to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage
Daisy wrote:
Take Deborah in the Old Testament, for instance. She was a judge of Israel and led Israel into battle. The comps say Deborah does not count, because God would have used a man, but had no choice but to use a woman.
This really shows the bad logic and low view of God the comps have. So God was unable to raise up a man to judge instead of Deborah?!? That’s some shaky theological ground right there. Not to mention that as Calvinists, they should see her leadership as God’s direct will. This is why you almost never see these guys preach in Judges.
I don’t get where in Scripture the husband has “responsibility for household leadership.”
1 Peter 3:7 calls the husband and wife “joint-heirs” (sygklēronomos — one who obtains something assigned to oneself with others; joint participant; participant in common; heir together; heir with, etc.)
Ephesians 3:6 calls the Gentiles “joint-heirs” as well.
The term speaks of equal/shared responsibility to me.
I think of the example of joint executors of an estate. One does not exercise more responsibility or authority than the other(s).
This may sound like a strange question, but what kind of man is married to Mary Kassian? I bet she wears the pants in that household? He probably say ” yes sweety” continually as Mary passively aggressively dominates the relationship.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Like institutions. Companies. We seem to have forgotten the contractural nature of some associations and relationships.
Ken F wrote:
And rightfully so.
trs wrote:
Hi trs, so how do you interpret “the husband is the head of the wife” or is this superseded
by the scripture portions you pointed out?
Alan House wrote:
Alan, you seem not to appreciate that what is “clear” is often influenced by cultural context. It is the “clear” teaching of scripture that slavery is acceptable. Besides Doug Wilson, very few Christians would agree with that today. So, if we can acknowledge that we’ve chosen as a church to reject slavery as an outdated cultural reality, why can we not do the same with patriarchy?
Alan House wrote:
How does God choose them? I thought the believers chose from among themselves those to lead.
I am wondering what denomination the lady in the original anecdote was a part of. Going to the elders for permission to marry is something that tends to characterize cults. My sense is that as a young Christian she was lead astray by false teaching which exacerbated the situation.
Victorious wrote:
Hi Victorious, you are using your exegetical tools well! So, the meaning of Eph 5:22-24 is in question in your estimation?
Bridget wrote:
That is an excellent point!
Kemi wrote:
The scriptures do not forbid slavery. They do give explicit instructions and a warning to slave owners. I am not an apologist for slavery. The scriptures simply do not forbid it.
Alan House wrote:
Hi ALAN,
actually, I believe that the NT was written down by those who sat at the feet of Our Lord, or those who sat at the feet of the Apostles;
and for much of the early Church preceding the writings, there was an oral teaching passed down and shared with reverence …. the idea of RECEIVING intact the deposit of faith from the Apostles and PASSING IT DOWN to those who followed is something I can understand.
I do know that even small children respond to love and to that which is ‘of Christ’; but I also know that there are those whose preaching of sacred Scripture is done in such a way as to bring children to tears (I’m thinking ‘Jesus Camp’, that horrible documentary, where I cannot get the image of that little girl’s tears out of my mind.)
I’m a teacher. I once advocated for child of thirteen, the daughter of a Southern Baptist minister, whom I tutored in math. One day, the child asked me, “Mrs. Smith, do you think dinosaurs lived at the same time as people?” Well, knowing her background, I told her we needed to ask her father to join the conversation. Turns out her father said that a science teacher at the public middle school was upsetting his daughter by being a strident agnostic evolutionist. He did not respect any faith traditions. This teacher had placed some of his students ‘in the middle’ of that which no child can or should be asked to cope with, so I went with the father to the teacher and told him I thought what he was doing was harmful. He didn’t get it. But extremists never do. I tried. The father tried. The girl ended up passing her science. Children should never be put ‘in the middle’ of adult disagreements. In their simplicity, the love of God IS understood maybe more perfectly than we know. But scripture? Is best to leave the young out of the discussion, for their sake, yes.
NJ wrote:
I did some googling which isn’t always reliable, and the only references I saw were Jehovah Witnesses. I do not know if some very strict Protestant sects might also have this practice of asking permission of church elders for marriage. There are some really unusual Christian sects out there.
Alan House wrote:
The questions are, What does it mean to be the head, and is the statement descriptive or prescriptive? I assume you are getting this from 1 Corinthians 11, but then you are treading into ESS territory because by analogy God would be the authority over Christ.
“Alan House wrote:
Ummmm. NO. First, you have not established that there is an admonition, you have not established the nature and specifics of said admonition, and therefore, the “spiritual overseers” have no warrant to interfere in the way that a couple orders their marriage.
Alan House wrote:
Your interpretation of Scripture is not the same thing as Scripture or “God has said.”
People disagreeing with your interpretation of Scripture is not the same thing as disagreeing with Scripture itself.
Alan said:
1. But Jesus called them aside and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,… (Matthew 20)
2. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Eph 5.21)
3. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, male nor female in Christ Jesus (Gal 3.28)
————-
To name but a few.
The only time the Bible says that husbands have authority over wives, it says wives have that same authority over husbands:
The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. (1 Cor 7.4)
Alan House wrote:
Any form of comp takes biblical commentary about husbands too far.
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/even-warm-and-fuzzy-true-correctly-implemented-gender-complementarianism-is-harmful-to-women-and-its-still-sexism-yes-all-comps-refuting-not-all-comps/
Alan House wrote:
You’re not under obligation to kiss other men in greeting today because that command was intended only for the culture and time period for which it was written.
That is not really here nor there, because it’s your interpretation of “head” from Ephesians that is in debate, not necessarily whether it’s timeless.
“Head” in Ephesians it not denoting leadership or authority over the wife.
Alan House wrote:
There are no degrees in hierarchy. The deceptively named “Complementarianism” is an absolutely hierarchical system. One is the leader/boss/authority and the other is the follower/submitter. So, I do not understand the differentiation you are making between “radical” and your version.
Ruth Tucker wrote:
Thank you for sharing your stories.
It’s frustrating to me that so many complementarians want to keep ignoring the issues you raise.
http://http://ruthtucker.com/
Alan House wrote:
Well, let’s first agree that there is no place in scripture that commands or even suggests that husbands have authority over their wives. There is a mutual authority of both husbands and wives as I mentioned in 1 Cor. 7.
Rather than extracting a single word or even a single verse from it’s context….my understanding of Eph. 5 in context is:
Paul addresses the benefits and virtue of being filled with the Spirit as opposed to being filled with wine. He lists a “string of participles” of behaviors that all flow out of being filled with the Spirit.
* addressing one another in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs
* singing and
* making melodies
* giving thanks always to God
* submitting to one another
They are not imperatives (or we would be commanded to sing to one another) but are the gracious, natural, behaviors that flow from being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Wives are part of the congregation being addressed as are husbands, singles, teens, etc. The submission mentioned to wives is no different than that mentioned to all other spirit-filled believers. Nor is the husband’s love for his wife different than the love of all believers to one another. The way that love is expressed between husbands and wives differentiates it from a “brotherly or sisterly” love, but it’s the same agape love.
Through the entire chapter, there is no mention of leadership, authority, or any gender specific behavior not enjoined upon all believers to one another.
Alan House wrote:
What is the baby and what is the bathwater?
Alan House wrote:
How does God choose them? I thought the believers chose from among themselves those to lead.Alan House wrote:
And how else can we glean from Scripture since we don’t have the original texts.
Dee wrote:
I believe the Genesis account of creation. I believe a “yom” that had a morning and an evening was a 24hr period. Hebrews states “By faith [that is, with an inherent trust and enduring confidence in the power, wisdom and goodness of God] we understand that the worlds (universe, ages) were framed and created [formed, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose] by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Anthropology has nothing to do with faith and is not science, per se. There is not even one instance in the fossil record of one species ever being other than the one species that it always was. Variations within species, very very many. Within species. With regard to head covering, at the end of his remarks, Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) issues no directive at all. I feel a little pigeon-holing going on here! LOL.
Alan House wrote:
For which purpose the Holy Spirit was given and indwells every believer. I do not need a pup with an M.Div. telling me how to live a godly life and have a successful marriage. Let them prove themselves with their lives first.
@ Gram3:
I have a feeling that if Pat Robertson (or one of his daughters) ended up finding themselves married to an abuser, he would insist on mercy, not letter of the law.
Alan House wrote:
Please provide a citation from the actual text of the Bible for this assertion. You will find no mention of roles anywhere. What you actually find are real admonitions to imitate Christ, to be conformed to his image, and to love and serve one another. Put down Grudem and Piper and pick up a Bible.
Bridget wrote:
Hi, do I understand you to say that you believe the current (major) translations are corrupt?
Just some thoughts on the general discussion concerning ‘clear meaning of Scripture’ and leadership of man.
* Concerning it being clear enough that a 4th, 5th, or 6th grade could understand….well, none of the Scriptures were written in English, whether King James or modern or anywhere in between. So, I think that generally, a child from that era who could actually read and could read the Scriptures in their original language – maybe. But keep in mind that even through the millenia who did read and study in the original language would disagree and argue about meaning. Peter wrote in one if his letters that Paul’s writing were difficult to understand…
* Just going to throw this out there, knowing it will likely stir the pot…does anyone belive, when Paul wrote that Scripture was God inspired, that he was including in the definition of Scripture his own letters?
* It seems to me that all translations bear the bias of the translators, else they would all agree lockstep. Recognizing this seems to me to make it imperative that those who woould teach should study out these things. Paul did write that teachers would bear extra scrutiny and burden of resposibilty.
* The above said, the passage in Ephesians 5 (as has been pointed out by several other commenters) does not use the Greek word normally translated “head” as in “leader,” but rather “head” as in “source.” The kind of source used when referring to the headwaters of a river – the source – where it came from. So, woman’s source is man (she came out of man), the church’s source is Christ (it came out of Christ), Christ’s source is God (Christ came out of God). Not even about leadership.
* In Genesis 3, what God said thlo Eve wad not a curse. It was a warning of what the results would be if she sought direction, leadership, turned her will over to a man. Said man would “lord it over” her. And history is replete with this warning being played out over and over to the point that some men seem to think the warning is actually how it’s meant to be. I think, based on what I see in God’s warning, it would be foolish for a woman to seek in a man the leadership that belongs to God.
* I am seeing what I believe to be an example of black and white thinking that will not allow for the possibilties of being wrong. I have done that, myself. Still guard against it as best I can. From my own experience only, the idea of stepping into the concept that the Bible was not as black and white as I was taught scared the crud out of me (and in response to that, angered me) because I had placed my faith in a specific doctrinal interpretation of those books and letters (a created thing) rather than first and foremost in God and his Christ (the Creator). The shift in placing my faith in God instead of a doctrine or interpretation allows me to hold the interpretation of these sacred writings with a much more open hand, open to Him correcting my understanding. It has been a much less stressful and fearful way to live…
Just my thoughts.
Alan House wrote:
Maybe your understanding of Scripture is wrong.
Alan House wrote:
I think you meant implied, and your inference is not necessarily the same thing as the intention of the Holy Spirit when he inspired the actual text of the Bible. How do you know that the Holy Spirit was implying “leader” when he inspired “head” which is literally the thing on top of your body. Every other meaning is metaphorical. You cannot get by merely asserting your inference as a fact. Evidence, please.
@ Ken F:
If the Bible was as clear as Alan House thinks it is, we wouldn’t have stuff like this (by a guy who was once a Christian but who is now, unless I’m mistaken, agnostic):
“Christian Diversity” (channel)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC46_vlosspJ-yLFqEK9j8LQ
Gram3 wrote:
Hi Gram3, I got a big laugh over your supposition that I am deep into Bros Piper and Grudem. While I am very, very aware of their doctrinal peculiarities, I differ from them very substantially. For those who insist on badges, my badge would say “Arminian!” Now, do I understand you to state that the NT is devoid of references or teachings on roles of responsibility or leadership?
Gram3 wrote:
Everybody has already asked this, and he just repeats the same piece of that verse to define it.
Alan House wrote:
Alan, if mutual submission aggravates you, you are certainly not alone. Maybe you have had bad experiences that you attribute to the idea of a woman having a place of leadership in the home. At the same time, Scripture does not change because it is wrongly interpreted. And you have wrongly interpreted it, or, at the very least, have not supported your interpretation.
Alan House wrote:
“Yom” has 58 different meanings in Hebrew including “a long time”. I look at the mountains and know that they are more than 6,000 years old. I come from a family of scientists, including women, who worked on the teams of Nobel Prize winning researchers. Those relatives were also Christians. They didn’t believe in this drivel being espoused by these uneducated pups with their bible degrees who can’t do real scholarship.
ishy wrote:
I don’t think Moses was really the leader of Israel: God was.
When the Israelites asked for a human king, God warned them against the idea.
It looks like it’s human nature to crave authority figures, to look to another person to make all the choices.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
No, no, no the most fitting response to Gram3 on that is,
“Weeeeellll… isn’t that special?” 🙂
Alan House wrote:
You keep saying the same thing. Where is this command you keep talking about?
Daisy wrote:
The scriptures are not clear to those who have made a firm, considered decision to rebel against God. Some Christians chose not to abide in the vine.
Christiane wrote:
It means anything that disagrees with Alan H’s interpretation, I suspect. 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
Eph 5:22-24
@ Alan House:
You seem to be advocating for the same thing, though.
@ Jeannette Altes:
Please excuse the many typos. I am using my phone, and though I did proof, the window is small and I am tired….. 😉
Alan House wrote:
Hi ALAN,
I would challenge your thinking on this. Consider this perspective:
“”…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth”.
Alan House wrote:
Yes, it is. It is an equally serious thing to add to what God has said. So, I could turn your snarky reference right back at you, considering that you have not cited textual support for your bare assertion that there is a hierarchy in marriage *or* the church.
Daisy wrote:
Clear is when a literate but not highly educated person can understand it.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
I don’t think this contains stats, but it’s pertinent:
A Deadly Formula For Violence
http://www.soencouragement.org/deadlyformula.htm
Snippets:
——————
Several years ago, while working as coordinator of a treatment program for abusive men, I keenly observed that almost thirty percent of the men I worked with indicated that they were active Christians. In my interview with these Christian men, it was shocking to discover that for all of them abuse began or escalated when they became Christians (when they were adults), or when their parents became Christians (when they were children). This brings me to the deadly formula. This deadly formula I have discovered through countless hours of counseling, interviews, and working with families in crisis is:
When rigid traditional family values are combined with rigid traditional religious beliefs,
there is always abuse.
———–
(Earlier on that same page, he explains some of those values include male headship, wives being expected to submit to husbands)
Gram3 wrote:
To wit: Eph 5:22-24
Christiane wrote:
I believe that Alan is using the word ‘clear’ meaning of Scripture the same way the NeoCalvinists also use ‘Biblical’. In short, ‘do it our way’ and ‘only’ our way. If we don’t than we are: 1) muddied in our thinking, and 2) un-Biblical.
Alan House wrote:
No, in Alan House speak, it means “if it agrees with Alan’s interpretation.”
You’ve made that clear in your posts and attitude over the course of this thread.
Daisy wrote:
Why do the heathen rage?
Alan House wrote:
Verse 22 does not contain the word submit, but it was added (supposedly for clarification). It follows verse 21 “submitting one to another”.
Alan House wrote:
Wow. That is really one of the most arrogant statements I’ve heard in a long time. If someone disagrees with your inferred interpretation of the Bible, it is because they had made a considered decision to rebel against God? Actually, it was my heartfelt desire not to rebel against God that has lead me to question the doctrines and interpretations of men, even my own. Just wow…
Alan House wrote:
You’re going to arrive at some fruit loop conclusions reading the biblical text in that manner, because I’d say most 4th graders don’t familiarize themselves about the cultures and eras in which the biblical text was written.
1 Cor 13-
“When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.”
Alan House wrote:
So do I, but I my interpretation is very different from yours because I believe the earth and universe are as old as they appear. So when two believers have very different interpretations, who decides which one is right? John Piper? The Pope? It used to be ecumenical councils, but now it turns out that the ecumenical movement is evil (depending on who you talk to).
I’ve found one of the best ways to bolster my own argument is to do my best to understand the opposing viewpoint. Sometimes I find that the opposing side has a better argument. That’s why I am no longer a young-earth creationist. It’s off topic, but here is a great site for learning about the other side: http://www.godandscience.org/.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Yeah, well, you already owe me several… 🙂
Daisy wrote:
I would prefer to deal with specifics from the scriptures rather than descend into ad hominems. But I enjoy interacting with you and others.
@ Victorious:
Alan, did you read my estimation of the entire Eph. 5 chapter? Just wondering since you asked….
Alan House wrote:
No place in the New Testament are husbands given authority over wives, outside of the mutual clause in 1 Cor 7, where it says wives also have authorities over their husbands.
Alan House wrote:
Well, then, what need have we of teachers? If all that the Bible says is crystal clear to a 9yo, then let’s throw out all the commentaries. And Systematic Theologies.
I repent for feeding the troll.
trs wrote:
There’s a verse that says women are to be in charge of the household:
“So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.” (1 Tim 5)
Daisy wrote:
They probably do not and, as a result, are less tempted to reject scriptural truth on the basis of the shifting sands of human culture.
Deb wrote:
Yes! The immature idealogues in the NoutheticOnlyist churches cannot be trusted to deal with real-life emergencies.
Alan House wrote:
There is a huge difference between being able to understand a passage and not being able to misunderstand a passage. A better standard would be “Clear is when a literate but not highly educated person cannot misunderstand it.” Many Bible passages meet this standard. But certainly not all. Probably not even most.
Alan House wrote:
I perceive that you are going to commit a funky type of illegitimate totality transfer. Not everything that is true of Christ’s relationship to the Church is true of a husband’s relationship to his wife.
Gram3 wrote:
It is not a given that commentaries and systematic theologies accurately reflect or correctly explain, or properly systematize scripture. God could have given us a book of Systematic Theology, He did not.
@ Alan House
Respectfully, are you Calvary Chapel?
Ken F wrote:
Scripture can certainly be grossly misunderstood. Especially by unbelievers. I am of the opinion that Our Lord WANTED the common people to understand His Word.
Alan House wrote:
At a 4th grade level? Where does the Bible say that it was written at the 4th grade level?
Muff Potter wrote:
Hi Muff, one of my dearest friends in this world is a CC pastor in west Texas. No, my letter is at a SBC church in Leander, Texas. I currently attend a small (25+/-) church in SE Ohio. Non-denom. I help our people lift their voices in song to The Lord. I love to discuss the place of hymns in christian worship. But not as much as I love to sing them! BTW, CC is not arminian in that they do hold to eternal security.
Alan House wrote (though he was addressing Gram3 here, I believe):
As defined by you in regards specifically to marriage, yes.
That God may or may not have ordained leaders or leadership roles over the nation of Israel or some other context does not prove that he did so within marriages.
Alan House wrote:
You are not addressing my point about cultural context. Do we take everything in the Bible as prescriptive instead of descriptive?
ishy wrote:
He is really stuck on thinking of the word “Head” in the NT to equal “Leader” or “Leadership.”
Ken F wrote:
Well, faith comes by hearing and hearing by The Word of God and Jesus did say to let the little children come unto me.
Kemi wrote:
Hopefully we take it in such a way that we apprehend what The Spirit is saying thru His Word.
Alan House wrote:
No. Even Christians who choose to “abide in the vine” disagree with each other over what the biblical text means…
-Which is one of several things that causes some of them to leave the faith.
They don’t leave the faith and THEN spot all the disagreements Christians have over the text.
Alan House wrote:
Leadership in the actual text of the Bible is a function of maturity in the faith. As I have said before, Hebrews 13 comes *after* Hebrews 11. In other words, show me someone who has done Hebrews 11 before he/she wants me to “obey” them (assuming merely for the sake of argument that Hebrews 13 is commanding obedience to an elder.)
Leadership is not a function of having a degree from a seminary. Nor an ordination by a clerical body. And certainly not by repeating, “God made me the leader, and I am the boss of you!” Oh, and “God is going to get you if you do not do what I say!” Those attitudes are evidence of immaturity and the need for more teaching. They certainly are not attitudes of anyone who should be anywhere near being in a leadership position. Regrettably, those are increasingly common, in my experience.
Personally, when I hear ‘clear teaching’, I also realize this phrase is often used to shore up a specific sharply-defined interpretation of sacred Scripture, an interpretation held dear by a group within the whole Church.
And often, this group would not acknowledge that the whole Church may view the issue in question as a non-essential doctrine. If the whole Church feels an issue is non-essential, then all manner of diverse opinions are permitted as ‘okay’ for discussion, dialogue, agreement, disagreement, as long as the conversation is held respectfully.
Daisy wrote:
OK, fair enough. You contend that Our Lord has given us no instructions with regard to leadership within the marriage relationship. Correct?
Alan House wrote:
That doesn’t say anything about husbands being leaders to wives.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:21-24
You also left out v. 21 which reads,
“21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
ishy wrote:
I discovered that I am late to the party…Repeat the mantra often enough and emphatically enough and it becomes true!
Alan House wrote:
That doesn’t support your position, however. It doesn’t say that husbands are to lead wives, or that they have authority over them.
And you continue to ignore this part which comes right before:
“21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Alan House wrote:
I don’t see how your question is relevant to the information I posted.
Christiane wrote:
I agree. I hope you do not feel disrespected. Marriage roles are secondary or tertiary to me.
@ Alan House:
No ad hominems by me, I’m calling it like I see it.
Which is:
You equate YOUR interpretation of the Bible to being the Bible itself.
Alan House wrote:
and the fruit of this understanding would be shown forth through charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, etc.;
but NOT in abuse, or ‘the soap bubble’ attempt to humiliate a wife, or the many ways people have revealed how much the patriarchal system has injured them profoundly, some still reeling from the abuse
Yes, the Holy Spirit’s work can be perceived in this world, if we know the signs
Alan House wrote:
Alan, I will give you this – you are a master at avoiding the question. In which case honest debate is fruitless. I’m out.
Alan House wrote:
So, agree with you or we are lost? Sounds a lot like Greg Gilbert and the CBMW Crew, including Ms. Mary Kassian, who think Female Subordination is a gospel imperative.
Alan House wrote:
It’s a pretty standard practice, even among conservative Christian scholars, to study the culture and time periods in which the Bible was first written to help shed light on what the Bible means.
That practice is not “rejecting scriptural truth on the basis of the shifting sands of human culture.”
You’re starting to sound a lot like Flag Ken by now, with his “using that approach is extra-biblical and liberal”
– me: “But Flag Ken, conservative biblical scholars have been using this approach for eons. It’s the liberals who don’t like it.”
Ken F wrote:
Alan,
So what did people do before there were Bibles? You realize that they weren’t around, weren’t printed, and that it hadn’t even been put together. Could they even believe in God? How? How did God manage that for hundreds of years?
Christiane wrote:
Excellent point. I see very little fruit coming from complementary an theology.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Wow, that was a loooooooooooong jump to the conclusion you just made! Olympic material!
Alan House wrote:
But you sure behave like your commentary and interpretation of the Bible is the best, final, and only way to understand the Bible.
Velour wrote:
The book of Acts speaks directly to this.
Alan House wrote:
And those common people frequently disagree with each other over what it means.
But you seem to feel as though you and you alone (or whatever denomination you belong to) has the Bible completely figured out.
Alan House wrote:
Where is the imperative? There is a participle and a comparison. But there is no imperative.
Alan House wrote:
There is no hierarchy commanded in those verses.
Daisy wrote:
To me, there is Scripture and there is everything that is NOT scripture. I approach all NOT scripture with my mind alert and hopefully enabled by The Holy Spirit. The scriptures are ALWAYS the best commentary on Scripture.
Alan House wrote:
The Bible doesn’t agree with your view of the Bible. LOL.
2 Peter 3:15-16
…Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Muff Potter wrote:
I think he is trolling!
Daisy wrote:
Ronald Reagan used to say, “There you go again!” Let’s try to stay on the specifics of scripture, fair enough?
Alan House wrote:
That doesn’t clear things up at all.
Plenty of Holy Spirit led Christians still disagree with each other over what the Bible means in places.
@ Alan House:
Did you purposely miss the point, or was I not clear? If a 9yo can understand the Biblical texts, then why do we need teachers? Or books? Just let everyone read and judge for themselves! That seems like a recipe for hermeneutical chaos.
mot wrote:
Not trolling. Getting more education!
Alan House wrote:
I don’t see it in there no, certainly not in any way that assumes that the Husband is
Boss / Gets Final Say So in Decisions or Arguments / Authority
and the Wife is the subordinate who takes orders from the husband.
Gram3 wrote:
Our Lord has given us the gifts of pastors and teachers for good reason.
@ Alan House:
Thanks Alan. As you can see we’re quite an eclectic bunch here at TWW. Folks here have a wide array of beliefs and non-beliefs.
The Bible to me is like no other holy book on the planet if only for its claims about the person of Messiah, it has no equal. Sadly though and in my opinion it has been used to try and support agendas that not all people of faith can agree upon.
Alan House wrote:
And the Scriptures are prone to being horribly misunderstood even by Christians who are “abiding in the vine.” Which is why further study (even going to extra biblical study material) may help.
Alan House wrote:
I am on topic.
Alan House wrote:
Does not come across that way to me. Seems to me you have maneuvered the blog subject to different issues.
This thread has really turned into the Alan House Show.
I may be dropping out, unless it gets back to discussing how some Reformed Christian complementarians are starting to wake up to the impact of complementarianism on abusive marriages, and related.
Deb wrote:
Biblical counselors should not counsel any abuse victim ever! They have know s idea how to approach and deal with abuse in adults and they are even worse for children.
Victorious wrote:
Shhh. Comp men hate that verse!
My view on scripture interpretation is simple. Anything that deviates from Jesus command to love God and others is garbage.
Alan House wrote:
No, it doesn’t say that. At all.
Daisy wrote:
Ironically, the relevance is in the way the CBMWs use flawgic and distraction to derail the real conversation. Alan provided the perfect illustration of how this works.
Dee wrote:
I had the same thought. She’s not a nice person, according to my read of her response. She needs to work on that instead of trying to hand out bad advice.
I’m just going to make an observation: the more exclamation points a person uses, the less seriously I’m able to take their argument. I don’t care how “clear” (exclamation point!) they think it is, they clearly seem to be compensating for some insecurity. Otherwise, why would they have to put on a show of communicating so forcefully?
@ Alan House:
There is no such thing as a “headship”. That is like saying armship or legship. The leg moved us from point A to B so it is over the arm.
Daisy wrote:
OK. I think your understanding is at odds with what most conservative denominations and groups teach, namely, that Our Lord has given us in scripture instructions with regard to leadership and order in the christian home.
Lydia wrote:
OK. Leadership, then.
Hi ALAN,
There is a classic question I’d like to bring up:
what is the role of God-given conscience in a marriage where a wife ‘submits’ graciously to her husband;
but the time comes when the husband requests that of the wife which she KNOWS is against her conscience?
If you don’t mind responding, I would like to hear your opinion, and if not, no problem here.
Alan House wrote:
You are familiar with the typical 1st Century marriage? I assume you wear a thobe, too? And your wife won’t ever change your Depends.
Josh wrote:
Did I put a ! after “clear?” If I did and it seemed obnoxious, I am sorry.
Lydia wrote:
Remember that Ronald Regan quote.
Alan House wrote:
If the Bible is so clearly understandable to 4th graders, what would that reason be? It certainly would not be to teach anyone older than about 10. If you look at some churches, I guess the reason is to dominate, control, and to cover up for abusers. I’m guessing not.
Alan House wrote:
Can you answer my question please instead of making a statement about my belief regarding Scripture.
@ Alan House:
“God has His ways of overseeing the overseers.”
+++++++++++++++++++
I can think of many instances where the overseers made horrible choices, destroying human lives. Did God have his way there?
as i see it, you are gambling with human lives in order to practice your doctrine.
Christiane wrote:
She should respectfully explain to the husband what offends her conscience and immediately appeal to the pastor/elders/deacons (whatever) if he resists and insists on his way. Or she should ask him to accompany her to meet with the pastor/elders/deacons (whatever) where the question can be deliberated on. If the husband resists this, he is definitely not being Spirit-led.
elastigirl wrote:
Many overseers have missed God. They will be held responsible. God is not deaf to the cries of those who have been hurt and damaged.
ishy wrote:
Yeah. I’m kind of over it.
@ Alan House:
“God will hold the wrongful interpreters accountable.”
+++++++++++++++++++
which may include you 😮
@ Alan House:
And ALAN, if the pastor and the deacon side with the husband,
does the wife’s conscience take precedence?
Or is it silenced by the men?
Bridget wrote:
You seem to imply that our present day scriptures are something less than authoritative. Your opinion about this will determine my reply to you.
Alan House wrote:
Ken F. made this excellent post and points on June 3rd here:
“Let me see if I understand Ware’s logic. Woman was made from man, which makes woman lower than man. Man was made from dirt, which makes man lower than dirt? No, wait, that won’t work. Ok, lets try this. Man was made after all the plants and animals, which means man has dominion over all of them. Woman was made after man, which means woman has dominion over man. No, wait, that doesn’t work either. What’s a poor complementarian to do?”
Another line of thought of complementarians takes the curse God placed on the woman as the norm: “And he will rule over you” becomes a normative mantra to support the their view that men are supposed to rule over women.
So let’s apply that same normative mantra to men from the other curses:
“In toil you will eat of [the ground] All the days of your life.” That means men are only allowed to eat from what they personally produce from the field. And only if it involves personal toiling. No more restaurants. No more grocery stores. No more pubs. No more home-cooked meals. I guess it even means no fasting because men have to eat on all days.
“And you will eat the plants of the field.” Same as above, but also say goodbye to all meat and dairy products. That will put a damper on potlucks. But on the bright side, it would force men to drink black coffee, which is the only manly way to drink it.
“By the sweat of your face You will eat bread.” No more air conditioning – all bread must be eaten while sweating from the face. This could also mean that it is sinful to live in cool climates, unless one can find a hot place to eat bread. I suppose one could create rules about whether or not sweating is mandatory while eating non-bread foods.
If we think that it’s ok to resist these other curses, then why would we in any way want to retain the curse of men ruling over women? I am so glad that my wife is strong enough to not need me to dominate her like that.”
So do you only eat bread while you’re sweating?
Did you grow all of the produce that you ate?
Have you ever used air conditioning (might be a sin, you know)?
Rebellion?
Alan House wrote:
Who has rebelled, Alan? A different perspective on portions of Scripture does not equal rebellion.
You are starting to be insulting to people who differ from your view.
Ken F wrote:
This discussion is reminding me of all the funny puns in Amos I think which are impossible to understand unless you know Hebrew and the history of the time…etc
Christiane wrote:
God help them if they make her a victim. God will require it at their hands. Next I would say request the pastor/elders/deacons (whatever) WIVES be brought into the discussion.
This relates to the OP:
The Polite Abuser
https://pastordaveonline.org/2016/06/30/a-word-about-polite-abusers/
Snippets:
——–
Not all abuse evidences itself in bruises, and not all abusers manifest their desire for control with fists. Domestic abuse is often hard for those on the outside to see
… Often we think of this in terms of physical domineering, intimidation, and active aggression. There is, to be sure, plenty of that occurring in homes all across the world. Yet, power and control can be attained through a variety of means, many of which may be deemed “respectable.”
… This type of abuse manifests commonly within Christian homes, where certain theological views are held in high esteem. Homes where “male headship” is celebrated find that abuse can easily be justified.
While this view is not a cause of abuse, it can be a good cover for abusers. In such homes three common forms of polite abuse may be seen: parenting a spouse, spiritual manipulation, and false humility.
Lea wrote:
I don’t. Might be helpful to learn!
Daisy wrote:
Agreed.
Alan House wrote:
Well if you know anything about the politics behind the interpreting of Bible translations you will know this to be true. The ESV/comp-promoting translators conveniently changed the wording where Paul said that one woman (singular) was not to teach one man (singular) error, that she was to learn properly, to the plural (women) aren’t to teach.
That’s not the issue Paul was addressing.
On and on it goes.
Even the King James translators put in English words that had to do with authority and obedience because after all their boss was a king. But the words they used aren’t in the original texts.
Lydia wrote:
LOL! Love this!
Alan House wrote:
You keep quoting those verses out of the context Paul set them in.
Bridget wrote:
Maybe not being clear enough! I meant to indicate folks who completely and utterly reject God’s Person and His authority to rule his creation.
I have tried to talk before about the difference between run of the mill fundamentalism and hard core fundamentalism. When it gets to reducing scripture to the elementary school level, that is hard core something or other. I am still trying to reconcile the concepts that the bible can be understood by a literate elementary school child but we have been given preachers and teachers to-to what-fill in the blanks for the children? So I guess ‘understood’ is in the eye of the beholder. I am still not sure if it is only the children who need the preachers and teachers or whether it is the adults who are reading and thinking at an elementary level, but for sure if the preachers and teachers are not needed for adults (because scripture is so clear) that would certainly do wonders for the church budget bottom line.
Or maybe the preachers and teachers are there to be sure that the ‘clear’ meaning of scripture is accurately understood ‘correctly’ according to the particular theologies of various groups, lest anybody not end up being totally clear about something.
IHTH (Thanks, Nick)
Alan House wrote:
If she was married to someone reasonable enough to peacefully go to the elders there probably wouldn’t be a problem to begin with. More likely, she will be physically or emotionally assaulted before it ever goes down the theoretical path you suggest. Get real.
Bridget wrote:
I’m still trying to UNDERSTAND Alan’s view. I’m not sure I can. But I appreciate him trying to explain in as much as he is willing to try.
We don’t get very far in comprehending when ad hominem (sp?) and ‘being offended’ gets started, but I thought maybe there might be some chance of seeing INTO that which, once better understood, can offer better insight. Emotions are important. But so is the need to TRY to sort out where people are at. And why. That can prove valuable especially on a blog that studies patterns and trends, yes.
Bridget wrote:
Fair enough. Help me understand the context. I’m serious. I am suspect of explanations of context that make scriptures mean something different than the face value. But I am very open to your explanation. Honestly.
Christiane wrote:
THANKS!
Lydia wrote:
Lydia I always picture a head flying off in a spaceship like an alien!
I don’t like all these made up words. They’re only used to be sneaky.
Alan House wrote:
Alan, the people here, and egalitarians in general, have a different interpretation than you do. Our interpretation is based on putting verses back into the context of their paragraph, chapter, and book, and then relating it all back to Christ’s teachings because, and I’m sure you’ll agree, all teachings must go back to Christ. That’s why we see the Ephesian verses as Paul giving an example of mutual submission: loving your neighbor as yourself. Just because this belief is different than the complementarian belief does not make us rebels against God.
One more thought: when a man says that God has put men in charge of the church and the home, what he’s really saying is that God has placed HIM in charge. How convenient for the man. This says something about his character, and it’s not good.
@ Ruth Tucker:
“But another issue that relates to her review is that she comes across as though she is discovering what a horribly bad person I was/am. Truth be told, I really beat myself up in the book, and rightly so.”
+++++++++++
perhaps she didn’t even read your book. perhaps she was responding to excerpts. or was given some excerpts, by someone to whom she submits, and told to put something together to bolster current talking points.
Ken F wrote:
What they do in practice is go to the elders, elders are snowed because they value men above women, then they blame the wife for everything.
So that’s not working out so well.
Mark wrote:
Is this Mr. Mary Kassian?:
http://files.stablerack.com/WebFiles/70860/20140614-15-QR.pdf
Church bulletin from 2014:
“Heartland welcomes new member: Brent Kassian”
Two of the church’s pastors are women!
Ken F wrote:
Often in this thread, examples are skewed toward the worst case. That is not particularly unusual given the whole point of TWW. At the same time, it seems to me that is it very easy to say that any reasonable effort is going to meet with disaster, period. If a person is already quite non-comp, every effort to suggest a way forward is certainly going to go down the toilet with a flourish.
Lea wrote:
If I was a woman I would not feel good at all about meeting with the pastor, elders, etc. The whole scenario seems immediately intimidating to the women.
Alan House wrote:
So you know what the whole point of TWW is? Tell us, please.
Alan House wrote:
And ALAN, when all is done, in the way you suggest, then what are the wife’s ultimate responsibilities if all of the men are telling her that she must obey her husband? I ask this because I think it may be critical to the dignity of the wife as a human person before God. But then I may see ‘conscience’ in a different way than you define it. My definition being, this: “”Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”
ALAN, already, you can understand how I would not be able to act morally against my conscience, in that I cannot hand over the responsibility for I do in this world. I can’t WILLINGLY engage in anything for which any other person(s) would have to stand before God in judgement. It doesn’t work for me, no.
Alan House wrote:
I only bring it up because I personally know people who have gone through what I described. The best case is theoretical. The worst case is real.
Lea wrote:
Mistakes are made. Wrongs are committed. Humans are involved. Nevertheless, God has given us directions concerning marriage and we ignore them at our peril. If a person is already fully committed to the idea that God has not given us directions regarding christian marriage, then, of course, all possible examples will end in abject tragedy.
Ken F wrote:
Not exactly. You never hear of the good cases handled lovingly and successfully. But you do hear about the bad ones. I think hearing about the bad ones is a very good thing.
Alan House wrote:
Tell me your experience in rolling up your sleeves and helping such a person recover. I speak from personal experience, not from a theoretical platform. May God deal graciously with your foolishness.
Alan House wrote:
But upon our consciences, God has inscribed His directions and we may not abrogate those directions. They lead us away from doing evil and towards doing good. We may not to evil in order that good may come.
Alan House wrote:
Ok. I’m over this because it’s like a brick wall, but I have to say this is a classic straw man. Men are called to love their wives. Love is patient, kind etc but especially it is not self seeking.
This thread begin talking about abuse. That is already a worst case scenario. Churches with you philosophy do not handle abuse In a loving BIBlICAL manner because they are so focused on authority that they leave off love.
My prescription is they drop all references to minor stuff and focus on love and just for kicks, admit that believers are to submit to each other. And maybe explore what that means out of an authoritarian framework, which is not biblical at all as we are to be servants, lead by example and not lord it over others like the Gentiles.
Christiane wrote:
Good quote about conscience. Christiane, scripture says (Heb 13:17) the elders are responsible to God for your spiritual health.
My life has improved and my sanity restored since I began scrolling past Alan H’s posts, and I’ve not been engaging. 🙂
My neighbors have already begun shooting off fireworks tonight, and July 4th is not until Monday.
The neighbors go bonkers with the fireworks until midnight, and this will last every night until after the fourth (until their huge stash runs out, which can be days). This has been happening every year I’ve lived here for several years.
I don’t know how I’m going to get any sleep for the next several days (or tonight).
Alan House wrote:
They are accountable, not responsible. Even a 4th grader can understand what that passage means. They are accountable for how they handle reports of abuse. May they wield that accountablity well.
Lea wrote:
You don’t know nearly enough about me to know what my philosophy is or isn’t. And your assertion/generalization is way, WAY too broad. We would do better at discussing specifics, wouldn’t we?
Alan House wrote:
This is what Paul wrote to Timothy about scripture:
“16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
But, of course, this text was not in Paul’s mind when he referred to “scripture.”
And again, you assume all scripture was translated perfectly as intended over the past 2000 years.
Ken F wrote:
They are not responsible, but they are accountable? Please expand.
@ Alan House:
You have an agenda with your posts. What is the core truth you are trying to communicate to us?
Alan House wrote:
Look up the word definitions.
@ Alan House:
Victoria has given you some excellent context.
Bridget wrote:
OK. I seem to understand that you feel that our present day translations have been tainted with some amount of corruption (in translation) over the last 2000 years with the result that they are not necessarily authoritative with regard to every subject they seem to address. Fair enough?
Alan House wrote:
Hi ALAN,
but in my faith, a person’s conscience is seen as the place where a person meets alone with God. In that way, a person’s conscience is a sanctuary and it is a private place.
Not to say that someone is not to consider the teaching of the Church, or the circumstances of their own reality, or abstain from praying intently for guidance …. all those things are important. But in the end, a person’s moral conscience IS the ultimate guide for any decision we make that we will answer for before God.
‘Authority’ may teach, it may offer guidance, and give direction, but for a Christian person, no ‘authority’ can ever take the place of his OR HER own moral conscience.
Samuel Clemens, who wrote under the name of ‘Mark Twain’ once cautioned people, this:
“re-examine all you have been told in school or church or in any book, and dismiss whatever insults your own soul”
Perhaps he had a insight that might prove useful in our own time,
when we are pulled this-way and that by so many who would decide for us too many things,
and if we let them decide for us, our own hearts must ‘look away’.
Jerome wrote:
I doubt it, but who knows…
Ken F wrote:
Agreed. Proposition: Because the comp guys make mistakes (some grievous) in trying to help couples benefit from God’s directions with regard to christian marriage DOES NOT MEAN that
1. God has not given instructions.
2. God’s instructions were for another culture and not ours.
3. Because they make mistakes God’s instructions can be ignored.
Yes, they go overboard. They go overboard on sovereignty. They know God’s secret decrees!
All that does NOT mean we get to trash a scriptural teaching given for our good.
Anytime someone’s argument (about an instruction from Our Heavenly Father) amounts to “Oh yeah, is THAT what God REALLY said?” your spiritual antennae should go up about ten feet. Why, because you are probably about to hear some 24-karat heresy.
Alan House wrote:
How old are you?
” I was young and now am old(er). I have been under three pastors who cared for my soul. I have been under three who were indifferent, and have been under four who were harmful.Thank God that my husband and I had discernment to figure it out, Together. One elder board my husband was on tried to force him out because they said “he was the conscience of the elder board.” He eventually resigned because it was impacting our time on our ministry. After we left the elder board fired all the women . The Sunday School Director, The children’s Ministry director. The choir director. The church lasted about a year after that, then fell apart. My husband actually got a phone call from one of the elders asking forgiveness and telling him he was right.@ Christiane:
Lea wrote:
I had to go tend to a canner full of tomatoes. Then I took a nap. Looks like I didn’t miss much, huh?
Nancy2 wrote:
Yep, have to give Alan full credit for derailing this post. Maybe that was his intent.
Nancy2 wrote:
I was playing with nephews and nieces most of the afternoon…
Oh man! I just remembered I forgot to grab a home grown tomato while I was there! Boo.
mot wrote:
I think it was. I noticed that he argued much more forcefully with the women than with the men. Not very manly.
Christiane wrote:
Appreciate your response. With absolutely no intent to offend you in any way, I question the wisdom of judging scripture according to a philosophical recipe advanced by Samuel Clemens. He is noted for many things, christian spiritual insight is not one of them.
@ Leslie:
LESLIE, that is so sad to read. I think a lot gets lost when people turn away from what is core to our human dignity. And moral ‘conscience’ is most certainly core.
I don’t doubt the word ‘conscience’ is seen differently or maybe emphasized differently in diverse Christian faith communities,
but conscience itself goes deeper than our divisions right into what makes us ‘in the image of God’. He gave us the privilege of ‘choosing’ life. The gift of choosing might have been a curse, if it were not for the blessing of our God-given moral consciences.
I’m sorry you have suffered, all those good people suffered. I like that the elder called to say he was sorry and was wrong. Some lessons come at a very great cost in human pain. Thank you for sharing.
mot wrote:
I hate to be uncharitable but when you read it all In a clump it does seem like it.
But he gave his vague goals for the things he wants to school us on while insisting I don’t understand him and need to get into specifics. If he didn’t give specifics in the 100 posts above, I can’t imagine we will be getting anything great now…
Ken F wrote:
ZIP! There went another ad hominem!
@ Alan House:
ALAN, I’m not offended. I’ve appreciated the communication, which has been difficult I know, but still some good may come from it.
@ Gram3:
Alan House wrote:
“My definition of clear NT teaching is when a 4th, 5th, or 6th grader can read a passage in context and give a simple explanation of what it means.”
Gram3 wrote: “Well, then, what need have we of teachers? If all that the Bible says is crystal clear to a 9yo, then let’s throw out all the commentaries. And Systematic Theologies.”
+++++++++++++++
so, professional christians, then, too!
i guess perhaps hold on to children’s sunday school teachers, but after that, we’re well on our way to taking money out of the church equation!
@ Ken F:
I don’t know how old he is, but he continues to equate his understanding of the Bible with the Bible itself.
He also engages in the “No True Comp” fallacy, which presumes complementarianism is still true though mis-practiced by some, and argues this, in spite of all the mountains of rotten fruit complementarianism has produced, which this blog and others has documented.
As I said above, even true, correctly implemented complementarianism is faulty at the core and is not taught in the Bible, not just the extreme of faulty expressions of complementarianism.
Compelementarians are the ones who ask, “Yea, Hath God said?,” and are the ones who question God’s word.
Complementarians engage in eisegesis, where they will state falsehoods, such as “head” in Ephesians means “leader” or that God assigns men to leadership roles over women.
God’s word clearly teaches that men and women are equal in role and in worth… not just in worth.
Ken F wrote:
I’ll get medicare in December!
Alan House wrote:
So do I. but I do not believe that it spells out 6 24 hour days or that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Secondly, anthropology has nothing to do with the determining the age of the earth.
Also, you do not appear too have investigated the fossil record. Google transitional species and do some reading. There are a boat load. The old “no transitional species” argument is a canard believed by those who follow the AIG formula. Do some reading on your own and don’t believe everything you hear.
Your *the Bible was written so a 4th grader could understand it” is limited and naive. A 4-5th grader might understand general concepts such as the Cross and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, a child of that age is still a concrete thinker. Allegory, simile, poetic license, etc. is not fully comprehended by the average child of that age. That means much of the Bible is still not understandable to the 4th grader.
I still remember someone telling me that the huge pearl in the gate in heaven was an actual pearl in an actual gate like a gate here on earth. That individual was approaching Revelation like a 4th grader and had no understanding of the imagery involved in that description. That is not wise.
You are not understanding my questions of you. I am not pigeonholing you, i am attempting to prove to you that far more than a 4th grade education is needed to understand things like the cultural mores of the ancients, etc. are to be understood. You cannot get that by a cold reading of Scripture as a 4th grader.
As for slavery, there is no question that the Bible is opposed to the enslavement of people. If you do not believe that then you must believe that men can have lots and lots of wives like David, Saul etc. Slavery is the result of disobedience and has no place in the kingdom. It is a sin to be repented of.
Your answers to my questions prove that you do not approach the Bible as a 4th grader; that the Bible is not written so a 4th grader can understand it more than in a broad sense; and that you need to do some further studies on the fossil record since you are approaching it as a 4th grader. You have been told something is true and you believe it.
In seeing how you approached these questions, I am convinced that you have a rudimentary understanding of the the issues surrounding headship, leadership, subordination etc. But you are right in one respect. We need scholars and theologians to help us all in the understanding of things like the word *yom* which has something on the order of 59 meanings.
And in choosing those theologians and scholars who can help us, we will find them all over the place on issues like headship, leadership, creation, head coverings and the issue of slavery.
Now, back to regularly scheduled debating. I am heading to bed.
Alan House wrote:
I don’t take back my words. You’ve done a great job in diverting the conversation and arguing with women over meaningless details. I don’t consider that to be manly. It has nothing to do with character assassination.
@ Alan House:
Could you please keep on the discussion regarding the misuse of theology in order to promote abuse of women? Once a comment thread becomes about a person who is commenting rather than the subject at hand, that person needs to either bow out gracefully or discuss the subject at hand. I appreciate your cooperation.
@ dee:
I’d like to engage with you on several of your statements. Could we do that by email?
Thanks.
dee wrote:
With respect, I am certainly not making it about me. I am positing that just because some groups misuse portions of scripture that result in occasions of abuse toward women that is not sufficient reason to discount the scriptural instruction itself.
Deb wrote:
Aren’t Alliance churches traditionally Wesleyan or Arminian in their theology?
It would be good to examine the manly men of outspoken complementarian women. If a submissive woman speaks at a church isnt her husband supposed to speak for her, like “Mary says?” I didnt think women should be allowed to speak in church according to complementarian/patriarchal interpretation. They are supposed to remain silent and ask their husbands theological questions at home.
I am being sarcastic, but if you interpret certain passages literally and without much context what are you left with? An interpretation way to the right of everyone here including the pickers and choosers who call themselves complementarian.
Alan House wrote:
I’m going against my better judgement by replying to this, but.
There are more reasons to reject complementarianism than just that one (though that one suffices).
Other reasons include but are not limited to the following:
1. The Bible does not teach complementarianism as it is taught by complementarians.
2. Complementarianism is the same thing as codependency, and the Bible advises against Christians, male and female, from being codependent.
Read more on point 2 here:
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/even-warm-and-fuzzy-true-correctly-implemented-gender-complementarianism-is-harmful-to-women-and-its-still-sexism-yes-all-comps-refuting-not-all-comps/
Alan House wrote:
Alan,
Are you aware of the fact that Dee has a lot on her plate right now? She is caring for sick, elderly family members, one of whom is not doing very well at all.
Daisy wrote:
I completely agree. I don’t agree that God’s Word has nothing to say about differences in a husband’s role and and wife’s role.
Alan House wrote:
I didn’t say anything about roles or differences. The Bible doesn’t teach what you say it teaches about men being leaders. You are questioning God’s word something that makes my antenna go ten feet up.
Alan House wrote:
That is what you are accusing people of but that is not what the majority of people are doing. They are saying that interpretations vary among even the best of scholars. There is no sin in submitting to one another. There is no sin because husband and wife make all decisions together.
Jerome wrote:
Deb wrote:
Mary Kassian’s daughter-in-law blogs about teaching young adults at the same church:
http://www.amandakassian.com/why-we-need-to-hear-gods-voice/
Daisy wrote:
Fair enough. I am not honestly aware that any of my posts have questioned God’s Word on any point. But I am open to be corrected.
Bridget wrote:
Granted. There is a spiritual problem when anyone says that God’s Word does NOT give instructions touching leadership and submission to christian husbands and wives. A textbook case of “Yea, hath God said?”
Alan House wrote:
You are familiar with the typical 1st Century marriage? I assume you wear a thobe, too? And your wife won’t ever change your Depends. Alan House wrote:
Servant. Mutuality.
Alan House wrote:
So then, the Bible is not clear enough for a 9yo to comprehend. Maybe the insights of language specialists, historical and cultural specialists are helpful. Maybe the things that we think are plain or clear appear plain and clear because we do not know enough to know that what the text plainly says may not mean what we think it means. For example, Paul tells Timothy that women will be saved by childbearing. That is what the text plainly says. We know that it does not mean what it says because of other data from the Bible.
Alan House wrote:
Tapping back into say, if Jesus died on the cross so I could be free from the law (Rms 8:2), why should I submit to the yoke of these “instructions.” I have been given the Holy Spirit to lead me, is it better to obey God or man? IMHO, a huge problem with Complementarian doctrine is how it demotes the role of the Holy Spirit in a women’s life and elevates legalistic obedience to men.
Alan House wrote:
No, it is more a case that many do not understand Paul or the historical context. Or, they use Paul to be on top. They need a pecking order. They don’t understand our Lord at all
Gram3 wrote:
I do not presently understand that scripture. But I am not willing to go so far as to say it does not mean what is says.
@ Alan House:
Yea, God hath said barren women cannot be saved.
Alan House wrote:
Saying that “head” means leader and that complementarianism is taught in the Bible and shouldn’t be done away with just because some abuse their wives in its name, is questioning God’s word. Totally.
It’s like when I read that stuff the serpent in the garden is whispering in my ear, “Yea, Hath God said?”
Lydia wrote:
He can’t even define leadership except by using the word leadership or headship, nor exegete them from Scripture. We’ve been around and around this circle. It’s like a roundabout with no exits.
I believe he’s a troll.
Lydia wrote:
Many believe that The Spirit of Our Lord breathed His own words thru the various authors of scripture. Secondly, do I understand you to posit that Paul contradicts Jesus or visa versa?
Alan House wrote:
But this is coming from the guy that says the Bible is so clear that even 4th and 5th graders can understand it.
Gram3 wrote:
And more importantly, the translators changed the meaning of the text. The original text contains a noun – The Childbearing [referencing our salvation through Christ] – and was changed to a verb “childbearing”. Huge difference.
@Alan House
What is your point, man?
Daisy wrote:
OK. When scripture declares that Christ is the head of the man, what relational conclusions should we draw from that?
Velour wrote:
Ah, it certainly does! “tes teknogonias” Thanks for showing me that!
Alan House wrote:
I’ve already said what I think about that in several posts above and gave you links to other articles that cite alternative interpretations.
Head does not mean “Leader.”
Velour wrote:
To claim to be more learned than the recent translation committees of the various modern translations is a big, BIG claim. You understand, of course, you are making that claim?
Daisy wrote:
Does that leave us with the conclusion that Jesus is not the leader of christian men. I am NOT trying to be absurd here. Given your comment, this is a honest and legitimate question.
Alan House wrote:
How many kids do I have to have to make it?
Daisy wrote:
The humour of your statement is undeniable. Actually you generalized my comments to include all of scripture.
Gram3 wrote:
Sounds like a rhetorical question.
Lydia wrote:
That is not my conclusion. I don’t have a conclusion.
I was taught these controversial Scripture (the Epistles) passages by complementarians of GARBC/ Conservative Baptist background. When they were teaching me the Epistles they taught the cultural context. Some of the Epistles were written for Greeks. Greek women wore veils and lived lives very separated from men, my friends informed me. So much of the Epistles took into account a Greek cultural milieu because this was the audience for whom Paul was writing the Epistles.
Kemi wrote:
The instructions to which you refer are part of Our Lord’s instructions to His church given thru scripture. (NT scripture, at that.)
@ Alan House:
Did the spirit of the Lord breathe on the monk Paganino who translated “turning” to desire in the 1300’s?
Did the Spirit of the Lord add “symbol of” in 1 Corin 11?
It is a long long list of such over a Millenia.
Kemi wrote:
Comp teaching is pushed into error in many churches.
Lydia wrote:
Your comment leads me to believe that you are convinced that there is a long list of corruptions in today’s translations?
Alan House wrote:
And the Law Jesus freed us from was given by God in the OT. Law is law. Please address my point about how complementarians resolve the work of the Holy Spirit in men vs women.
Alan House wrote:
Sorry, I thought it was simple: God hath said.
Kemi wrote:
Do I understand you to assert that Jesus has freed us from obeying NT scriptures with regard to how husbands and wives relate to one another in marriage?
Alan House wrote:
I would not venture to attempt any explanation for any number of dogmatic teachings proceeding from the calvinista/comp camp. I often wonder if we are reading the same scriptures.
siteseer wrote:
This is how they roll. Faux unity. “We reached out and they blew us off. See they are mean. Not us”.
Comp is not good for men either. Alan is proving that here.
Mutuality is of our Lord.
Alan House wrote:
I would not venture to attempt any explanation for any number of dogmatic teachings proceeding from the calvinista/comp camp. I often wonder if we are reading the same scriptures.
Alan House wrote:
But , the Lord hath said, right?
Lydia wrote:
It is truly remarkable how many off the wall ideas have been presented over the centuries as something God has said! Thankfully, Our Heavenly Father has put the things he is actually saying in a Book and given Christians the indwelling Holy Spirit to help them understand and APPLY the information found therein.
Alan House wrote:
They changed it from a noun to a verb. Read the original texts. It’s not what I did. It’s what they did. And there is NO justification for what they did.
Velour wrote:
And yes, I will proudly stand my ground. Because what they did is heresy.
Velour wrote:
Where would a person go to see those?
Alan House wrote:
What that means is the question.
Alan House wrote:
My Lord’s instructions to me:
Galatians 5:1
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
I suggest also a thorough reading of Romans and Galatians.
Alan House wrote:
Umm. No. Sorry. Nice try.
Alan House wrote:
Ha ha. Yeah, right.
Alan House wrote:
Take your choice… https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Timothy%202:15
siteseer wrote:
Now I’m confused. The majority of them agree with what you are calling a corruption.
Lydia wrote:
I have come to appreciate the Quaker’s concept of collective intelligence. The need to listen and respect others, especially your spouse, will keep you from many errors. Relying on the understanding of one man will severely cripple either a group or a marriage. If the woman is only to be submissive it won’t turn out best for either person.
I grew up with the concepts of “leadership” but have found it unworkable or badly broken for groups or within my marriage, I wish I had understood sooner and saved a lot of grief. It has only been these last few years that I have seen how a lot of what I had accepted as “biblical” was only bubbles that disintegrate when closely examined. On occasions I have experienced the joy of hearing someone articulate a principle that I had only begun to adhere to but didn’t quite understand yet. Several of these occasions have come from reading here and I am thankful for the input on this particular subject over this last year.
Alan House wrote:
Online.
I am really quite shocked that you come here and lecture all of us about the texts and don’t do your own research.
Velour wrote:
Do I understand you to indicate the autographs of the NT are available online?
Alan House wrote:
Alan, I mean no disrespect, but all of your comments have to do with trying to bring people under subjugation to laws, rules, and human authority.
Jesus has freed us from rules and bondage. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”
“This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
I do not need you or any elders to re-define or control the word ‘love’ for me. God’s Spirit is more than capable.
Alan House wrote:
I am not the person who spoke of corruption, but I don’t disagree that there have been some corruptions by zealous translators at times.
I posted the list so anyone can see that there are a number of different ways the verse has been translated. It is not cut and dried nor is the translation universal.
You can see the Mounce reverse interlinear here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A15&version=MOUNCE
siteseer wrote:
So to be clear, I think I hear you saying that the NT, in general, and the doctrinal epistles, in particular, amount to laws, rules, and human authority?
siteseer wrote:
No disrespect taken at all. Thanks for engaging.
siteseer wrote:
OK. Would I be correct in saying that you consider the Mounce interlinear to be something akin to or, in fact, the actual “originals?”
Alan House wrote:
Yet Paul also describes the wife as the ‘oikedespoteo’ the house despot! (See 1 Tim 5.14 https://titus2keeper.wordpress.com/gods-calling-to-women/biblical-word-study-why-use-a-lexicon/oikedespoteo-head-of-the-household/). This indicates that Paul recognizes the responsibility and ability of women to lead within their household.
Paul’s use of ‘head’ for the husband and ‘body’ for the wife is to indicate their unity and togetherness, not the husband’s dominance. Instead, he calls on the husband to lay down his privileges for his wife and to lift her up. This would have been extremely countercultural in Roman times.
Alan House wrote:
To be clear, I believe that that is how you see them.
@ Alan House:
This is not a trick question. I have a very good reason for asking it.
siteseer wrote:
OK. Can you refer me to posts that reflect the basis of your assertion? Fair enough?
Alan House wrote:
???
How do you conduct Biblical research? What tools do you use?
I am dismayed that you claim to say that the texts are clear, unchanged, etc.
and that simple things like the noun The Childbearing (referring to Jesus’ birth
and salvation through Him) has been changed to a verb “childbearing”.
On its surface it should strike anyone with a shred of critical thinking skills as not being clear, that something is up, that research should be done. And when that research is done you will find that it was a noun in the texts, not the verb that is used in the English translations. And then it becomes “clear” (to use your term).
Estelle wrote:
I don’t think I have ever advocated “dominance.” Now, THERE is an emotionally charged word!
Velour wrote:
The originals are properly referred to as the “autographs.” Again, you are asserting that you are able to exercise a greater degree of exegetical skill than the best modern translation committees. I think that is open to doubt. No offense intended.
Hello siteseer, could you kindly confirm whether or not you regard the Mounce Reverse Interlinear as your “go to” accurate NT translation? Thanks!
Alan House wrote:
I listed the Mounce as another different translation; it doesn’t come up with the other list, I believe. I am not a student of Greek or of the original manuscripts, I believe you meant to address Velour?
Alan House wrote:
Hence my question.
Alan House wrote:
In the list of translations that I linked, some translation committees have indeed translated it in the way Velour quoted, as well as a couple other ways (some of which make no logical sense, but that’s another story…)
Alan House wrote:
Perhaps it would be more beneficial if you were to read back over them yourself and see if you can see it. Fair enough?
siteseer wrote:
Again, you refer me to Mounce as an authority, correct?
siteseer wrote:
I am familiar with them. No offence meant.
siteseer, this is not a trick question. Either you do or do not consider Mounce dependable and authoritative. Right?
@ Alan House:
Gram3 says, “Paul tells Timothy that women will be saved by childbearing. That is what the text plainly says. We know that it does not mean what it says because of other data from the Bible.”
Alan House says, “I do not presently understand that scripture. But I am not willing to go so far as to say it does not mean what is says.”
+++++++++++++
Alan House believes it is possible that women will be saved by childbearing.
elastigirl wrote:
Not a careful restatement of what I indicated.
Velour wrote:
A good question. Generally, scripture. Scripture is always the best commentary on scripture.
__
“Jesus Is Calling Out To You?”
hmmm…
Can you hear Him?
Can you hear Him calling?
Can you hear Him calling out your name?
Longing to hear ‘your’ voice?
huh?
Jesus once said:
In My Father’s house there are many rooms,
That I have gone to prepare a place for you,
That those who believe in Me shall never die,
As eternal life is awaiting all those who believe in Me,
What?
Jesus also said, The world will pass away, but my words shall not.
Skreeeeeeeeeetch !
God so loved you that He gave His only Son Jesus, that if you will believe in Him, you shall receive eternal life.
No foolin’ !
As His Invitation is one of grace and is ‘open’ freely to ‘all’, you get to decide.
When you are on your knees, you got no place to go, get up, and trust in Jesus, He will surely show you the way to go,
Get Up!
love just because…
The heavens are open, and the Son of God is standing at the right hand of God,
Today, all things can become ‘new’…
ATB
Sopy
___
intermission: Mike And The Mechanics – “Get Up! ”
🙂
—
@ Bill M:
“I grew up with the concepts of “leadership” but have found it unworkable or badly broken for groups or within my marriage,…”
+++++++++++++++
leadership schmeadership…. how i am sick of the words lead, leading, leadership which litter the discourse of christian men. as to why the fixation, that would make for interesting discussion.
to the point, Bill M, i have much respect for you (& hope my little opener there didn’t offend). i’m curious — what concepts of leadership did you grow up with? how have you found them unworkable / broken for groups?
(no question that it was unworkable for marriage — what dumbbutt came up with the idea that women as soon as they are married have a need to be led?? gimme a break)
elastigirl wrote:
OK, great! What other data, (from the scriptures) in particular?
@ Alan House:
Gram3 says, “Paul tells Timothy that women will be saved by childbearing. That is what the text plainly says. We know that it does not mean what it says because of other data from the Bible.”
Alan House says, “I do not presently understand that scripture. But I am not willing to go so far as to say it does not mean what is says.”
+++++++++++++
Alan House believes it is possible that ‘women will be saved by childbearing’ means what it says.
@ Alan House:
that was Gram3’s point. she’ll field your question much more eloquently than i could.
**
(Revised comment)
__
“Jesus Is Calling Out To You?”
hmmm…
Can you hear Him?
Can you hear Him calling?
Can you hear Him calling out your name?
Longing to hear ‘your’ voice?
huh?
Jesus once said:
In My Father’s house there are many rooms,
That I have gone to prepare a place for you,
That those who believe in Me shall never die,
As eternal life is awaiting all those who believe in Me,
What?
Jesus also said, The world will pass away, but my words shall not.
Skreeeeeeeeeetch !
God so loved you that He gave His only Son Jesus, that if you will believe in Him, you shall receive eternal life.
No foolin’ !
As His Invitation is one of grace and is ‘open’ freely to ‘all’, you get to decide.
When you are on your knees, you got no place to go, get up, and trust in Jesus, He will surely show you the way to go,
Get Up!
love just because…
The heavens are open, and the Son of God is standing at the right hand of God,
Today, all things can become ‘new’…
ATB
Sopy
___
intermission: Mike And The Mechanics – “Get Up! ”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1T0hHFDjgDGk7_x3XYMTe3oPCMhr_szK¶ms=EAEYATgBSAFYBGILZXA3Vzg5SV9WX2doAg%253D%253D&v=hcLf3EfbVHY&mode=NORMAL
🙂
—
@ Alan House:
“We know that it does not mean what it says because of other data from the Bible.”–Gram3
Alan House: “OK, great! What other data, (from the scriptures) in particular?”
+++++++++++++
ok…. ok….. i’ll take a stab at it. just because i’m totally peeved that it is even considered necessary.
jesus died thoroughly in a big way on the cross. i mean he didn’t just pass away. didn’t get the flu, it moved into pneumonia, and he died. he was whipped to shreds, beaten, thorn spikes jammed into his head, and then all the other horrible things i can’t bring myself to articulate. he went the distance. it was so shattering even the earth shook, rocks cracked open, apparently souls of dead and buried people were awakened according to eye witnesses, and the curtain dividing God’s presence from people was torn from top to bottom.
and it doesn’t end there. he was dead. dead dead dead. as dead as the pencil lying on our kitchen table, lifeless piece of wood. but he went the distance and atomic blasted death itself into nothingness as he came to. (and then of course he just got up, folded his funeral linen in a neat pile, and went on his way)
you mean to tell me that after all that, i am required to subject myself to some kind of Pauline talmud, and that while men remain saved I as a woman am not saved but rather am required to get pregnant and give birth?
remember, Alan, you said plain reading, and that you are not willing to go so far as to say it does not mean what is says.
“Mary Kassian, not surprisingly, recently wrote a negative review of Ruth Tucker’s book Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife.”
++++++++++++++++
back to this…. why did Mary Kassian even write this review? for the publicity? to get her name back in complementarian lights? it was obnoxious. mean. just a gratuitous unsolicited helping of ‘sucks to be you’/’too bad you’re not more like me’ gospel. with some added mean kicks with pointy-toed heels, to enhance her piece.
what is it, Mary, have you exchanged compassion for the sake of your platform and publicity? is it really so important that you have to kick the wounds of your ideological opponent like that?
(i tend to think she was solicited by others to generate something agenda-driven. a mouthpiece for rent.)
Mary Kassian, i hope you respond to concerns expressed here.
It seems to me that Alan House’s interpretation of the text is the most logical one and fits the overall thrust of the passage. I know that others hold the phrase ” the childbearing” to relate to the Incarnation but I don’t think it makes overall sense in that context. (And it may surprise some readers that to learn that Philip Ryken thinks it could be a valid interpretation of the verse in his commentary on 1 Timothy). I agree with the older view expressed this in Jamieson, Fausset and Brown – ” 15. be saved in childbearing–Greek, “in (literally, ‘through’) (her, literally, ‘the’) child-bearing.” Through, or by, is often so used to express not the means of her salvation, but the circumstances AMIDST which it has place. Thus 1Co 3:15, “He . . . shall be saved: yet so as by (literally, ‘through,’ that is, amidst) fire”: in spite of the fiery ordeal which he has necessarily to pass through, he shall be saved. So here, “In spite of the trial of childbearing which she passes through (as her portion of the curse, Ge 3:16, ‘in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children’), she shall be saved.” Moreover, I think it is implied indirectly that the very curse will be turned into a condition favorable to her salvation, by her faithfully performing her part in doing and suffering what God has assigned to her, namely, child-bearing and home duties, her sphere, as distinguished from public teaching, which is not hers, but man’s (1Ti 2:11, 12). In this home sphere, not ordinarily in one of active duty for advancing the kingdom of God, which contradicts the position assigned to her by God, she will be saved on the same terms as all others, namely, by living faith. Some think that there is a reference to the Incarnation “through THE child-bearing” (Greek), the bearing of the child Jesus. Doubtless this is the ground of women’s child-bearing in general becoming to them a blessing, instead of a curse; just as in the original prophecy (Ge 3:15, 16) the promise of “the Seed of the woman” (the Saviour) stands in closest connection with the woman’s being doomed to “sorrow” in “bringing forth children,” her very child-bearing, though in sorrow, being the function assigned to her by God whereby the Saviour was born. This may be an ulterior reference of the Holy Spirit in this verse; but the primary reference required by the context is the one above given. “She shall be saved ([though] with childbearing),” that is, though suffering her part of the primeval curse in childbearing; just as a man shall be saved, though having to bear his part, namely, the sweat of the brow”.
The following links provides a useful survey of ALL the main interpretations
https://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-two-survey-interpretations-1-timothy-215
As you will see lots of people think lots of different things about the meaning of the verse and not all of them can be right but their position should be respected nonetheless.
@ Lowlandseer:
No man comes to the father but by men…but you women, you've gotta do some other stuff.
Women are saved by other means than childbirth or the bible isn't worth a dam# (ed.) to me. And I don't believe that.
Alan House wrote:
Paul sums that up nicely….:)
… For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 1Cor. 11:12
The passage reflects source-of-life relationships.
siteseer wrote:
not so much people, in general, but women.
@ Lea:
If that is what you think, then fine, but to me it is a misreading of the text and an extrapolation from the text that isn’t warranted by the text.
@ Victorious:
The definition given in Kittel is this:-
“A. kephalḗ outside the NT.
1. Denoting what is first, supreme, or extreme, kephalḗ is used for the human or animal “head” but also for a “point,” “tip,” or “end,” e.g., prow of a ship, top of a wall, mouth of a river (or source), start of an era, point of departure. A further sense then develops, what is “prominent” or “outstanding,” and in yet another development the kephalḗ denotes the “whole person,” e.g., in such phrases as phílē kephalḗ or megálē kephalḗ (dear or great person).
2. The LXX adopts the Greek usage for “head” and “point” or “top,” along with the sense of the whole “person,” but also adds a new meaning: the “head” or “ruler” of a society (cf. Dt. 28:13; Is. 9:13–14). Comparison of the people with the body lies in the background in Is. 1:4ff. (cf. 7:20).
3. Judaism sometimes follows this usage in Dt. 28:13. We also find such phrases as “head of the priesthood” or “of the world’s idolaters,” and Adam is called the “head of all created things.”
4. In Hellenistic and Gnostic circles the word acquires a special sense in connection with the aeon and the primal man. The cosmic aeon embraces the totality of all things in its head and body. In Gnosticism the divine aeon becomes primal man embracing the substance of the cosmos, but also redeemer man embracing the remaining substance of a fallen world. Primal man, who bears the cosmos, recovers from the fall as redeemer man, who gathers the cosmos to himself. In this scheme the kephalḗ is both apart from (and superior to) the body but also in unity with it. Elements of this view may be seen in Philo’s commentary on Exodus, where the lógos is the kephalḗ which rules the cosmos and in which the cosmos finds its fullness. Gnostic texts are more complicated but in various combinations contain the idea of the primal man and/or the redeemer as the kephalḗ (sometimes equated with Christ).
B. kephalḗ in the NT.
1. The term often means here the human or animal “head” with no theological significance (cf. the head of Jesus in Mt. 8:20; Lk. 9:58), and especially in the passion narrative (Mt. 26:7; 27:30, 37; Mk. 15:19; Jn. 19:2, 30; 20:7, 12); the head of the risen Lord (Rev. 14:14; 19:12).
2. In 1 Cor. 11:3, Christ is the head of man, man of woman, and God of Christ. Hence man should not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman should do so, since she is the glory of man. The distinction between man and woman is seen here to have an ontological ground, for while man is God’s reflection directly, woman is so only indirectly, having her life from man and for man. It is by reason of this basic distinction that charismatically gifted women should cover the kephalḗ when praying or prophesying. Not to do so is to offend against the head in the twofold sense; the long hair that phýsis gives women for a covering is an indication of this.
3. a. In Eph. 1:22–23; 4:15–16; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:10, 19 Christ is the head of the church, which as his body grows up into him to form the new and perfect man. In a distinctive application of primal man-redeemer thinking, the stress here is on the unity of Christ and his church. He, as the heavenly head, is present in earthly form in the church, while the church, as his body, is present in heavenly form in Christ. As head Christ directs the church’s growth to himself and to its fulfilment in him. He is its archḗ or principle (Col. 1:18). He is also its goal (Eph. 2:15). This goal is attained in faith and knowledge, and consequently in subjection to the head (Eph. 5:23–24).
b. As head of the church, Christ is also before all things and hence the head of creation as well (Col. 1: 15ff.; 2:20). The first man is at work in the redeemer, displaying the body of creation in the body of the church. Things cohere only in him. The gospel, then, discloses the mystery hidden before time inasmuch as God’s wisdom in creation (i.e., Christ) is made known through the church. In the plḗrōma of the church which is his body Christ draws all
things into the plḗrōma. Christ is the Lord of the world, and as the risen Lord he takes control over it through the church, which is thus relevant to all things.
anakephalaióomai. This rare term means “to bring to a kephalḗ,” “to sum up,” or “to divide into the main portions.” Other nuances are “to bring to a conclusion” and “to recapitulate.” In the one NT use in Eph. 1:10 the context suggests that there is a definitive, comprehensive, and recapitulatory summation of the totality of things as the church receives it head. In Christ, this head, the totality is comprehended afresh as its sum. [H. Schlier, III, 673–82]”
Jerome wrote:
The initial question was – Is this Mary Kassian’s husband? To which I responded “I doubt it.”
I know Mary has three sons. Who knows? Maybe this 'Brent Kassian' is one of them. Looks like we have more to investigate…
elastigirl wrote:
Even a fourth grader could read that verse and understand what it is saying.
Elastgirl when people tell us it is clear they are really telling us we are not even functioning at the 4th grade level.
They Apostle Paul said that it is better not to marry, but women will be saved through childbearing.
Plain reading a fourth grader can understand .,….,,. Huh?
Nancy2 wrote:
Maybe Alan can explain where it says (woman are to be silent) why that is not practiced today by very many churches.
Nancy2 wrote:
Maybe Alan can explain this verse–Gal 3:28–There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Plainly says neither male nor female.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Col 2:19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
Again we see the “head” as the “source” or “origin” of life and nourishment.
I’m aware that the passage is actually Paul’s refutation of the insistence of the Jewish converts for women to wear veils as a sign of their subjugation. Paul levels the playing field, so to speak, by showing the interdependence of men and women. Just as he said in his epistles that circumcision is nothing; some value one day over the other; eating meat offered to idols is nothing; veils and subjugation is a worthless practice because:
However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
Paul is often referring to or refuting issues sent to him via letters. This is especially true in 1 Cor. where he specifically mentions the awful conditions that exist in that assembly. Here’s one place:
1Cor. 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
That chapter clarifies the mutual relationship between husbands and wives and mentions their equal authority and need for agreement in intimate matters. This negates the “last word” by the husband and again reinforces the mutuality in the relationship.
Given this, you can see why Paul is refuting the necessity of women wearing veils.
@ Victorious:
Actually much of Paul’s correspondence to the Corinthians is to reply to their questions as well as the divisions, immoralities, food offered to idols, public worship, the exercise of spiritual gifts, the Lord’s supper, and marriage.
1Cor. 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Cor. 7:25 Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
1Cor. 8:1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
1Cor. 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
1Cor. 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.
1Cor. 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.
1Cor. 16:12 But concerning Apollos our brother….
His letters should be understood with these things in mind. He is not only addressing Judaizers, Jewish converts, Roman converts, but Greeks and pagans as well.
mot wrote:
The key phrase here being, “by very many.” Paul makes quite an admonition at the close of this particular section of scripture. Are you familiar with it?
mot wrote:
The best way for me to be silent in church is to just stay at home. It doesn’t really matter anyway. If men are made directly in the image of God, and women are derivatives, that just makes me a cheap knock-off. If I buy into what most complementarians espouse, 99% of the Bible doesn’t apply to women, so what’s it matter to me?
mot wrote:
I sense that you feel that some scriptures are at odds with other scriptures. I do not believe that there is any contradiction in scripture when The Spirit is illuminating our spirit with the result that we are able to comprehend a particular portion or passage in the sense with which God gave it to us for our guidance.
Nancy2 wrote:
I certainly do not feel you are any such thing!
Victorious wrote:
One thing I like about Paul, is his clear delineation of things like ‘this is my opinion’ and ‘this is from the lord’.
I got a little steamed this morning and I apologize, but I think i will go back to the math/poetry explanation of ways to read the bible. If you read that a woman must give birth to be saved you are on the math side and need to recalibrate.
Of course this isn’t academic to me. It’s very easy to lay heavy burdens on people that you will not lift a finger to fill, as a wise man once said.
Nancy2 wrote:
I truly wish all women would boycott those churches that practice Comp nonsense. Alan can say all he wants but Comp is not Biblical.
Alan House wrote:
I felt you were a troll last night and a goods nights sleep has not changed my mind. My conversation with you is over. MAY YOUR TRIBE DECREASE AND SOON!!!
@Alan, I see you say that scripture is the best commentary on scripture, and I can appreciate that point.
I guess I’m curious as to why you used the phrase “Christian men” in this comment. In your discussion of the meaning of “head,” I do believe you are probably referring to 1 Corinthians 11:3. If you will look closely, you will see that verse is referring to every man and not just men who are following Christ. That should be a clue that “leader” is not a good synonym for this use of “head.”
@ Alan House:
Alan House wrote:
You cannot pick and choose parts of a complete argument and expect to have any valid conclusions from those *parts.* An argument cannot be subdivided, and Paul’s argument in Timothy is not an exception. You want to say that one part of his argument is “clear” but that you do not understand another part–the childbearing declaration–and you want to say that all that matters is the part that you say is “clear.”
Arguments do not work that way. Logic does not work that way. Plain, everyday interpersonal communications do not work that way. Your way does not work without special rules being applied.
Alan House wrote:
You are drawing unwarranted “commands” from the texts. They are about *attitudes* and not about status. You are waaaaaaay over-interpreting the texts. That is not a conservative thing to do.
Lydia wrote:
That is an important point. It is all about appearances. Appearances of unity. Appearances of love. Appearances of Biblical faithfulness.
Lea wrote:
Lea, I used to be a high school/middle school math teacher. It took hundreds of years for mathematicians to discover that Pi (22/7) actually does terminate. Math, poetry, the two combined, whatever …… it’s going to take us a lot longer to understand the Bible than it did to find the termination point of Pi.
I am a mathematical kind of thinker …. deduction ….. analysis ….. reason …… So much of this comp teaching is based on assumption and skipping steps in solving the equations, leading to faulty solutions.
Alan House wrote:
Let’s start with a part of Ephesians that comes before your very favorite part. Ephesians 2:8-9. Seems to me that a proper consideration of “saved by childbearing” should be informed by Paul’s commentary on salvation by faith and not by works like childbearing would be if interpreted “plainly.” You seem to want special treatment of your clobber verses, but proper and conservative interpretation is not a naive “the Bible plainly says.” Especially when you want to apply “plainly says” to one part of an integral whole and apply an interpretive principle of “I do not presently understand” to another part of an integral whole. That is foolishness, and I hope you will forgive my forthrightness.
elastigirl wrote:
I think Alan is guilty of “not abiding in the Vine” when he tosses aside the Word of God like that. 😉
elastigirl wrote:
Female Subordinationists, even the female Female Subordinationists, DO NOT CARE what the practical outworkings of their sick ideology are. They need to have a female face to explain away the most embarrassing parts of their theology. Mary Kassian was the first generation. Courtney Reissing is the rising generation. The do not care and they will not care until something horrible happens to them or their daughters or their sisters or themselves. Right now, for them, life is good and they are placed at the top of the heap of women because they spout the party narrative. Let one of them deviate one degree from the prescribed path, however, and they will find how much they are valued by the Important Men whose interests they are serving.
I think it is too late for Mary Kassian, because she has invested her life in this lie. It will be a task for the younger women–educated in theology and Biblical studies and just plain educated–to lead the way out of this fetid ideological swamp. It will take great courage, especially for the ones who will be shunned for daring to question.
Gram3 wrote:
He may be doing a little “grafting”, too.
@ Nancy2:
Thank you for being so understanding.
@ Nancy2:There is no allowance for word puns, hyperbole, metaphor, allegory. “The child bearing” was a powerful play on words to that Ephesian audience due to the cult of Diana.
Lowlandseer wrote:
As I said to Alan, one cannot simply say that they do not understand what one part of an argument means but that they do understand what another part of the argument means. That is simply not a valid way of working through the text.
Further, you and others like Tom Schreiner *assume* what Paul was saying about a woman’s “proper sphere” and then interpreting the childbearing verse based on that. That is not good interpretive practice and can lead people into really weird places. You are deriving an interpretation based on another assumed interpretation which *cannot* be grounded anywhere else unless you follow the chain from 1 Corinthians 11, but even that is based on an interpretation which cannot be grounded in Genesis. Hence the necessity of *assuming* that God is the Authority over the Eternal Son and therefore man is the Authority over the woman.
A whole lot of NothiongByItself is bundled together and slathered in special illogic sauce to appear to be SomethingImportantThatMustBeObeyed. Phooey on that foolishness.
Gram3 wrote:
Whoever these religious phrases are thrown into conversations, I start tuning out the argument. Recently, Saeed Abedini who Naghmeh said abused her was giving a talk, he mentioned women in light of the phrase “spirit of Jezebel. I tweeted out that men who use that phrase are nut jobs.
Victorious wrote:
Repeating this most excellent point that is universally ignored by the Female Subordinationists when considering Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11. They pull apart his arguments and then proceed to interpret each part in isolation. Paul knew how to construct and argument, but all these Ph.D. guys either have no clue or do not care.
mot wrote:
Obviously Paul was confused by his culture and was “blurring gender roles.” Where is Owen BHLH when Paul needs him?
Nancy2 wrote:
And also spend your money on something other than supporting people who do not understand the power of the Gospel but insist on remaining in bondage to the Curse and human rules.
Lydia wrote:
This is what i was getting at although I do appreciate Nancy’s perspective on math 🙂
I’m not anti math or logic but words in the bible are not a formula.
dee wrote:
You were too charitable. 🙂 Apparently Alan thought that accusing people of “not abiding in the Vine” would stop us from challenging his assumptions.
siteseer wrote:
I’ve been out and about this weekend and just now reading this post. Lots of interesting exchanges. As usual, when a reformed thinker comes into the mix, debate and argument ensue. Siteseer has hit on the bottom-line here: employing Law vs. Spirit as one studies and interprets Scripture. Reformed theology is built upon rigid doctrinal propositions rather than a Spirit-led study of Scripture. In Calvinism, all text must filter through a reformed grid which often distorts the truth embedded in the context of a passage. It’s a debate that’s been raging for 500 years; there is no convincing someone who is so entrenched in rules and regulations which govern their faith, rather than using a Christocentric criterion to interpret Scripture. Doctrines of grace can never replace a direct experience of Grace in Christ; when you have had a personal encounter with Jesus, you know it and you allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to all Truth, rather than than the teachings and traditions of men. At that point, Spirit wins over Law. When you know it, you can’t un-know it; when you see it, you can’t un-see it.
@ Gram3:
It is no more illogical than anything you or anyone else offers up as an alternative explanation. The link I posted shows just how many interpretations there are. I think my view makes more sense and I am comfortable with that. You think the same of your view. My whole point was and is that people don’t all hold the same opinions and it’s unlikely that one will be convinced by the other.
@ Max:
Calvinism is, to be sure, built on doctrinal propositions, as indeed any “system” of theology is but it is quite wrong, in my view, to say that there was no Spirit-led study of Scripture or that the system itself distorts the truth. Doctrines of grace flow from the direct experience of grace in one’s life.
Lea wrote:
Agreed. We can’t find simple, obvious “solutions” or “equations” to or for everything from the Bible.
But, some people’s interpretations do not “add up” for me!
@ Lowlandseer:
For the chosen who had no choice. I just don’t see grace in that.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I can actually name some who have been convinced otherwise by convos. I do believe in live and let live until they use stealth and deception.
Lowlandseer wrote:
It is illogical to split up an argument and think that you can derive any meaning (and particularly a universal prescription/proscription) from one piece of the argument. It is illogical and nonsensical to apply a “plain reading” to one piece of an integral argument and to apply a “have no idea” meaning to another part of the integral argument.
Everyone is certainly free to apply whatever interpretive method they choose. Conservatives have rejected a “whatever floats your boat” approach to interpretation. With the sole exception of the clobber verses on gender and some others. Then consistency and conservative methods are tossed aside because they are inconvenient nuisances.
Alan House wrote:
People in those grades can read, but the type of understanding that comes with reading takes experience. That experience is not only with reading itself (more hours with the written word leads to being able to spend even more hours in the written word – like exercise) but also the experience of expanding what the person reads in order to understand even more writings.
The gospel is simple enough for a 4th grader to understand, but that doesn’t mean a 4th grader should be expected to understand every passage of Scripture in every particular. There is much for all of us to learn about Hebrew and Greek metaphor, as well as Middle Eastern Bronze Age culture, etc., that will help us understand even more of the riches of God’s word.
The point is not to read the Bible literally, but to read the Bible literarily. That’s how all real reading is done, after all, and especially how good hermeneutics is achieved.
Lowlandseer wrote:
What does this mean?
dee wrote:
Saeed recently had a fb article that pretty much explained his horrid view of women, whether or not he intended for it to explain his view I don’t know. I would not have a thing to do with that man.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I think that a metric of how comfortable we are with something is not a good metric. Some people with a Calvinistic POV say that the reason people reject the Doctrines of Grace is that they are uncomfortable with them. So, I don’t think you really want to adopt comfort as your guide to truth.
The real question for conservatives is to figure out what meaning the text had in its historical context and then to apply that meaning in today’s context. To jump from the application in one historical context directly to identical application in another historical context does not protect the integrity of God’s word but rather diminishes it. It is lazy. And comfortable.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Says Lowlandseer? God? Calvin? Jesus?
Gram3 wrote:
I said this, not as well, earlier. Alan did not seem to grasp the concept.
Gram3 wrote:
This is key. The assumptions undergirding Patriarchy and even soft comp must be challenged when they are insisted upon.
There is a reason. Attributing such to God that is not from God is part of taking His Name in vain.
The larger truth is the evil one despises women because Messiah was promised through woman. We see the evil of male rule immediately after the garden. Too many men allow themselves to be tools attributing it to God.
Gods intention was a blessed alliance.