“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”
What follows is a scenario that might have occurred on Mother’s Day …
It’s that time of year when moms are honored by their husbands and children. Esther and her family begin this special day by attending church, as they do every Sunday. They have been members of the congregation for quite some time and have a wonderful relationship with their pastor. The congregation praises the Lord in song, and then the pastor announces that he would like to recognize some very special women. He asks them to join him in front of the platform.
Twelve women get up out of their seats, proceed to the front of the worship center, and stand before the congregation. What’s this about, Esther wonders. She and her family have absolutely no clue. Each woman is clutching something rather large that looks like a frame.
The pastor begins his remarks by proclaiming: “These women who stand before you are COURAGEOUS! As many of you know, the Kendrick brothers from Sherwood Baptist Church have produced an inspiring movie by that name. There are some wonderful Bible studies associated with it, and these ladies have just completed the one that pertains to women.” Then the pastor proclaims: “In just a few moments I am going to give others in the congregation the opportunity to stand with these women.”
Esther’s husband groans and gives his wife a reassuring look. She and her husband had previously done some “courageous” research, and they know that the movie is steeped in patriarchy. In response, Esther knows what she must do…
The pastor then asks his wife to come forward and share the thirteen Resolutions with the congregation. She slowly and deliberately reads each line of The Resolution for Women. It appears as though the pastor’s wife, under her husband’s “authority”, is wrangling the ladies to get behind her. Incredibly, Esther has neither seen nor heard these resolutions before now and to her knowledge they had not been distributed ahead of time for prayerful consideration.
After the reading of the resolutions, the pastor again takes the podium, lauds them, and asks who will stand with his wife and the other eleven women in support of them? Esther feels this is a highly coercive tactic, but she sees women throughout the worship center stand in affirmation. She remains seated, as do some other women. Esther wonders whether those who did not stand are single or married without children, this being Mother’s Day and all.
In that moment Esther (and everyone else) can see who has affirmed the ‘Resolution for Women’ and who has not… Some of her friends stand; some do not. It is extremely awkward!
Esther’s son, in his early twenties, feels the tension and slips his mom a note which states: “Mom, I think YOU are a courageous woman!” Her husband, seated beside her, whispers in her ear: “Good girl” and slips his arm around her. She jots a note to him on the church bulletin – “I refuse to be manipulated and WILL NOT drink the patriarchal Kool-Aid!” Then the pastor prays over the courageous women standing in front and those in the congregation who have chosen to “stand with them”.
There sat Esther donning her beautiful Mother’s Day corsage and feeling totally alienated because her pastor prayed exclusively for the ‘courageous’ women standing. It was surreal!
Esther, who has been a dedicated wife and mother for over two decades, feels a pain in her heart but remains confident. After the pastor’s prayer, which she cannot recall because her mind has been spinning, her husband slips her a note which reads: “I’m proud of you!”
The women standing take their seats, and the worship service resumes as though what has occurred is not totally bizarre and oppressive. Esther, who had been looking forward to a special Mother’s Day with her husband and son, leaves the church feeling totally excluded.
What is going on here?
Why all the secrecy?
Do the women who stand up in church sign The Resolution for Women and have it framed?
What happens if the signee fails to live up to any of the 13 resolutions?
Who pays for this document (expensive piece of paper)?
Who profits from this and all the other Courageous paraphernalia being peddled in church?
The Kendrick brothers needed to find a woman who would promote their ideas to other women, and they found a cooperative soul in Priscilla Evans Shirer. Priscilla is the daughter of Dr. Tony Evans, senior pastor of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas. According to her website – Going Beyond Ministries – “Priscilla is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, with a Master’s degree in Biblical Studies. She has been a conference speaker for major corporations, organizations, and Christian audiences across the United States and the world.”
Shirer’s bio further states that she is married to her best friend Jerry and that they have three sons. Her bio further states: “Priscilla is now in full-time ministry to women across the country and the world.” Hmmm… Do as I say, not as I do??? One such speaking engagement is True Woman 12 along with Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Mary Kassian, among others. If you haven’t heard of the True Woman Manifesto, we strongly encourage you to read it. We will be discussing it soon. Obviously, Shirer’s involvement in the True Woman movement sheds tremendous light on her not so secret agenda.
Here is one of the numerous videos that has been produced to promote Shirer and her ‘role’ in the Courageous phenomenon.
Pricilla Shirer has authored a book called The Resolution for Women, which is described as follows over at Amazon:
“Written in partnership with Sherwood Pictures’ upcoming film, COURAGEOUS, in The Resolution for Women, popular speaker and author Priscilla Shirer challenges all women to be intentional about embracing and thriving in God’s beautiful and eternal calling on their lives.”
The Kedrick brothers have co-authored an accompanying book called The Resolution for Men, which is described as follows on Amazon:
“The Resolution for Men is the inspiring book born out of Courageous, a new film by the makers of Fireproof coming to theaters nationwide in fall 2011. The movie, which presents a powerful story of strong male leadership, is an emotionally charged wake-up call to fathers whose influence upon their children and society is immeasurable. The Resolution for Men follows to challenge men of all ages to become as bold and intentional about embracing their responsibilities as leaders of their homes, marriages, and children.
Written by Stephen and Alex Kendrick, screenwriters of Courageous and authors of New York Times No. 1 best seller The Love Dare (five million copies sold), The Resolution for Men strategically inspires men to reconcile with their past, re-engage in the present by taking full responsibility for their wives and children, and then move forward with a bold and clear resolution for the future. Written in partnership with the movie and Priscilla Shirer’s new book, The Resolution for Women, it is designed to inspire a revolution.”
Revolution appears to be the operative word when it comes to Courageous and its marketing scheme. There is so much more to discuss! In our upcoming post we will discuss The Resolution for Men. In the meantime, we leave you with this clip of Priscilla Shirer pushing Courageous on behalf of her “business associates”.
In case anyone happens to be wondering, Dee and I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER sign The Resolution for Women PERIOD!!!
Sales pitch alert!
Lydia’s Corner: Daniel 7:1-28 1 John 1:1-10 Psalm 119:153-176 Proverbs 28:23-24
Eagle,
I have joyfully lived a very traditional lifestyle, foregoing a career to look after my family, and I have had it with these patriarchs!
Dee and I are educating our daughters about this along with our readers. Is anyone paying attention?
I’m paying attention!
In fact, if you don’t mind my referring to another blog post on a different subject, you can see how closely I’ve been listening to TWW. Michael Horton has an interesting post at the White Horse Inn blog on the recent flurry of defections to Roman Catholicism . I respond to his post in the comment thread, and, if you read carefully, you can discern something of the imprint TWW has had on me (just ask anyone who is familiar with my trajectory on these issues over the years). Here’s the LINK to the article and comment thread.
SMG
P.S. if you do mind the reference to another blog and another topic, please delete. 😉
WARNING: Rant coming. Maybe I had a bad day, but here goes.
As someone who is “on the fence” between comp and egal, I can say one thing for certain. Comps need to do some MAJOR housecleaning if they want to remain credible. They need to chase Doug Phillips, Mark Driscoll, etc., out of their camp and then start loudly preaching the differences between patriarchy and comp. (Screaming out the fact that many forms of patriarchy are rank heresy would help too.) If they don’t do this, mainstream popular comp will continue to drift closer to the doom vortex of patriarchy like a rudderless boat. And I (and many others) will be increasingly tempted to jump ship.
It makes me sad and angry that all these comp men, who talk ad nauseam about being courageous Christian tough guys, don’t have the guts to call out the abusers and false teachers in their own backyards. Instead we get more relativism: “Oh, well, that’s their walk with the Lord. I can’t judge another man’s servant.” As if verbal/physical/emotional abuse and heresy were debatable.
Sorry, comp men. Are you for this stuff, or against it? It’s time to stand up and be counted. If you don’t, forgive me if I consider you not “courageous,” but cowards.
(furiously bangs head on computer keyboard)
The patriarchists have co-opted the term complementarian and turned it to mean patriarchy! It is clear that a successful marriage must have some complementarity in it. Both members of the couple bring different strengths and needs, and it is clear that a well-functioning marriage likely involves one spouse’s strengths matching the other’s needs. But nothing in that implies that some roles are always his and some are always hers. The Bible speaks clearly against patriarchy as taught by some of these people, and their tactics suggest that they are aware of the weaknesses of their position.
We should be as equal in rights and responsibilities as we are before God, as Paul (or his follower) wrote: In Christ there is neither male nor female. So, to all those patriarchists: You have chosen to be other than “in Christ”. So please, please, please, do not call yourself Christians, since you are outside of Christ.
The Gospel Coalition just addressed this topic…
Debatable: Is Complementarianism Another Word for Patriarchy?
No comment from me so as not to bias those who click over. I will say there is much fodder for all kinds of discussion based on that post… 🙂
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/06/08/debatable-is-complementarianism-another-word-for-patriarchy/
@ Sallie:
Sallie –
They claim in the article that patriarchy exists in the Godhead. I guess if they keep making this argument, along with ESS, they feel they can put women (and Jesus) their rightful places. They are really pushing this. It seems they felt they needed to respond to Rachel Held Evans articles from last week.
It is worth noting that Rachel has the COURAGE to allow comments where The Gospel Coalition is NOT courageous enough to allow comments!
Eagle and Others,
The reason that JT and others do not.allow comments is because of hubris, plain and simple. I have followed JTs blog over the years and am amazed at the self proclaimed authority that I have seen him give to himself on many issues from theology to politics to art. In reality it is quite funny for someone who comes off as being like a bishop/cardinal in authority often times shuts comments down. Its as though he thinks no one else has a theology degree and if you disagree with him you are being argumentative.
@ Deb: yes, more and more.
I get the feeling that hierarchical patriarchy (a.k.a. complementarianism) is dying. Not fast enough, but surprisingly quickly. This means that the last desperate bastions (mostly, but obviously not exclusively, men) are going to fight harder and harder from their finial redoubts until the philosophy is finally, and thankfully, basically extinct.
@ Hester: Hop off of that fence, friend. You’re seeing what you’re seeing in the comp camp (hey, I like that little phrase!) for a reason. Specifically… they are wrong.
Start with John Stackhouse’s “Finally Feminist” and go from there.
By the way, Rachel Held Evans has just finished a week on the topic of mutuality. Scroll through her blog posts for the past week and you will find resources to keep you really busy.
You could start with this one as a jump-off point:
http://rachelheldevans.com/mutuality-resources
E.G.
I wish the unbiblical patriarchy would die faster. I can tell you from being a part of the church, in the past, where Piper preaches that I have seen marriages die as a result of this.
@ theoblogue:
I’ve also seen faith die.
I agree. The sooner the better. We’re getting there. The old guard are literally dying out, and their acolytes are too few compared to the overall demographic to win.
Patience, young Padewan.
Can some one direct me to a link that shows what the “Resolution for Women” actually says? Thanks.
Can you say “BLATANT PLUG”?
This kind of thing just irritates me. Why is it, in so many societies, that sooner or later conservatism equates to subjugation of women? This is my resolution:
I resolve to use my gifts and talents as bestowed on me by the Holy Spirit in the understanding of my calling and the will of God to serve the Kingdom.
I too would like to cast my eyes over this “Resolutions” document. Good for Esther for thinking for herself, taking her own courageous stand and not joining the lemmings. That seemed like a really shaming experience, but the shame is on them, not Esther. Also ‘holy clique’ comes to mind, if only some of the women were already signed up and no one else knew about it.
You can find the text of the Resolution for Women on the amazon.com page for the 8″x10″ print, in the Product Description section:
http://tinyurl.com/bwm42sb
It doesn’t sound that bad at first, but keep in mind who wrote it and why. The peddlers of patriarchy stand to increase their influence and power – not to mention their bank accounts – when naive Christians buy this thinking it will make them more godly. Instead of pointing the way to Christ and His sufficiency, they’re selling fresh new idols to worship.
Hester wrote:
Hester, I’d encourage you to jump ship! 🙂 These ‘extremists’ aren’t aberrations from an otherwise reasonable doctrine. They are merely following complementarianism to its logical end. And the moderate complementarians appear gentler than these oafs because they don’t fully embrace the implications of the doctrine they espouse. If they did…well, perhaps more people would then see the ugliness of complementarianism/patriarchy.
Just had a look at the resolution. It manages to basically contradict itself in the first two lines. First, we’re meant to ’embrace our current season of life’ (puke at the wording), but then it talks about ‘my children’. So if your ‘season’ doesn’t include children, what then?
Here’s how it always goes:
Come up with an idea that gains popularity.
Make a special women’s edition by giving it pink, flowery elements and replacing the words and phrases like ‘stand up for’ or ‘brave’ with words like ‘graciously’ and ‘gentleness’.
Make a children’s edition using simpler words, block colours and exclamation marks, followed by a grandparent’s edition, a teacher’s edition, an aunt’s edition, a postman’s edition, a goldfish’s edition. Make a lot of money and feel gratified.
I don’t really understand how people can’t see that this is all just stupid hype over a movie. It reminds me of a story I once heard about someone who sued Disneyworld because they saw Mickey Mouse take his mouse head off, which confronted them with the reality that he was really just a man in a mouse costume. I know that the church I used to go to would have been all over The Resolution, just as they were all over any hyped-up nonsense that came from the USA. I would have gone along with it despite the queasy feeling in my stomach.
Sophie wrote:
What I mean is, this stubborn refusal to notice that movies and reality aren’t the same, and that in Christian theology, the Holy Spirit is the One Who changes hearts, not movies or resolutions or rings or anything else.
“1. A Resolution To Be Content
I do solemnly resolve to embrace my current season of life, and will maximize my time in it”
Coming from the same complementarian people who put an incredible amount of emphasis on marriage and childbearing for women, from my pespective as a single adult this one just smacks of hypocrisy.
Pam wrote:
Yes, this precisely.
@ Eagle:
aND i AM SO PROUD OF HAVING A DAUGHTER WITH JUST THAT ATTITUDE!
@ Bridget:
Totally bizarre, these lines they keep drawing from the Trinity to marriage. Where is the female in the Godhead that the Father rules over?
I can live with the fact that some of us are going to exegete a few proof texts different ways, I can respect cautious complementarians as my brothers and sisters, even though I disagree, but when people exalt this stuff to centre stage, and start messing with core Christian doctrine in order to get more and more extreme in their pronouncements — enough is enough!
@ Sallie and everyone else who addressed that GC article:
They just couldn’t do it, could they? They couldn’t admit egalitarians weren’t lost without implying that they were. : )
Personally, I think the dragging the Trinity into this fight is a complete non-starter. (It’s my understanding the comps did it first.) Three things vs. two things = one of these things is not like the other! Esp. when the given metaphor for husband/wife in Scripture itself is Christ and the church. Plus, the debates in the early church over the nature of the Godhead should warn anybody away from tinkering with it too much.
@ Sergius Martin-George:
I think they deleted you?
To everyone who pointed me to study resources – thanks. I’ve spent an appallingly large amount of time over the years (and I’m only 21…) reading material on both sides of this issue. The gender debate has always been pretty close to home for me because I was that kid who didn’t fit the prescribed “homeschooled Christian girl” stereotype. I was the nerd who hated pink and loved wearing pants. I only had male friends for years because none of the other girls would talk to me. Plus, growing up, I saw several pretty egregious examples of comp gone wrong (my best friend grew up in a strongly comp home that broke up in a years-long divorce because the husband was addicted to pornography).
Basically, my hangup with egalitarianism – I don’t know if it’s actually rational, or just emotional from growing up in homeschool circles – is the Christ and the church metaphor. Clearly the church DOES submit to Christ (at least we’re supposed to). How is that relationship mutual? So part of me wonders how egalitarians get around this.
But then we have “he who is first shall be last” and all the other statements that imply we’re supposed to try to “out-submit” each other. These statements are NEVER gender-qualified. In light of this, the thought of a husband having a special person he NEVER submits to EVER in ANY way seems patently ridiculous. Why would a Christian husband ever pull the “trump card”? In reality, all it ever does is override his wife’s opinion so he can get his own way. Even the comps admit that. And that doesn’t seem very Scriptural to me.
So basically, my conundrum in a nutshell. It’s clear that the Church submits to Christ, so that must mean comp is right. But the rest of the Bible talks (much more strongly than anything said about male headship) about submitting to each other regardless of gender, so that must mean egal is right.
P.S. Oh, and how about this resolution for the patriarchs: “I solemnly swear that I am up to no good!”
Sergius,
I scanned through the comments at The White Horse Inn and didn’t see your comment. I was really looking forward to reading it!
@ Hester:
I come at these discussions from about as far away from your experience as possible. I’m from a non-Christian home, my parents are academics, I went to academic schools, and education and achievement was just expected. I’ve been brought up to be high achieving, that it’s my duty, whereas I guess hardline comps see a woman’s duty as marriage and motherhood. It’s never been something I’ve been pushed to do, but it’s been understood. And it’s based on my abilities and making use of them, and since becoming a Christian that’s framed as using the gifts God gave me. So it’s only been fairly recently that I’ve even heard ‘Christian’ gender roles discussed and framed this way. Speaking for myself, I’ve never seen where there could be a problem or restriction – God gave me (and everyone) gifts, I (and everyone) use those gifts. If that’s as a SAHM, great. If it’s being married, great. If it’s having a career, great. If it’s getting an education, great. Anything more, any rules about what to do and how to do it, just seem unnecessary to me.
That probably doesn’t help your conundrum, but maybe it does?
Hester,
You’re right in between my daughters age-wise. One just turned 23 last Friday, and the other turns 20 next month. I think all of you are at a good age just to observe what’s going on in the gender debate. As my husband is fond of saying, extremes are ALWAYS dangerous.
Just keep reading and praying, and I’m confident you will find your way. In the meantime, we’re “watching” and reporting the trends that we observe in Christendom.
@ Hester:
Hester,
The solution is mutuality. Spouses are a team with different skills and strengths that are not always gender determined, and in fact, most are not. So we work together as a team.
Similarly in the church, the members are a team; if some have useful skills that they are not permitted to use because of their gender, then the team will be less effective. We are to be at work for the kingdom, regardless of gender or ability, doing our best as individuals and as a team. Artificial distinctions (such as gender-limited roles) deny the team some of its strengths.
Jenny wrote:
Let’s try this again (Not sure I like the new commenting section)
Ahem…
You can write a customer review over there.
And no one has yet.
Who wants to be the first?
There were many comments on the post on The Gospel Coalition, FYI.
And re: Rachel Held Evans and comments… She does delete comments. I left a comment there that questioned the party line on another topic and it never saw the light of day. I haven’t tried again. It was a pretty mild question (as you can imagine if you’ve seen my comments here), but apparently I failed to properly toe the line and it was gone.
Sallie,
We would NEVER delete your comments. Glad you are a part of the TWW “family”.
Eagle
Thank you for the laugh this AM. Coffee came out my nose!
@ Deb:
I know you wouldn’t, but there was a discussion about Rachel allowing comments and Justin not. I simply wanted to share that the volume of comments on Rachel’s site might lead people to believe that all comments are approved. They are not. I have to admit I was really surprised when it happened because I was not expecting it.
Sergius!
Thank you for this timely comment. Did you know about Jason Stellman, a ranking OPC Neo Calvinist who presided over a trial of his fellow Christian on heresy (the guy was acquitted)? he has announced his conversion to Catholicism. Guys like Carl Trueman are having conniptions. They now claim he didn’t “understand” true Calvinism here
Some of these guys do not seem to get it. Their “winsome” “trajectory” has some correlation to Catholicism and this is no surprise to me.
Hester
I have rants like that regularly. In today’s world, it seems that anyone is accepted and venerated so long as they toe the magic line of comp and TULIP. The fact they have provisions like Driscoll is irrelevant.And you can be darn sure the boys will reject your distinction between comp and patriarchy, which is a valid argument. Unfortunately, when a dog latches onto a bone, they will not let go until the bone is demolished. This is the road these guys are walking down.
Arce
Good comments there.
This resolution is a bunch of CRAP!!
Sallie
Thank you for the link. The answer over there is quite clear. So, when are the guys going to start wearing long robes and carrying staffs?
Eagle
That clip has many, many uses and I plan to use it one day! Today’s freedom riders are those who are getting their ideas out into the marketplace of ideas in the blogosphere.
EG
“I am your father.”
Juniper
To your resolution: I second it.
Pam
You goal, as a woman in life, is to marry and have lots of kids and “expand your husband’s territory.” If not, you are to babysit for free and “serve” the families in your local church. Wow! What a come to Jesus sort of idea, huh?
Eagle @ Eagle:
I went back over to TGC and saw that they were allowing comments. I guess it depends on the topic. Sometimes they put up an article and don’t allow began comments at all. I left one over there.
@ Sallie:
It’a possible your comment didn’t get on Rachel’s blog for some other “odd” reason. You should try again sometime.
@ Lynne T:
I agree. I read an interesting 5 part article at a site called fireandroses.blogspot.com that was very good. The author argued that it was a bad idea to use the Godhead to try prove the egal or comp position. The Godhead is One and it is a mystery as to how the three “actually” interact as one. When we try to impose our human understanding onto the Trinity we are reducing God (three as one) to our limited and created understanding – truely bizarre that the “great theologians” would not see this. I think this is what happens when you make an assumption that “everything” that can be known about God can be gleaned from the scripture . . . if we are just smart enough to figure it out.
Hester, re your struggle over the Christ and the Church metaphor. Here’s my understanding of it: Paul was writing into a situation where men actually *were* “God” to their family – as in, a man’s family was dependent on him and looked to him for everything while having no legal rights of their own and living in a culture where obedience was commanded and expected.
So Paul was saying ‘just as you now have a God who sacrificed Himself for you, so you must sacrifice for the woman whom you have been granted lordship over’ (according to the customs of marriage at the time when it was effectively a property transferral).
I don’t honestly think the Christ/church metaphor goes much further than that. I think it really is just an analogy, and one that clearly has limits since a man can’t actually save his wife’s soul or anything. People might object that I’m minimising part of the Bible, but I think what Paul wrote is still very relevant – after all, men are still very privileged in most of the world, men are more likely to abuse their wives, women are still effectively property in much of the world, and men can walk away from their responsibilities to their families more easily than women. So men still need to hear about sacrifice. Thanks to the relationship shift between men and women as a result of the Fall, they always will.
Besides which, as you’ve already pointed out, it would be ridiculous for a man *never* to submit to the woman he loved. Similarly, even though the text doesn’t say ‘women should love their husbands’, that’s what we expect women to do. I don’t know why comps think love is implicitly mutual but submission isn’t.
@ Hester: In order to understand what Paul is saying in Ephesians and elsewhere, you need to understand Greco-Roman household codes:
http://rachelheldevans.com/mutuality-household-codes
dee wrote:
🙂
You are correct, Anon1.
I guess we’re not doing the embedded comments anymore, huh? Though it still looks like it’s going to be indented when you type in your comment.
Anyway, yes, my comments at White Horse Inn were either deleted or are in a permanent state of “awaiting moderation.”
Sophie
What an interesting story. Someone sued because Mickey took off his head an revealed his true self. I wonder what would happen if these Calvinistas took off their masks and we saw the real men underneath?
Lynne T
There are no female traits in the Godhead they portray. Piper says that Christianity has a masculine feel.That is why we will be serving the patriarchs in eternity.
Here are the 13 Resolutions. You might want to add them to your post.
…………I do solemnly resolve before God to embrace my current season of life…………
………………………………….and live with a spirit of contentment. …………………………………..
1 – I will champion God’s model for womanhood and teach it to my children.
2 – I will celebrate my God-given uniqueness and the distinctions He has placed in others.
3 – I will live as a woman answerable to God and faithfully committed to His word.
4 – I will seek to devote the best of myself to the primary roles God has entrusted to me.
5 – I will be quick to listen, slow to speak and esteem others more highly than myself.
6 – I will forgive those who have wronged me and reconcile with those I have wronged.
7 – I will not tolerate evil influences in myself or my home but will embrace a life of purity.
8 – I will pursue justice, love mercy, and extend compassion toward others.
9 – I will be faithful to my husband and honor him in my conduct and in my conversation,
…… and will aspire to be a suitable partner to help him reach his God-given potential.
10 – I will teach my children to love God, respect authority and live responsibly.
11 – I will cultivate a peaceful home where God’s presence is sensed.
12 – I will make today’s decisions with tomorrow’s impact in mind
……. and consider my current choices in light of future generations.
13 – I will courageously work with the strength God provides
……. to fulfill this resolution for the rest of my life and for His glory.
Hester
They already have the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine which “proves” that women will submit to men in eternity.
@Dee
Yes, I am familiar with the Jason Stellman situation. As it happens, just a few weeks ago I was reading the transcript from the Peter Leithart trial in which Stellman was the prosecutor. The irony is that he is taking Leithart to task for the Roman Catholic implications of Federal Vision, then, a few years later, proceeds to swim the Tiber.
Reading through those transcripts was a rich experience, among other reasons because I kept thinking it was something we had published in the Steam Tunnel, perhaps sneaked in by one of our “associate editors.”
SMG
Hester
Contextualize this “Clearly the church DOES submit to Christ (at least we’re supposed to). How is that relationship mutual? So part of me wonders how egalitarians get around this.” WITH men to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ washed the feet of the disciples and died for His people. He called HImself the servant. Is this being preached as much as the submit part? To me it means that both sides are trying to outdo the other in the servant arena. That is why I subscribe to the radical servanthood and play to your gifts model
Sallie
That really surprised me about Rachel Evans. I would not have thought she was one to delete comments. Do you know what kind of comments that she deletes?
Great article Deb.
Two words I have begun to despise thanks to all the TGC/CBMW teaching on comp—submit and headship. It is hard for me to read Eph 5:22 on down without it leaving a bad flavor…that is what these so called Christian leaders have done for me.
But I trust in Jesus not them. My husband submits to me all the time…(I daresay these men do to their wives as well). He submits to our son too. And they have an incredibly close relationship–best friends, really. And he is a “manly” guy right up Driscoll’s alley–worked in law enforcement, a hunter, an outdoorsmen, sky diver, black belt in Tae Kwon Do…the “real deal” manly man, lol…whatever.
I guess I don’t have a lot of insights to share…other than my increasing hatred for those words. I also found it so very typical that a select few “godly” women tried out the resolutions bible study first and graduated in their ascent to a higher holiness plane. They then put the pressure on, in church during a Sunday Mother’s day sermon, (which is to honor all moms not just the elite resolutions moms) to get those other moms (pressured by fear–everyone’s looking…) to rise to stand with them to agree to some mantra repeated by the pastor’s wife. How immature. How amazingly horrible.
I would be out of that church so fast.
Bridget
I, too, think we need to be careful in using the Godhead to defend our positions. I have always smiled when Calvinistas talk about heresy. I have always wanted to do a “man on the street” interview of those who are exiting the Neo Cal churches and ask them to define the Trinity. I think it could be embarrassing. That concept is far beyond human understanding since we do not even approach such an entity in our own lives.
Sigh. I don’t have time to read through the comments just now so if someone already said this, please pardon the redundancy.
I just found a readable copy of the resolution for women certificate. While I don’t see anything wrong with any of the stated resolutions per se, I have no idea why I should need to sign a document to implement them. I have been walking with the Lord for a long time and I can honestly say He has produced fruit in me in accordance with most of the stated resolutions without me ever having to make any resolutions that that fruit be produced. He just does it in me Himself. I can’t imagine I am weird like that. And since He said Himself that fruit bearing is dependent on abiding, I wonder why they did not chose a resolution like, I resolve to abide in the Vine so that He can bear His fruit in me. Or something similar. Assuming any kind of resolution needs to be made at all.
I guess what I’m wondering is, why are they encouraging me to assume responsibility for doing what God seems to think is His job?
While I am not at all opposed to having those characteristics in my life, I don’t see how me making a resolution for them to happen is going to cause them to happen.
I don’t know. Maybe I am weird.
Sophie
There are some parallels to the slavery situation. Obviously, slavery was wrong but God told us how to act when part of such a system.
Sergius
What did you say?
Bob, I mean Fred, I mean Sergius…
I want to write about the Spellman thing. Here is the underlying issue. Carl Trueman now claims that Spellman was never really a Calvinist and that he had it all wrong. (Trans: Move along, nothing to see here).
anonymous,
Those are some great points! I have had the very same thoughts.
Having passed the half-century mark several years ago and having reared my children, I just don’t see the point of signing and framing a man-made document. It doesn’t matter whether it was based on Scripture. I choose to read my Bible, not these Resolution books and accompanying Bible studies.
I had never heard of Priscilla Shirer until she recently came to a local church to speak. I was invited to go with someone, but declined given the fact that I didn’t know who she was and I don’t do church speaks any more. At one time I would have known who she was because I was very active in a church. Now, having been outside the church for a few years and staying as far away from the Christian bookstore as I can, I am clueless on the movies and speakers that make the circuits. I think I prefer my ignorance to these things.
And, one of the “Christian words” that I just cannot stand is the word “season.” Can we please give up this word?! It’s ridiculous. I think it has run it’s full season of use.
@ Diane:
It’s better and a more accurate reading of Ephesians if we start in 5:15 and read through 6:9. This captures more of the full thought of what Paul was discussing with the Ephesian church.
Kathi,
I do agree with you about the term “season”, although I want to proudly state that Dee and I have embraced this “season” of our lives with GUSTO!
There are a lot of things I could say about this (and Esther’s story just makes my blood boil), but I’ll leave it at this. Why is it that so many in the American church insist on remaining “infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by THE CUNNING AND CRAFTINESS OF MEN IN THEIR DECEITFUL SCHEMING”? Does it ever concern the leaders of these churches that when they pull stunts like this perhaps Jesus was talking about THEM in Matthew 15? Why is it we would rather substitute pretty words on a fancy 8×10 for genuine goodness? Shaking my head…
@ anonymous:
Anonymous, your comment sums up my thoughts so well. Thank you. When we try to place conviction on ourselves instead of placing ourselves in Christ and letting Him perform the work in us, we are asking for trouble. Same thing when we try to push our convictions on others. Jumping ahead of God’s work in our lives is removing our trust in Him and putting it back in ourselves. Wish I had time to comment further, so many great perspectives on here! 🙂
Welcome back Ladies. This goes to show you can’t keep good women down. 🙂
Thankfully no such resolution is coming to my church. I couldn’t have said that before as such thoughts as in these videos was a part of the churches I was in. It was something I could not accomplish and wore a mask part of the time, most of the time because when I was honest about my being tired of living up to these standards I was met with looks of shock and dismay. Then I was given “tools” to aid me in living this way which wore me out more as I trudged on trying and failing.
The good news is that God created me to be who I am as a person, as a Christian. Being a woman is secondary to this. That is the message of Christ I believe. If you look at how he interacted with women, he never told them these things. Not even the Apostle Paul told women these things. These are added on by controllers who, I believe, go beyond what the scriptures do. Christ said all Christians are to simply do this and this is with the Holy Spirit doing it, not us. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Christ said this is the Greatest commandment. That’s it, the rest simply follows and it causes us to be real. Be who we are. To fail and know that Christ died for our failings, He lived and died and rose again so we could be human. Sorry for my long windedness, but this is so close to my heart.
Thanks, Jenny. @ Jenny:
Sallie wrote:
That surprises me too. Ew.
@ A. Amos Love:
Hmm: There are 13 resolutions. Just the same number as the “almost persuaded” Ben Franklin’s 13 virtues, including number 4: “Resolution”. So where’s the practical difference made by being “fully” persuaded to be a Christian?
Craig,
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment! Get ready… We’re probably gonna spend two days on the Resolution for Men!
These 13 resolutions look like “laws” to me. I wonder if the author and his/her followers know Romans 7? It’s impossible to carry out these resolutions. They need to die to themselves and die daily and let Christ live in them and through them. Perhaps these folks are not willing or not ready to die to self, sin, the world; so, they make up these resolutions (rules) to be “spiritual” and go back to bondage.
What do you folks think of my post today?
@Dee
I accidentally deleted my MSWord file that I used to write my comments, so I no longer have those notes. Perhaps I can reconstruct my comments later. It seemed to me that Horton was making comments about the Catholic magisterium and the arrogation of theological certainty — which one could just as easily argue is a hallmark of Reformed theology (and I’m saying this as a Reformed guy myself). Horton did make some solid, insightful points as well.
Sergius,
You really need to crack the whip (so to speak) on those Steam Tunnel “associate editors”. They are long overdue for a post, and I’m missing their sarcastic humor!
@ A. Amos Love:
The thing about those resolutions is, when read out-of-context from the patriarchal organization that’s pushing them, none of them are necessarily terrible. Much like (if I recall) the points of the resolution for men.
So, this makes it all the worse. If someone says “no, I’m not going to sign that,” they get in reply, “what, don’t you believe in these points? What’s wrong with you?”
The reality is that I don’t disagree with these points in a mutualistic setting.
What I do disagree with is:
1. The underlying subpoints that are not written for each in the patriarchal setting from whence they were derived.
2. Signing on to needless oaths, etc.
I was telling my wife this evening that I need to start to collect this evangelical fad paraphernalia. It would make for a great museum display in a few decades.
Dave AA and E.G.
I never did very well with following resolutions. Or following laws and commandments.
I think that’s why Jesus went to the cross and shed His Blood. To set me free from the law.
The benefit to these 13 Resoultions for Women is – those who “sign on” will eventually fail.
They will cover up the failure for awhile. They will “Act” like they’re doing well. But…
They will have to try harder and harder to meet this standard. And never make it.
But – eventually – the guilt and the shame – of NOT living up to these man made standards
will become a heavy burden. Hopefully – sooner than later – for those who love Jesus…
They wiil see their weakness. 2 Cor 12:10. They will have NO place else to go – but to Jesus.
These man made standards are laws, our schoolmaster, to bring us unto Christ. Gal 3:24-25.
Seems these Calvinistas are “bewitched” trying to be made perfect by the flesh. Gal 3:1-6.
@ Deb
So noted. We just hired a new gal, Kelly Scarsbruck-Naslund, whose working on a terrific piece which should be out any day now, but we’ve been slowed down a bit as a result of having to train our new hire.
I kinda like Jesus and the Resoulutions The Chief Shepherd declared…
To benefit me and ALL His little sheepies.
————–
I will give you rest.
I will make you fishers of men.
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.
I will build my church.
I will destroy this temple that is made with hands.
I will raise him up at the last day. – every one that beholdeth the Son.
I will come again, and receive you unto myself.
I will dwell in them, and walk in them.
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel.
I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them.
I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people.
I will be merciful to their unrighteousness,
and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.
I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
——————
Jer 50:6
*My people* hath been *lost sheep:*
“their shepherds” have caused them “to go astray”
1 Pet 2:25
For ye were as sheep *going astray;*
but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
I think I’ll trust Jesus and His list of “I will.”
If I had a dollar for all the times I stood up in response to some kind of challenge from the pulpit at CLC, but didn’t really “feel it” inside, I would be rich. I guess I was a coward for a long time. But then I became “courageous” and eventually left CLC.
I believe part of why I”m single is the environment of ultra-submission I observed at CLC. And hearing that dread word “obey” spoken in women’s marriage vows.
I also agree that I’m sick to death of the word “season”, but I also am very skeptical of Christian movies, the need to find fancy names for ministries and small groups and building campaigns, and other phrases like “doing life together”. Isn’t the church more than bad theology, bad art, and trite terminology?
So, on one hand, most of the folks in the patriarchy camp hold such a high view of scripture that only men can teach and read it in places where there are men present (because that’s what they believe the Bible says.) On the other hand, they hold such a LOW view of scripture that they make up “Resolutions” to read and be followed INSTEAD of reading scripture (say the fruits of the Spirit) and praying that God will bring these to life in them.
????
Do you think this has something to do with making money? You know, nothing much to sell if they use scripture since most Christians already have bibles.(sheesh)
Beloved –
That is exactly what they are — extra-biblical.
It also turned my stomach to hear that Esther’s church only prayed for those women who stood and agreed with this document that was trotted out (along with the women who did the bible study) for all to admire. I don’t sign my name to much of anything and would NEVER agree with something on the spur of the moment with no time to consider the thing. That is unwise in my eyes. Scripture even tells us to “consider” a matter carefully.
In response to these, my friend Pam Hogeweide wrote the Unladylike Manifesto 🙂
http://www.pamhogeweide.com/2012/05/26/unladylike-manifesto/
RE: “season” — to me, it implies such passivity. Resignation.
Like, whatever happens is meant to happen, and you are meant to put up with it. It is meant for a number of things, including your patience and perseverance as you graciously accept it without fighting against it. The intelligence dial is turned down and problem-solving yields to acquiesence, as counterproductive if not harmful things are enabled in the process.
E.G. wrote:
Wow that’s such a great idea. I’m foing to start it just as soon as I have some money.
@ Hester:
Hester, growing up in a comp/patriarchal conservative environment myself, I find I often equate submission with subservience. If you think of submission as God means it – a manifestation of love – it’s easier to see how Christ submits Himself to meet the needs of the Church (and of course, individuals). Submission is simply love in action, which is why Christians are called to submit to one another. Sometimes, my actions toward my husband appear submissive, and sometimes my husband’s actions toward me can be labelled submissive. Really, we just try to act with each other’s best interests in mind.
Kreine,
That’s a great way of putting it! Husbands and wives should try to outdo each other in love and service to one another.
more on “season” —
I think many things just happen, for no real reason at all. Something as boring as cause and effect.
As to cause, my sense is that the spiritual world simply is NOT the underside of the weavings of our daily circumstances. The spiritual world weaves in threads, at times often, and even some significant ones.
@ dee:
Dee,
I don’t know what her formal policy is. It’s apparent she allows a certain amount of discussion and even some dissension. My question was about fornication and sex outside of marriage which was being talked about freely as being fine. My question was why people felt this was okay when it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that it is not okay according to the Scriptures.
Like I said, I didn’t think it was an inflammatory question, but I think Rachel and the majority of her readers lean way more left than I do and are open to many more things than I am when looking at the Scriptures.
René wrote:
I found it here:
The Resolution for Women
Roll over to zoom.
Jan wrote:
Exactly!
And He does it so much better anyway. 🙂
anonymous,
I put the link you provided under the picture of the Resolutions for Women in the post. Thanks!
A Amos Love,
Thanks for including the Resolutions in your previous comment. I hope the link will suffice for those who want to read them.
Blessings!
And, just for fun, Scot McKnight posted this today:
Don’t Ordain Women? Don’t Baptize Them!
Of course, that’s tongue-in-cheek. But the comments on the post are getting interesting. Seems that he hit a patriarchal nerve there.
Sergius
That is what is so fascinating about this whole episode.”It seemed to me that Horton was making comments about the Catholic magisterium and the arrogation of theological certainty — which one could just as easily argue is a hallmark of Reformed theology.”
@ Diane:
On a ship, the head is the toilet. So to a Navy man, a headship is a ship that is all toilet! Which is my understanding of the whole worth of the headship comment.
Head in the context means source, not boss! And the NT household codes were revolutionary in putting any obligation on the man. “Love her like your are willing to be crucified for her, after washing her feet.”
Debbie
I am glad you no longer hide behind a mask. I enjoy the real you!
Beloved
You said “These 13 resolutions look like “laws” to me.” I have a pastor who says that we all, at times, want to retreat to the law because we like rules. Then, if we check off the rules that we have kept, it makes us feel we are good Christians.The grace thing is very difficult for many people to accept.I think many people fear grace because they think people will abuse it. Firstly, we will fall short since we are human but Jesus gave us grace anyhow. Therefore, we grow in understanding grace and out of thankfulness we try to do the right thing.
E.G.
Thanks for the link! I enjoyed the article (especially the title) and the comments.
Sergius
Is she any relation to Matt Naslund “Le Petit Viking?”
Former CLCer
I am glad that we could “serve” you today….Yeah, the lingo thing drives me batty. The Calvinistas latest is “unpack” and “gospel” this and that. It’s like nails on a chalkboard.
Bridget
Why don’t we pray for all the women who don’t stand??
BULLETIN: Tim Challies DISAGREES with John Piper’s belief that Christianity has a “masculine feel.” He remains a complementarian, and, presumably, his church still prohibits women from reading Scripture aloud during services, but he makes some sensible remarks.
http://www.challies.com/articles/does-christianity-have-a-masculine-feel#more
An excerpt:
“Here’s the thing: Whatever masculinity and femininity are, they are equally downstream from God, collections of traits that flow from God himself. Whatever femininity is, it is a means through which a woman can reflect the image of God. Whatever masculinity is, it is a means through which a man can reflect the image of God. When a man acts like a man he is displaying the image of God and the same is true when a woman acts like a woman.
It’s not like God gave his own attributes to Adam—masculine attributes—and then had to invent a collection of new, feminine ones when he created Eve. It seems that God chose to give some of the traits that exist in himself in greater measure to men and some in greater measure to women. Not only that, but he also gave each a particular role or sphere of operation in which those distinct virtues could be practiced and put on display. Thus to behave in a feminine way is to act in the image of God by faithfully displaying some of his characteristics and to behave in a masculine way is to act in the image of God by emphasizing other of his characteristics.”
Sallie wrote:
The weirdest thing about this article is the claim that Rache Held Evans MUST have a dysfunctional marriage because they are egalitarian – because since her husband has refused to take up headship, headship has transferred to Rachel. Excuse me? So… if a husband doesn’t ‘take up headship’ (whatever that means), it transfers to his wife, even though:
1) Complementarianism is built on the belief that women can’t be spiritual leaders in relationship to men and can’t have authority over men, and
2) The wife is also egalitarian, not complementarian, and has therefore not picked up ‘the mantle of headship’.
Can anyone point me to a Bible verse or two that supports this notion?
@ dee:
Absolutely! I am.
Those TWW readers who find themselves on the fence in the comp/egal issue might be interested in a recent series of interviews by Chris Date, host of the Theopologetics podcast. Himself a Reformed complementarian, Chris dedicated two full episodes of his podcast to interviewing Dr. Philip Payne, author of Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. I’ve listened to about 2/3 of the 150-minute interview and found it extremely helpful, to the extent that I plan to fork out $15 for the book. You can link to part I HERE and to part II HERE.
You can also subscribe via iTunes. Chris does some pretty good interviews. I just wish he wouldn’t telegraph his questions to his guests and then have them read their pre-written answers over the air. In the case of the Payne interview, however, this was actually helpful.
And Dee, I don’t know about Matt Naslund, but Kelly is the second cousin (once-removed, by marriage) of former Montreal Canadians hockey player and Swedish national Mats Naslund.
Just as at Chalcedon, one letter makes all the difference.
SMG
Kreine
What you describe is the vision of egalitarians in marriage. Tim Keller said that he and his wife are functional egalitarians. What would you then consider the difference between comps and egals, given your description?
Sallie
That is interesting. I spoke with some embers of Soul Force who are a homosexuals who consider themselves Christian. So, I sued one of them the following question. Assuming that you believe that the Bible allows you to marry, how many of you are chaste until you marry or have a committed relationship? The answer was almost none were. So, I then observed that the issue goes far beyond gay marriage and shows a disregard for other sexual commands as well. Your comment reminded me of that discussion.
…..just as the omission of one character can make a difference in my faulty attempt to link to the book.
Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.
JeffB
So how does he use justify restricting women (and presumably, from his comments, those of both sexes with speech impediments)from reading Scripture in church?
Sophie
I have a humdinger of a post coming up in the next week on spiritual authority which shows the limitations of their argument. You will find it interesting.
Sergius
hahahahahaha-You are a nut!
@ dee:
Looking forward to it!
@ Sergius Martin-George: What’s your alias over there?
@numo
Over where?
elastigirl wrote:
Exactly! (Because you can’t dial back to May when it’s October…)
@ Sergius Martin-George: At the White horse Inn.
(I wrote the above before skimming through this thread and seeing that your comments simply disappeared into the ether…)
@ anonymous:
I “rolled-over” and read the “Resolutions.” The verbiage seems pretty harmless to me (of course, it is subject to being mis-interpreted by certain overlords).
But then, why sign something like this anyway. Did not Jesus advise us against taking oaths?
@numo
Oh, right. No, I signed the piece as Sergius Martin-George. One alias is enough. I think.
SMG
@ Sergius Martin-George: Agreed!
@ dee:
I’ve only ever seen Rachel delete comments, including some of mine, if they end up being part of a string of comments that becomes abusive or takes people way off the track that the post was aiming for…It could be that the comment in question ended up with poor replies or was considered to be ‘inflammatory’ (which is much too strong a term for what I want to say)in a comments section because of who she can see is commenting that day, & the general tone of that day’s comments. It may also just have been a techno-bloop that had nothing deep & meaninful behind it.
While following up on the Scot McKnight piece someone linked to earlier in this thread, I came across another post, Missing My Megachurch, that I think will be of interest to those TWW readers who are particularly sensitive to church abuse issues, and most certainly to our gracious hostesses, Deb and Dee.
There is an eerie irony in the lack of irony. You’ll see what I mean.
Sergius
One?
dee wrote:
Dee, I think that if you were to go over to Gaychristian.net – and other sites like it – you’d see lively debate over sexual ethics and how they might apply in same-sex relationships. Gaychristian is notable for their tolerance of people who are (as they say) “Side A” (same-sex relationships are OK) and “Side B” (homosexual orientation is morally neutral, but God wants gay people to remain celibate).
I would not want to judge on such a small selection of views, especially seeing as Soulforce has many advocates who are of other faiths, as well as none. The civil rights aspect of the organization is (to my mind) very admirable, though I have some difficulties with their official stance on a number of points pertaining to sexual ethics. (So do some gay Christians who are OK with monogamous same-sex relationships, so it’s not like I’m taking a pov that hasn’t been expressed by those within the Soulforce orbit…)
BeakerJ
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I am more a go with the flow kind of blog and want people to speak what they are thinking about at that time. I hate, hate, hate to delete any comment. Perhaps it has something to do with growing up in a liberal home in Massachusetts. To be frank, we could have used a bit more restraint. 🙂
@ dee: I would guess that Rachel has been inundated with comments since her post about M. Driscoll’s “Effeminate male worship leader” FB post a few months ago.
I have to wonder if she has any help with comment moderation? It’s a very difficult issue, and I know that some of the most patient bloggers have ended up deleting comments that seem reasonable at times, just to try and keep discussion on track. (The late IMonk – Michael Spencer – did so at times, although I only noticed it when MD-related posts came up…)
@ dee: One other thought – it sounds like these folks were being honest.
I wonder how many straight Christians (or straight people, period, of all faiths) would be as forthright if asked the same questions? My guess is that the number of truly honest answers would not be very high.
Sophia Grace wrote:
But then she asked people to sign also (well, electronically) ! Gagh !
Numo
I don’t blame him on the Driscoll stuff. That stuff all gives me the willies yet I press on….
Numo
I agree. Statistics bear out your thoughts on the matter. You know me, when someone says, “Do you have any questions?” they don’t realize that I always have questions. 🙂 I wouldn’t want to have me when I offered such an opening. My mother begged the principal of the local elementary school to take me a year earlier because I asked too many questions (This as a 4y.o.). It has only gotten worse as I age.
Haitch wrote:
I would’ve signed it but only if it were going to be posted to the Kendrick Brothers.
Thanks for all your responses. I wasn’t actually raised in a patriarchal or strongly comp house, but that stuff is so inescapable in the Christian homeschool movement that you can’t help but absorb some of it by osmosis. There were very few families in our circle that didn’t self-consciously harp on gender roles to some degree (I self-consciously bucked them). When I was younger (about 9-12), the ideas of submission and militant patriarchy were so firmly linked in my mind that I didn’t believe my mom when she told me that one of the (normal) Christian women we knew submitted to her husband. I basically told mom that wasn’t possible, because her husband didn’t boss her around and she still had a mind of her own.
Hester,
That really makes me sad. I homeschooled my daughters when they were young. They started attended a Christian school when they were in 5th and 2nd grades. Now that I know this is the predominant direction of homeschooling, I’m glad we got out when we did. Thanks for sharing. If you’d ever like to write a guest post about this, let us know.
Oh, I just can’t help but translate this Resolution out of patriarchy code and into English!
“I will champion God’s model for womanhood and teach it to my children.”
Translation: I will faithfully purchase Vision Forum products and use them to indoctrinate my kids.
“I will celebrate my God-given uniqueness and the distinctions He has placed in others.”
T: …Unless those distinctions involve leadership gifts in others of my own sex.
“I will live as a woman answerable to God and faithfully committed to His Word.”
T: Not really. My husband answers to God and studies the Bible for me. Isn’t it just peachy?
“I will seek to devote the best of myself to the primary roles God has entrusted to me.”
T: I will have a passel of children and stay home as much as possible. Sphere of dominion and all that good stuff.
“I will be quick to listen, slow to speak and esteem others more highly than myself.”
T: I will talk in public as little as possible, and then only in a soft, breathy voice.
“I will not tolerate evil influences in myself or my home but will embrace a life of purity.”
T: Everything in popular culture is the work of the devil, so I will fill my home with Christianized knock-offs of the same stuff (preferably from Vision Forum).
“I will be faithful to my husband and honor him in my conduct and character, and will aspire to be a suitable partner to help him reach his God-given potential.”
T: Holy, holy, holy are You, God of power and might; heaven and earth are full of your glory…wait, who are we talking about?
“I will teach my children to love God, respect authority and live responsibly.”
T: I will spank my children until they comply with my wishes.
“I will cultivate a peaceful home where God’s presence is sensed.”
T: Beatings will continue until morale improves. Don’t worry – be happy!
“I will make today’s decisions with tomorrow’s impact in mind, and consider my current choices in light of future generations.”
T: I will stock my doom bunker with only homegrown heirloom vegetables, and have lots of children so my great-grandson can become prime minister of New Zealand in 2057.
@ dee:
Dee,
This wasn’t in the context of homosexuality (I’m pretty sure but wouldn’t bet my life on it – it was a long discussion and now I’ve forgotten).
If you want to read an interesting discussion, raise the issue of sex before marriage using the word fornication among Christians. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians do not believe it is wrong. I had a question on my blog about whether or not parents would give their daughter birth control if she asked for it and I was surprised by the number of women who said yes.
Sorry. Not trying to derail the discussion here.
“I will champion God’s model for womanhood and teach it to my children.”
Translation: I will faithfully purchase Vision Forum products and use them to indoctrinate my kids.
Hester,
I like your translation. Regarding this first one – I will teach God’s model for womanhood to my children – I guess that means that mothers DO NOT teach their sons.
WEIRD!
TedS. wrote:
That is pretty much my take as well. Upstream a ways I said the Holy Spirit seems to work this kind of fruit in me without me having made any resolutions at all. I don’t see the need for them. And you are right about Jesus’ admonition against oath taking. Solomon says something similar in Ecclesiastes 5:1-7, “Walk prudently when you go to the house of God; and draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil.” The context of this is vows.
Sallie
I love getting derailed. I am not into “authority” when it comes to forcing a conversation. That is an interesting question and i hope others join in. I will be doing some reading as well.
girlfriendsingod.com
I was reading the resolutions with a more positive interpretation to them, and my recurring thought was, “and this is different from what a man would do how?” for most of them, anyway
it’s odd to me how masculinity has become this pathetic, macho man thing, and ‘femininity’ seems more like maturity but with all the … power, danger, whatever, stripped of it. So both sides are left rather pathetic in this approach.
I want the ‘hey Christian girl’ tumblr website to do a bible study – preferably with Johnny Depp in attendance (with apologies to Vanessa Paradis, wonderful actor that she is).
@ dee: He mainly deleted comments that were either fanboyish or highly critical of Driscoll. The latter could be just as unpleasant as the former, per the nastiness.
But Michael still endorsed many aspects of Driscoll and his ministry – a point on which I could not agree with him.
At any rate, I think that keeping track of the IMonk comment section could be a full-time job!
dee wrote:
I once read a novel where the narrator referred to herself as “the Question Girl,” per her childhood and later. (She was, I think, 99 in the book.)
Like here – and you – I’m a Question Girl, and likely always will be. 🙂
As for stats, yep… I think most teenagers figure out ways to get around the strict requirements of so-called purity pledges. That whole thing (“purity” movement) is, imo, a VERY unrealistic, even outright damaging, way of trying to deal with sexual ethics as well as with teenagers. Even the use of the word “purity” re. abstinence is loaded, for girls and boys alike.
R-P
Thanks for the website. I will read it more carefully in the AM. It looks like they are all from NC.
M
The problem for me is what happens when a woman doesn’t fit the stereotypes. I like adventure movies and loud discussions. I like to discuss theology with anyone who will do so.However, I do love to cook. I did stay home to raise my kids but have no trouble with families who make different arrangements. I know a man who was quite satisfied to stay home with his kids while the wife worked as a doctor. They were a happy family. I never could quite understand such artificial restraints on what constitutes a female personality. As my husband often says, “You are never boring.”
Because whatever the game rules, the real game is called “beat the system”. Preferably while following the rules to the letter — any bureaucrat knows that one.
An obvious “beat the system” ploy with virginity is preserving “technical virginity” — i.e. unpopped cherry/unbroken melon — by using every other orifice. According to an online slang dictionary I saw years ago, Driscoll sex to preserve technical virginity is called “A Christian Side Hug” after that one Christianese youth group music video.
Let us collaborate on the 5 Points (T.U.L.I.P) of Chauvinism. Let’s make history right here, right now.
Let me start with the T
T = Totalitarian Male Leadership
@ Eagle:
Oh yeah, the guys have one too. I’ve seen it, prominently signed by a homeschool dad I know and plastered all over his wife’s Facebook. That was, after all, the whole point of the movie: to create and market yet another Christian fad.
@ Deb:
A guest post?! : ) Thank you for the offer. I’ll have to collect my thoughts on that one for a bit.
Also, I would say that patriarchy is NOT the direction of homeschooling in general, but it is very common in conservative Christian homeschooling. Homeschooling now has a fair number of “secular” parents and Christians who don’t necessarily homeschool for purely faith-based reasons. However, I would still estimate that conservative Christians are a large minority or about 50-50. It depends on where you live. Many of the conferences still tend to cater to that group (apologetics teen track, Christian comedians for entertainment, big booths for Abeka and Bob Jones, etc.).
I’m sorry. They lost me at #1.
This reminds me of the Prairie Muffin Manifesto. (Note: This is not parody!)
Eagle, what they mean by ‘uniqueness’ is that one woman’s husband could be a fireman and the next woman’s husband could be the manager of a shoe shop. One woman cooks for a husband who likes pork chops; the next, a husband who likes seafood risotto. See? Unique! But yes, you’re right, true uniqueness is not celebrated or encouraged by things like a 13-point patriarchal pledge for all women to sign, telling them what they ought to do for their children and husbands.
Eagle – Maybe there’s this big emphasis on contentment now as a sort of corrective to the prosperity gospel? So now instead of feeling guilty for not being rich, we can feel guilty or not feeling content? Yay, Christianity has all the answers!
dee wrote:
dee, you sound exactly like me! I started school at 4 even though my parents weren’t sure I was emotionally ready for it because I had just decided I was starting school that year and no discussion would be entered into. When questioning stubbornness is that strong at that young an age, it never goes away!
Hi everyone
This is a bit off-topic, but have you heard that Phil Johnson is retiring from blogging, and handing over the reins of Pyromaniacs to Frank Turk and Dan Phillips?
Here’s the video Frank Turk posted on Pyromaniacs in response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyxR3Yec528&
I know the video’s done in jest, but it’s oddly fitting that their contribution to the blogosphere is framed in the language of military tactics.
The opening line? “The egalitarians are fronting up their genderless agenda…”
And the Discernment Divas are advancing! 🙂
JJ wrote:
Disclaimer: Don’t have time to watch video at the moment.
I’ve been thinking about the fact that the patriarchalists continue to put this line forth even though almost every one of them knows that most Christians who lean egalitarian do NOT want a genderless society. The vast majority of Christian egals say over and over again in discussions that they DO believe that male and female are different. They do NOT want a unisex society.
Isn’t this akin to the comps bearing false witness against their neighbors? No, we’re not in court. But they continue to flat out lie and misrepresent the other side in this particular issue.
Watching these discussions online, it generally seems the egals go out of their way to be accurate and thoughtful. The comps continue to mischaracterize the faith and/or intentions of the egals.
Sigh.
Eagle wrote:
I’m not going to watch that video (I can’t afford to buy a new computer!) but the excerpts were equal parts scary and depressing. I always think the ‘men are visual creatures’ line is such a cop-out. Everybody has eyes, everybody is influenced by what they see. And if the sight of any female flesh makes you lustful, that’s a problem for you to deal with.
I can’t remember where or how I found it, but I came across a website early this year about modesty and what women should wear. It was a questionnaire to pre-teen and teenage boys, and some of the comments were really disturbing and heartbreaking. Like the ten year old who said he felt uncomfortable being around girls swimming, even if they had a loose t-shirt and shorts over their swimmers, because their when wet their clothes would stick to their bodies and he’d notice they were girls. What is being taught to kids if they are that scared of each others’ bodies?
Pam wrote:
I so agree!
Was the website ‘The Modesty Survey’?
http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/
Instead of being counter-cultural, this survey just conforms to the general view in society that women are responsible for men’s behaviour towards them. :/
This resolution throws one of patriarchy’s biggest problems into sharp relief; many of the things that they emphasize for one gender or the other are actually and obviously things that BOTH genders should be aware of.
Okay, so the woman’s resolution stresses being content with your season of life….forgiving enemies….um, aren’t those pretty basic skills to your Christian walk that all Christians need? I’m sure some people over at VF would agree that men should do these things, but say “But women have a harder time with them, and that’s why those things are included in their version of the resolution and not the man’s version.”
The problem is, when you start tailoring the message to different genders, LIKE IT OR NOT, you imply to one gender that the set meant for them is more important/relevant to their life than the set meant for the other gender. The things included in the woman’s statement but not the man’s statement, frankly, startle me.
Oh and the whole “give my best to the primary roles God has given me” wow I wonder what that means, could that be loaded stay-at-home-submissive-wife-guilt-speak?
And not to go on a full-out rant, but few of these statements are things that are actually spelled out clearly in the Bible. Think of all the passages in the New Testament that talk about how Christians are to live in light of Christ’s transforming power. Those passages look a lot different than these man/woman resolutions, and they emphasize different things. Granted, some of the things in the resolution, like forgiving enemies, is in the Bible, but look at all the statements…how many of them can you trace back directly to a Bible passage?
I don’t want to be nit-picky here, but these patriarchy camps act like these gender-specific things they’ve spelled out are SOOOOO important to everyone’s lives….I would rather just apply what’s in scripture.
Just came across this article, thought it was interesting given ‘family values’ Christianity:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/927753/hey_fox,_what_about_this_%22war_on_marriage%22_divorce_rates_are_highest_among_evangelicals/
The source and political slant of the article I recognise people may disagree with, but the statistics contained are interesting.
…………I do solemnly resolve before God to embrace my current season of life…………
………………………………….and live with a spirit of contentment. …………………………………..
Translation: You have no autonomy so sit down and shut up.
1 – I will champion God’s model for womanhood and teach it to my children.
I have been made a doormat and someone convinced me that it was God and who am I to question God now I will infect others with this false teaching.
2 – I will celebrate my God-given uniqueness and the distinctions He has placed in others.
I am missing a Y chromosome and will make the most of it.
3 – I will live as a woman answerable to God and faithfully committed to His word.
I will believe poor teaching of tricky Biblical passages.
4 – I will seek to devote the best of myself to the primary roles God has entrusted to me.
I am a mindless puppet acting out a role as opposed to living my God-given life.
5 – I will be quick to listen, slow to speak and esteem others more highly than myself.
This would work if males were taught the same thing.
6 – I will forgive those who have wronged me and reconcile with those I have wronged.
Forgive: Yes, repeat the abuse cycle: NO!
7 – I will not tolerate evil influences in myself or my home but will embrace a life of purity.
Good in concept but used for someone else’s abuse of authority.
8 – I will pursue justice, love mercy, and extend compassion toward others.
As I limit my influence to my home.
9 – I will be faithful to my husband and honor him in my conduct and in my conversation,
…… and will aspire to be a suitable partner to help him reach his God-given potential.
Because anyone deserves to be nothing but the enabler of another person?!
10 – I will teach my children to love God, respect authority and live responsibly.
Question authority because God gave you a brain.
11 – I will cultivate a peaceful home where God’s presence is sensed.
But not live a life of my own?
12 – I will make today’s decisions with tomorrow’s impact in mind
……. and consider my current choices in light of future generations.
Because the only thing I can do is birth sons and make my husband happy.
13 – I will courageously work with the strength God provides
……. to fulfill this resolution for the rest of my life and for His glory.
Because I have read the user terms and hit the I agree button.
JJ
Loved the video! You might enjoy this one featured on Wade Burleson’s website.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/03/hitler-rants-against-sbc-name-change-to.html?m=1
I so agree!
Was the website ‘The Modesty Survey’?
http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/
Instead of being counter-cultural, this survey just conforms to the general view in society that women are responsible for men’s behaviour towards them. :/
Brett and Alex Harris did that survey. Their father is Gregg Harris (Household of Faith churches in Portland area). Their brother, Josh Harris, pastor of Covenant Life Fellowship, a Sovereign Grace Ministries church under CJ Mahaney. There is a strong homeschool, full-quiver, patriarchy tone with these churches.
I will stop now before my fingers get me into trouble with the amount of typing they want to do.
…………I do solemnly resolve before God to embrace my current season of life…………
………………………………….and live with a spirit of contentment. …………………………………..
Translation: You have no autonomy so sit down and shut up.
B said:
“1 – I will champion God’s model for womanhood and teach it to my children.
I have been made a doormat and someone convinced me that it was God and who am I to question God…”
I get really annoyed when people excuse their limitations on women by saying ‘but I’m not sexist; I’m following the Bible’. What they ae actually saying is ‘Don’t blame me; God started it!’ I mean if you’re going to limit women at least take ownership of it.
I think I need a tutorial on how to use this new commenting feature. I wanted to quote the comment I was referring to and clicked “quote”, but it didn’t highlight properly. Additionally, my comment was put at the end of all of the comments, rather than beneath the comment I was responding to. Help!! lol
Julie Anne wrote:
I highlighted the text you see above. If you don’t highlight anything it quotes the entire comment. (Boo Hiss on a long comment.)
As to threading. D&D have said no. Not my decision.
But when you Reply or Quote the system does put a link in your comment so clicking on the name of the original commenter takes you back to that comment.
@ Julie Anne:
Hi! I’m not the most technologically literate person 😉 but I’ll try help! In order to paste a section of a comment, and link back to the person you’re responding to, click ‘quote (selected text)’. The person’s original comment will appear, bracketed by some hieroglyphics like
Ha ha, I’ve just illustrated by technological silliness – by mentioning an example of the ‘hieroglyphics’, I unintentionally indented a chunk of my own comment!
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
Oh, I actually like that feature better (clicking on name of original commenter that takes you back to the comment).
I am actually just rambling here so I can test and see if my brain functions at 9:29AM and can follow instructions. Pardon the intrusion 😉
Pam wrote:
Barna’s results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.
Well, that’s embarrassing.
George Barna commented that the results raise “questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families.”
I don’t like to think of how many different ways there are to interpret this statement.
Does anyone think the resolution to forgive one’s enemies is intended to include forgiving the abusive or wandering husband?
Arce
Given the penchant of some Calvinistas to encourage women to stay with abusive husbands, I would say “It could be.”
Julie Anne
We have written about SGM churches for 3 years. Some of our readers were members of that “family (oxymoron if you ask me unless you means dysfunctional) and have written on several blogs on the seeming obligation that women must be modest. Modest is defined in all sorts of ways. One woman wrote here that another busybody woman in her church “observed” (an SGM term meaning you are about to get it) that she didn’t button her top button on her shirts and that was incorrect.
Then there are the Duggars who wear 1950s style gym suits for swimsuits and the boys are instructed to look down on the ground when an incorrectly dressed woman walks by which means they are face down in any situation. I wonder, do they allow their daughters to look at The David in the Vatican?
Some thoughts on the Frank Turk YouTube Hitler video.
(1) I question the propriety of anyone using Hitler and the Nazis for laughs. More to the point, however, the discourse of some folks renders them particularly ill-suited to making YouTube videos in which an association with the Nazis is a realistic threat to them or to the group or movement they represent. Nuff said?
(2) Did everyone notice this swipe he took at Challies? — I was a little surprised to see this in light of the brouhaha a year-and-a-half ago when Turk made the comment that only Challies’s mother reads his blog. Ironically, this comes at a time when we might be inclined to give Challies a little slack for going against the grain (would you agree, Sallie?).
(3) Why is Frank Turk always writing about how other people shouldn’t blog? His gag line, “Frank Turk is a menace and must be stopped,” is a joke when applied to him, but apparently it’s deadly serious when applied to anyone else who wants to start blogging.
SMG
Well, since I’m a man getting a snoutful of complementarian theology at my church, this is going to sound funny. I have serious questions/doubts about the comp movement. Yet, I’m married to a woman who says she wholehearted supports Doug Phillips/Scott Brown-ian views on men/women in familes, and supports the CBMW views as well. So, according to the TGC article, the reason I have my doubts is because I’m uncomfortable with/shirking my role as a man, right?
I, for one, am dead set against limiting what my daughters might become. Who am I to say what God intends for them. To the comps: who do you suppose should evangelize Arab/Muslim women? A man? That pig won’t fly. So, since we need faithful women prepared to bring the good news to Muslim women, then that must be a valid exception to the “prepare to be a homemaker” plan for girls? And that’s just one example. I’m perfectly happy if my daughters feel strongly led to become SAHMs. But if God wants them to be something different, I had better prepare them accordingly. And I can’t wait until they are grown to find out.
Arce wrote:
I’d give the benefit of the doubt here as far as their intentions – BUT I am fairly certain that in combination with the “contentment” resolution, yes, it will be taken and/or taught that way by others.
If they were going to say that, they should have added something like “I will stand up for those being wronged, including myself, if it is at all in my power to do so.” The idea of female submission is warped if/when it removes women’s power to do this for herself or her children. There are certain situations which women were NOT meant to shut-up and be content with and it should not be expected of them.
Even in non-abusive, faithful marriages, if a woman is wronged by her husband, she should not have to allow misguided teachings about submissiveness to get in the way of her communicating this to her husband. Communication in marriage is essential, and any system that dissolves this tool is going to result in MORE divorce, not less.
@ Pam:
Pam —
re: modesty, fear of human body
I tend to think that the more a culture heightens a taboo on something, or stigmatizes something (not sure what the best word is), 2 things are generated: manufactured fear, and a greater allure.
Perhaps a recipe for emotional / behavioral issues.
The human body is a beautiful and wonderful thing, to be loved and appreciated, and blessed rather than cursed — the body of oneself and the bodies of others.
This is not to say there are no boundaries. And while boundaries on things related to the human body are largely cultural and subjective, values that cause one to be afraid of their body or the body of another can’t be healthy.
memo to religious culture: Breasts are not scary, or evil.
notastepfordsheep wrote:
Wow! Prairie Muffins have 51 points in their manifesto! Sure beats 13!
dee wrote:
Dee: You can read my own blog about the legalistic ideas we had to deal with (http://bgbcsurvivors.blogspot.com/search/label/Extra-Biblical%20Nonsense). It’s prevalent in these types of churches.
Regarding David at the Vatican . . . . I know in my homeschooling circles and reading in magazines, online, etc, the popular way of dealing with “immodest” art in books is to cover offending body part(s) with a sticker 🙂 What’s funny is that kids will always lift up that sticker to uncover/discover/confirm that David does indeed have a penis ::::gasp:::::
CF69 – Would the simple solution be to command your wife not to be complementarian? Or command her to read some egalitarian literature? Either way, since comp theory tells us that you automatically get to win any dispute with your wife by virtue of your anatomy, you could command her not to teach complementarian ideas to your daughters and not to suggest to them that they are limited in any way at all.
My theory is, it’s better to be an egalitarian man with a complementarian wife, than an egalitarian wife who’s with a complementarian husband!
Sergius
How is Challies going against the grain?
CF69
I am so glad you are there to provide a counterpoint to your daughters. My father was a Russian immigrant and a great believer in education for men and women. You know, it is rather amusing that we have rabid comp women who insist on SAHM and spend their days crisscrossing the globe bringing the message.
Jan
Some of these men have conveyed that women must be careful even giving road directions to their husbands so it doesn’t seem they are trying to usurp hubby’s authority.
Julie Anne
My son’s school went to Italy and did the rounds. My son and his buddies (seniors) took a picture of them (yes, I know they are not supposed to) next to the David. Guess what they focused on. I found out that most high school boys do the same thing. I have to admit, when he showed me, I laughed.
Sergius –
I’m willing to give the Nazi thing a pass. I’ve watched many of them on different topics and some of them are pretty funny. (I confess I even made one.) I can see why some people might object, but I won’t hold it against him. Although I don’t think it was really that funny. I’ve seen much better ones.
Re: Challies… Are you referring to the fact that he came out against some of what Piper has been saying about the church having a masculine feel? In his circles, I do think that was a significant post for him to write. I also give Challies credit that he did stop by my blog and respond to the post I did about him and Voskamp.
Sergius Martin-George wrote:
Arce wrote:
I KNOW that at times they have been asked to forgive and accept wandering and/or abusive husbands in the home. This is totally wrong in my estimation. I believe in forgiving, and repentance (which includes change); however, someone who has been abusive or wandering should be out of the home, in counseling, and legally and morally responsible for what happened. Even with all that, there should be no guarantee that the person would be welcome back in the home. There would have to be a work of God in the abused person’s life to trust again. Forgiving does not equal trust and an automatic return to the former life. What are you telling women and children if you don’t take care of them and if you model that it is just fine for an abuser to say “sorry” and not have to make real changes?
Some of this is just common sense to me . . . I don’t understand how some leaders don’t get it.
@Sallie & Dee:
Yes that was exactly what I had in mind: that he showed up on your blog and that he was willing to go against Piper. Also the fact that he was willing to engage Ann Voskamp after the initial review — irrespective of how one sees that all going down, I think it shows some openness that I, for one, did not think he had in him.
It would be nice, Sallie, if he were to get back to you and follow up on his response to your piece. I know he’s a busy guy, so….
Arce wrote:
In some circles, yes. I have heard of it happening with fundamentalist churches.
Arce wrote:
Not only forgiving– I heard a priest on our local Catholic radio suggest to the wife of a wandering husband that she ask him what things he liked about the mistress, so she could “resolve” (my word) to please him better.
@ elastigirl:
Created or evolved (or both) to provide food for infants, which is a natural function that traditionalists should endorse, admire and be thankful for.
I know others have probably said it either here or on previous threads, but how come no purity ring for the boyz?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander right?
Muff
I agree with you. I did hear of a few groups in Texas doing rings for guys.
Muff:
Great idea!!
@ Dee:
That road directions thing was actually talking about ALL men. Even though it says “women submit to YOUR OWN husbands”…not other people’s. And certainly not Uncle Ned, cousin Harry, and your drunken neighbor.
Hester
What about John Piper? If he and I were in a room, would I have to walk a few steps behind him, kind of like Kate and William?
Julie Anne wrote:
Yes – that was it. And you’re right, it’s all about how what women and girls wear ‘does something’ to men. And some of the restrictions and complaints get ridiculous – I’ve heard of someone I know criticised for wearing red nail polish on their toenails. If that gets you thinking lustful thoughts, then there’s a real problem with how you view people.
elastigirl wrote:
I was a visual arts major in undergrad, and heard some very unflattering comments about how ungodly and sinful it was for me to be working from nude models (male and female) in drawing and painting classes.
As I went on with my studies, I started focusing on art history as well, and learned something that might surprise – even shock – many American evangelicals:
in allegorical paintings of Vice and Virtue, Vice is usually presented as a fully clothed woman, while Virtue doesn’t have a stitch on and is seemingly quite unaware of any need for anxiety about that.
There are plenty of medieval and Renaissance paintings of the Madonna and Child where Mary is shown either breast-feeding the infant Jesus, or else (more or less) before or after – with one or both breasts uncovered, but with the infant sitting peacefully on her lap.
So much about “modesty” is culturally determined, I think. The American aversion to women nursing in public is one of those things. So is (again, imo) the common attitude of fear toward sexual desire and the unclothed body in *many* religious circles.
I feel very badly for the kids who are being taught that everything about their very normal desires is wrong… and think that kind of “teaching” is not only damaging, but reflects a highly immature way of viewing human relationships in general and those between men and women in particular.
@ Bridget:
Oh yes indeed…the real meaning behind all the emphasis on wives being “forgiving” really comes down to the all too prevalent concept in some fundy circles that unless a wife is being beaten to DEATH, that she needs to persevere and even take some of the blame for her situation. If you don’t buy this, read some of the books or talk with abused wives who have received “counseling” from their pastors.This pledge is really a warm and fuzzy attempt to do in a couple minutes what it took “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” two hours to accomplish 🙂
numo wrote:
“…I was a visual arts major in undergrad, and heard some very unflattering comments about how ungodly and sinful it was for me to be working from nude models (male and female) in drawing and painting classes…”
I have in the past and will continue to argue that these kinds of attitudes toward the human body and what it means to be human are largely Calvinist in origin and virtually unknown in the Catholic bastions of Europe since the Renaissance.
Severe floggings were commonplace for native Hawaiians caught doing their native dances in various states of undress under their missionary benefactors (Calvinist) as late as the post Civil War period when the sugar barons ruled them in the early stages of the first Gilded Age.
More recently, author Tim LaHaye in his book — The Battle for the Mind — , assures us that America’s Godless lust for and obsession with pornography can be traced back to the Renaissance humanists and their God-hating art forms.
Just checked the White Horse Inn blog, “Rome Sweet Home?” – Sergius’ comment is up. Now to try and understand quite what you are all talking about !
Laura
You said: “It really comes down to the all too prevalent concept in some fundy circles that unless a wife is being beaten to DEATH, that she needs to persevere and even take some of the blame for her situation.”
Unfortunately, you are correct. There are some irresponsible, mentally limited people out there who would even commend a woman for persevering and going to her death in order to submit to her husband when he beats her. They have made the marriage vow an idol and the man a dictator.
Eagle
That was an excellent comment, one that should provoke thoughtful discussion. So, did it get on and deleted or never get one?
Haitch
I hope to do a story on Jason Spellman and his conversion to Catholicism. This one is causing major waves with the predictable comment, “He was never really a Calvinist” stuff. Kind of head to do that. however, since this guy presided over a heresy trial in the OPC. He was a true believer, in my opinion.
Oh my. Never sign anything called a manifesto. Oh my.
Lynne,
You are absolutely right!
Just for clarification, this post is about a “resolution for women”, not to be confused with the True Woman Manifesto. We will be getting to that topic very soon…
I find all of this extremely nauseating!
Oh, and Lynne, can’t you just imagine these resolutions and manifestos being used to administer church discipline in the future?
I definitely can!
In any church I would want to attend, signing such a thing could be a cause for discipline, as in “you need to repent of signing such things, so we will pray for you. Now, let’s get back to being church together.”
numo wrote:
I breastfed my seven babies and this visual only brings a smile to my face. I know the complete satisfaction my babies had after being nursed, not only were their tummies filled, but they had the pleasure of being with me one-on-one: ability to touch my face, play with my hair that dangled in their faces, connect deeply with our eyes, play with my hands, etc. Yes, I can picture Jesus fully content and peaceful on Mary’s lap, breasts uncovered. It’s a beautiful image of the mother/child bond.
Julie Anne,
Seven children? I sound like Julie Andrews in the Sound of Music as she reacted to how many children Captain Von Trapp had. Wow!
Deb wrote:
LOL – yes, 7. That is if I haven’t left one behind someplace. I have done that before, true story. Bad mom.
Don’t feel bad. Mary and Joseph did the same thing. 🙂
Deb wrote:
Hilarious! My daughter was recently recounting her abandonment story (I’m sure it will be passed down the generations, just like it was for Jesus). I’ll have to tell her she was in good company. 🙂
Muff Potter wrote:
Muff Potter, unfortunately missionaries still penalise villagers in Papua New Guinea for participating in ‘sing sing’ – village celebrations. They were Seventh Day Adventists in this case (I’d be curious to know their nationality). Though floggings aren’t de rigueur now, they are still punished. As seen in the documentary “Crater Mountain Story” – Maimafu people. http://www.hawaii.edu/oceanic/film/filmdb/3334.html
How many arrows in a quiver? (asked on the web)
Here is the answer I found on the web:
“as many as it can hold!
There are a wide variety of quiver and arrow types. Most modern hunting quivers hold somewhere around five. Most medieval quivers were sized to hold between ten and fifteen, with an even dozen being the number most commonly alluded to in literature. Personally I have never seen one designed to be carried by a foot archer that would hold more than twenty. It would, of course, be possible to do so, but arrows tend to bulk up quickly, so the practicality is questionable.”
So it appears the answer is about a dozen. Sounds like an agrarian lifestyle to me….
Pam wrote:
In GENERAL men and women’s brains work differently. And in this area way more men notice sexual overtones visually than women. And many women don’t “get it” since their don’t see the world that way.
Now while in general way more men are likely to get “whiplash” when someone in a small swim suit or whatever walks by, that in no way shape or form excuses anything they might do after the quick head spin.
me
Or the modern day equivalent of the Duggars.
Someone
Yet, in Middle Eastern cultures men go nuts over an exposed ankle. In the Southern regions of the world, fewer clothes are necessary. The problem remains is to what constitutes modesty. The Duggars eschew any sort of bathing suit for girls. Some families do not allow girls out with just tank tops.
I had a conversation with my elderly mom who is not a Christian. We were sitting on the beach and women were walking by in all sorts of bathing suits. Suddenly, one woman came by in a thong (she was also about 60 pound overweight). My mom said that her suit was disgusting. Yet just before a thin woman had walked by in a small bikini, showing just about as much. I asked her how she judged between the two. She said there was a difference but could not elaborate.
dee wrote:
It must be in how far you turn the cheek. 😉
dee wrote:
Not exposing what most don’t expose. When you go past that you draw attention. Which is what some are trying to do.
Someone wrote:
But what “some” are trying to do is not what “all” are doing. For most people, wanting to draw attention to ones self is a heart issue and isn’t going to change by legislating clothing. It is the same with men “turning the head.” What changes the head from turning is what is going on internally.
I have a hard time with the “men are more visual” statement. This statement seems to only pertain to being sexually stimulated and not necessarily any other area of life such as decor, art, landscapes, etc. That has been my observation anyway 🙂
Is it more an issue of “enjoying” being sexually stimulated (not a bad thing in the right context) to the point of not restraining ones self from going there? This can apply to women as well as men.
@ dee:
Hiya Dee,
Just a few corrections for you. The name is Jason Stellman. He was in the PCA. Please be sure to find and read his blog for details regarding the Leithart trial and his explanation of things.
Thanks Jenn! We encourage correction as well as constructive criticism. 🙂 I took care of the little spelling issue in your comment.
@ Deb:
No problem. I thought I’d help you out with some of your homework since Christendom seems to be exploding with hot topics for you to write about.
And now we know why Driscoll thinks all women are gullible and easily deceived. He only knows women who buy into this kind of stuff hook, line and sinker.
anonymous,
You’re not kidding! And to think that I hesitated starting this blog with Dee because I didn’t think there would be enough to write about. 😀
@Dee:
I’ve heard that some German and Russian grandmothers at the Baltic & Black Sea resorts have no qualms whatsoever about wearing bikini swimwear. If it’s true and as widespread as alledged, then they must have a whole different ethos than what American mores will tolerate in that realm.
Muff
In fact, I was in Odessa and went swimming.Your comment made me smile. Indeed, there are many fat babushkas who do wear bikinis with wild abandon along with corpulent gentlemen who sport Speedos. After the initial sensory overload, I enjoyed myself and never gave it another thought.
Dee,
True story from Mr. Peabody and the way back machine. When I was a teen, Dad worked for the Govt. and we got stationed in Heidelberg (Germany). I went to Biarritz (France) one summer and actually got to surf there, yeah I was a beach rat when home was coastal OC (Southern Calif.).
Even back then the French grandmothers didn’t have near the hang-ups with swimwear that their American counterparts were saddled with.
@ A. Amos Love:
@ Eagle:
What is interesting about this is that taken at face value this could and should apply to all Christians male, and female. So the question is what is the resolution for men? I presume it has nothing about humility, submission and service in it?
My major problem with complementarians has always been their disingenuity. Effectively they seem to me to take a plausible biblical hermeneutic and then use it to create a patriarchy. This seems a fine example of this.
Richard
It is been said loud and clear by those at SBTS. They do not LIKE the word complementarian and PREFER the word patriarchy.
Sorry excuse my ignorance SBTS?
SBTS: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Al Mohler, president. Friend and supporter of CJ Mahaney who is moving SGM to start a church near the seminary.
Southern Bapto-calvinista Tyranno-theological School for future church tyrants.
Richard
i really must do an abbreviations page. SBTS Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship of the SBC and the hotbed for NeoCalvinism.
55 Years
I do hope that the Calvinistas quietly looking on will see the reputation that has preceded them. Thank you for a smile this morning.
Thank you all for explanations – I shall know in future 🙂
Richard
You pointed out something that is important. We all talk insider lingo and sometimes fail to see it. Thank you.