All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.” And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.” And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy." Paige Patterson – One of Kassian's people.
USAF Pilots
When I finished reading Mary Kassian’s review link of Rachel held Evans' book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood, I said to my husband, "I just don't get it." Oh, I get complementarianism. It's been beat over my head for a very long time. I have read more on that subject than any other. But, I was not prepared for the obfuscation of what constitutes complementarianism and how it is widely practiced throughout the world.
However, Kassian is now seeking to redefine it and is making it far more complicated as she does so. One thing appears clear to me, she is trying to pretend that some of the mandates of complementarianism that have been espoused by her dear friends, such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Russell Moore, Denny Burk, etc., do not exist. The question is, "Why?" I wonder if she realizes that this hard core group is beginning to lose support, not only in the secular world, but in the church world as well.
As each new pronouncement comes out, like Tim Challies' mandate that women cannot read Scripture out loud in front of the church, there are more people raising their heads and wondering if things are going too far.
However, as I seek to understand her, I cannot judge her motives, only her words and actions.
Let me use a current political situation to illustrate my point. This is NOT a political statement or a particular critique of Dr. Susan Rice, the current US Ambassador to the United Nations. After the assassination of our ambassador to Libya, Dr Rice stated, for about 5 days, that the riot was a spontaneous event due to an offensive You Tube video. However, there appears to be evidence that the administration knew that it was a planned event. I know that Dr. Rice is a talented and intelligent individual so her response to the situation is confusing. I have no idea what the motives were behind her statement. I can only judge what she said on face value. So, I am left with wondering if she believed it to be true or she was told to say it for some reason or she had a momentary lapse in judgment.
I do not understand the motivation and complexity behind Dr. Rice’s handling of the situation. Likewise I do not fully understand the motivation for this startling review by Kassian but something is obviously amiss.
1. Kassian appears put out that she wasn’t consulted or more acknowledged.
The first line of the review gave me pause.
“Rachel Held Evans thanked me in her acknowledgments. That was nice! (I’m glad I didn’t miss it. It’s a good thing I’m nerdy enough to read all the footnotes and shout-outs.)”
If I didn’t know better, I might think that Kassian was irritated that her “praise” was buried in an acknowledgment list. Does she believe that since she “invented” the term so many years ago, that she is the go to person for true understanding? Did she think she should have been the featured expositor on all things gender? I do not know. However, I would not have started off the review in this manner. It could be misinterpreted.
Also, does one’s “invention” of a term (I believe that Piper has also said he came up with the term-maybe they did it together?) mean that they are then the sole arbiters of how that term is used. Language is flexible and people imbue terms with their own meanings. Can you imagine a person from the 1800s being upset that the word “gay” is now used differently? Also, it appears to me that the term "complementarian" is so ill-defined that there is little wonder that people look at it differently.
Having been a member of many evangelical churches throughout this country, I can speak to the fact that complementarianism is often used to to exclude women from the pulpit and to makes sure a woman “submits” to a man.What that submission looks like varies from person to person. Some of it can pretty gosh darn ugly. If she was “in charge” of the term, I have some news for her. She lost control of it many years ago.
2 Kassian believes that she is the forefront of the complementarian movement.
Kassian says:
“I wanted to give her direct, personal access to a woman at the forefront of the contemporary biblical womanhood movement.”
“I made myself available to help her navigate her way through living out biblical womanhood in the upcoming months. Though she didn’t take me up on the offer, she did attend part of a conference on biblical womanhood at which I spoke, and throughout the year we talked a couple of times.”
Once again, Kassian seems put out that RHE did not extensively consult her. Frankly, Kassian has written and spoken so much that there is little that cannot be found on the Internet-including books, speeches and manifestos. She even came here to Raleigh to speak at a moderate sized church. If Kassian was living in a monastery and never wrote or spoke, then it would be a different story. But the woman talks, a lot!
3. Kassian stresses her involvement with the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Kassian, referring to RHE, says
She specifically identifies the movement whose “theological bulwark” is “found in the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” (p. xix). I’m glad she clarified who exactly she means by “evangelical complementarians.” She’s talking about my people. I’ve been with that movement from the start. She’s walking into my backyard. Her book is specifically aimed at the particular brand of evangelical complementarity of which I am a part.”
Kassian now states that evangelical complementarians are “her people" and that RHE's book is aimed at a particular brand of evangelical complementarianism. Huh? As we will see, her people include some folks who have interesting views that she claims do not exist. So to which “my people” is she referring? I will list a few of them from SBTS and Southern who seem to contradict her. Oh yeah, she appears unable to well define what her "particular brand" of comp theology is. In MBA terms, she has a definite branding identification problem.
4. Kassian demonstrates a lack of historical understanding about the development of the “biblical womanhood” movement in the 20th century.
I developed and taught a multi-year course on church history for a former church. History is not defined as a series of new movements that are spontaneously generated. Instead, who we are today is a direct result of who we were a few decades ago.
In other words, Kassian (with, or without, Piper) did not suddenly define something new. She merely attempted to define what had been developing. Or did she? I still am not sure what she thinks she is defining.
Kassian quotes RHE.
“Evangelical complementarianism,” claims Rachel, “[is] a movement that began as a reaction to second-wave feminism and found some of its first expressions in the writings of Edith Schaeffer (The Hidden Art of Homemaking, 1971) and Elisabeth Elliot (Let Me Be a Woman, 1976).”
RHE goes on to explain that complementarianism rests on the
“uncompromising conviction [that] the virtuous woman serves primarily from the home as a submissive wife, diligent homemaker, and loving mother.” (p. xix).
Kassian then responds.
“The Hidden Art of Homemaking?! I just about fell off my chair. That book was written seventeen years before the inception of CBMW and about twenty years before we adopted the term “complementarian.” I have never even heard of it. I highly doubt whether John Piper and Wayne Grudem—the founders of CBMW—have read it. So to cite it as the first expression of evangelical complementarianism is hardly defensible."
Good night! Most women of a certain age were well aware of Schaeffer, Elliott, et al, long before Kassian jumped to “define” the scene. I even read both books many years ago and sat in on a class that Elliott taught at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary. Yep, those heathens let women teach courses. If Kassian truly “developed” the complementarian definition, as she claims, she must have been working in a vacuum.
Here is a link to a paper which is online at Kassian’s SBTS (where she is a professor)which looks at the contribution to the Schaeffers.
Why did she overlook this? Or did she decide not to bring it up?
5. Mary Kassian surprisingly looks to Dorothy Patterson to help “prove” that homemaking has nothing to do with complementarianism.
A degree in homemaking?!!
It is at this point, I knew that something was amiss. She does not mention that Dr Dorothy Patterson (PhD University of South Africa) is the head of the homemaking degree at the College at Southwestern Link
“The classes are part of a homemaking concentration for a bachelor of arts in humanities degree through The College at Southwestern, the Texas seminary's undergraduate school. Three-credit-hour courses in the concentration are General Homemaking, Biblical Model for the Home and Family and The Value of a Child. Also required are seven credit hours in meal preparation and nutrition and seven hours in the design and sewing of clothing.”
Kassian quotes RHE who stated that Patterson, in 1990, said
“Keeping the home is God’s assignment to the wife—even down to changing the sheets, doing the laundry, and scrubbing the floors.” (p. 23) “We need mothers who are not only family-oriented but also family-obsessed.” (p. 178)
Kassian claims to be irritated that that Rachel Held Evans used 20 year old material written by Patterson but kind of forgets” to remind her audience that CBMW republished the article in 2006 in the Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Book! “Link
Kassian says
“Mrs. Patterson told me that she would nuance the first quote by clarifying that “though she may not do these chores herself, she senses the responsibility to see that her home is kept in order.” (Ed. note:No nuance needed back in 2006 but seems to be needed now).
Well, you betcha Patterson doesn’t scrub those floors at Pecan Manor. She has a boatload of help. So, is Kassian , and Patterson, implying that, if you have enough money and servants, you receive a “get out of scrubbing the floor” card? Instead Patterson can go and teach women getting their “homemaking degree” how to sew clothes while cooking meals.
Also, notice how she does not address the child-care issue at all. So, do women stay home to raise the children or can they hire that help as well? Or is this just a question to be avoided.
The infamous Sheri Klouda incident link
It gets worse. Kassian completely overlooks (or chooses to ignore) the despicable treatment of Sheri Klouda at SWBTS by Paige Patterson, himself. Women are not allowed to teach Hebrew even after they are told they can. (Hebrew is one of those languages which can only be spoken by men, apparently).
Paige Patterson condoned the physical abuse of a woman.
Finally, Patterson’s husband believes that women should go home to an abusive husband. Link.
He bragged about it, especially when the woman showed up with black eyes after he told her to go home because said abuser showed up at church.This is the "get an abuser to come to church" tactic. Did Kassian choose to overlook this little gem? TWW didn't and we called for Patterson’s resignation over this incident. Did Kassian get concerned about this?
So, are the Pattersons a part of Kassian's “my people?” She is not winning any converts with them on board.
6. Kassian denies that patriarchy has anything to do with complementarianism.
In my opinion, this is her most startling statement yet. In fact, she must either have her head in the sand or is deliberately spreading misinformation. I sure hope it is the former.
Kassian says
“The second woman Rachel quotes is Stacy McDonald, who wrote a book entitled, Passionate Housewives Desperate for God. McDonald is associated with the Vision Forum and the biblical patriarchy movement, so it’s clear that she isn’t representative of the core of modern evangelical complementarianism either.”
TWW reader has Facebook exchange with Kassian. Here is a link to the Facebook page.
Better yet, one of our readers sent Kassian an email challenging her statement that patriarchy and complementarianism are not the same. Kassian replied to her
“My complementarian colleagues do not embrace the term"patriarchy." And like you, I am gravely concerned about some of the abuses and oppression of women arising from that ideology."
She telling a whopper and I will prove it!
Our reader sent her a follow-up email
“I linked her to my article Will the Real Complementarian Please Stand Up where I have all the quotes from her colleagues. No response whatsoever.” Link
This reader said, about Kassian
"(Is she) “In denial or trying to spin this her direction? Inquiring minds want to know~! Geesssshhh."
The bio on her website states:
“Mary Kassian is an award winning author, popular speaker, and a distinguished professor of women’s studies at Southern Baptist Seminary.”
Let’s look at some of “her people.” The quotes, unless specified are from the Emotional Abuse and Your Faith blog link
Russell Moore Link
“Russell Moore is the dean of the School of Theology and Senior VP for Academic Administration at Southern Baptist Seminary. He is also an apologist for complementarian relationships but here is what he has to say about the word complementarian:
If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy. This claim is rendered all the more controversial because it threatens complementarianism as a “movement.”
Not all complementarians can agree about the larger themes of Scripture—only broadly on some principles and negatively on what Scripture definitely does not allow (i.e.. women as pastors). Even to use the word “patriarchy” in an evangelical context is uncomfortable since the word is deemed “negative” even by most complementarians. But evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God and Father of Jesus Christ.”
“Then, in an interview with young and restless pastor Mark Dever, Moore also states: “I hate the word complementarian. I prefer the word patriarchy…… because complementarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles. Everyone agrees that we have different roles, it just a question of on what basis you have different roles.”
Denny Burk link
“Biblical Patriarchy” would be a shorthand for the complementarian position–a moniker that emphasizes the hierarchy/headship inherent within that view.”
"For my [Denny Burk] part, I prefer complementarianism or biblical patriarchy.”
Owen Strachan link
“For millennia, followers of God have practiced what used to be called patriarchy and is now called complementarianism.” Owen Strachan, writing for CBMW.
Nancy Leigh DeMoss
Nancy Leigh DeMoss is a close friend of Kassian. From the excellent blog, Under Much Grace link we learn
“It has come to my attention that you interviewed both Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald concerning their new publication “Passionate Housewives Desperate for God.” Their affiliation with Vision Forum, their publisher, extends beyond the typical relationship between author and publisher. They both enjoy close relationships with the leadership at Vision Forum and zealously embrace the Vision Forum model of “Biblical Patriarchy.”
Here is more information from the from the Emotional Abuse and the Faith blog.
“Also Proverbs 14:1 says, 'the wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down.' In other words, the home is our place to build. Our culture says it's not a place worthy of our best labors, but we have to be careful not to allow the world to affect our thinking. The home is our primary place for ministry. Someone once said of Edith Schaeffer, 'As many people were brought to the Lord through Mrs. Schaeffer's cinnamon buns as through Dr. Schaeffer's sermons. Our scope of ministry is different than that of men, but it is no less important: It is God's assignment to us. – Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Biblical Womanhood in the Home
Joe Carter
The Gospel Coalition Link publishes his post which states:
“Is complementarianism another word for patriarchy? Egalitarians and many complementarians agree: It is indeed.”
I particularly like this one since it involved “her people” and “my people.”
7. Kassian: You can't quote an old book but I can.
Once again from Emotional Abuse and Your Faith link.
“She complains that RHE quotes a book that she has never heard, and mentions they were published 20 years prior to the term ‘complementarian’ coming into existence. Yet one of the authors (Elisabeth Elliot) wrote a part of the CBMW book on Manhood and Womanhood, and her personal book is still read today in some circles of complementarians today. CBMW is within her ‘yard’ right? You have one source up close and personal right there!
“She complains about a 20 year old article that Mrs. Patterson wrote, and was republished in 2006 at CMBW that Rachel quotes from hinting that is stale material due to age, and yet its okay for Mary Kassian to use a 50 year old book on feminism, The Feminine Mystique to support her current views.”
The Video produced by “her people.”
I am concluding with a video of an interview with Mary Kassian and Nancy Leigh DeMoss. It is evident that the interviewer is trying to get them to define what “complementarianism” looks like. She is a bit nicer than me and backs off pressing them. So, the answers they give are confusing and esoteric, with no basis in supportable fact, except for the fact that Kassian states that it is so.
Kassian makes a rather sweeping statement that true complementarians have greater unity, harmony and mutuality. How she knows this is beyond me. There have been no studies that quantify such parameters. After reading RHE, I want to know if she has less harmony, unity and mutuality in her marriage than Kassian does in hers. I highly doubt it.
Also, I am flummoxed by her use of the term “mutuality.” It appears that Kassian, inventor of the term “complementarian” is now set to redefine a word which is often used by egalitarians. I feel like I am reading Animal Farm which redefined the word "equal." "Some animals are more equal than other animals"
They mention John Piper in the video as someone whom they respect. So he is another one of Kassian's " my people." This is the same Piper who said (TWW has posts on all of these)
- A woman should endure physical abuse for a night.
- A woman should not usurp a man’s authority when they are asked to give him road directions.
- Women should not be muscular..
So, I am left with a dilemma. Is Kassian deliberately overlooking key factors with the so-called complementarian movement? Could it be that the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is going to scrub their former site of references to patriarchy and begin to use the word “mutuality?”
On one blog, I read an interesting comment by a reader. I wish I could find it. She said that she had stayed at the house of one of these “well-known complementarians.” It was obvious who wore the pants in that family and it wasn’t the husband. So maybe complementarians are merely egalitarians in disguise.
I leave you with this question. After reading about complementarianism, can anyone out there tell me what it looks like because I sure can't. If you can, have your people call my people. Who needs unity amongst the brethren anyway?
(PS -Next time someone makes up a word, please make it shorter and easier to spell.)
Lydia's Corner: Numbers 14:1-15:16 Mark 14:53-72 Psalm 53:1-6 Proverbs 11:4
Just to be clear…..the exchange I had with Mary Kassian was public on her Girls Gone Wise FB page rather than via e-mail. The page is public and I would encourage Wartburg readers to read the various posts and the follow-up comments. Interesting stuff….some backpedaling on the Michael Pearl comments, too. Here is a link:
http://www.facebook.com/GirlsGoneWise?fref=ts
I thought I was going to go insane in the comp world. it really is that confusing if you are a thinking person who likes to analyze and use logic. I think it really sold based on the passion and the people who were selling it.
we are already into a generation of this doctrine being sold to people. so what are the outcomes? more confusion except for now the confusion is coming from the very people who started it all. when this doctrine was created out of thin air….. they did not realize the Internet would be a game changer. now we can track all the different positions and teachings and it becomes obvious they can’t even define in unity what it means in application. let’s face it, at some point you have to ‘implement’ a role.
you are right the terminology is downright Orwellian. she can protest that Rachel is getting it wrong….. but she forgot to send the memo to Piper, Patterson and all the others.
“Also, I am flummoxed by her use of the term “mutuality.” It appears that Kassian, inventor of the term “complementarian” is now set to redefine a word which is often used by egalitarians. I feel like I am reading Animal Farm which redefined the word “equal.” “Some animals are more equal than other animals” ”
Exactly! It is Doug Phillips who always says “he who defines wins” and it appears there is a tug of war over who gets to define complementarianism.
that mom
I will correct that on the post and also post your link. Sorry about that.
“I wanted to give her direct, personal access to a woman at the forefront of the contemporary biblical womanhood movement.”
Well, gee, your Royal Highness, how very stupid and irresponsible of Rachel not to take advantage of your gracious offer of direct, personal access to you, ‘at the forefront’ of the movement. How dare she! What insolence!
I had a look at the girls gone wise Facebook page and found a link to this ridiculous article: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features
To describe it as an absolute joke is being too kind to it. The general gist of it is that women daring to want jobs and to make their own decisions has ‘destroyed’ men, and it’s all our fault if men don’t want to get married. Oh, and the best bit? Apparently ‘women aren’t women anymore’. I also love the fact that the author, while decrying feminism, hasn’t even got a clue when feminism started – she thinks it was the 1970s, which really was towards the end of second-wave feminism.
Anyway, I find it interesting that in the middle of posting articles about the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and about how Complementarians aren’t about limiting women but about being nice and ‘mutual’, that they’d then recommend an article that calls for women to let men take over the career sector and for us to instead ‘surrender to our nature’ (a pretty way of saying get back in your box!!!). If complementarianism really isn’t about putting women back in an idealised 1950s TV stereotype world, then why recommend an article that calls for exactly that?
Pam,
I don’t think I’ve read a more laughable and ridiculous article in quite a while… I’m not entirely sure it’s not satire. Surely to goodness it’s satire.
There’s so much blatant sexism in it, I’m just flabbergasted. Not just directed at women, either.
Yikes. I feel like I need a brain scrub after reading that.
Pam,
I read the War on Men article too. Utterly ridiculous!
It has been aptly observed that no one on the outside of a particular marriage can truly understand its inner workings. In Kassian’s “defense,” when one’s avocation is to serve as the Judas goat for a movement that is utterly averse to one’s own best interests, the complicated web of rationalization and willful blindness necessary to sustain it is bound to be incomprehensible to anyone who isn’t her.
Why spend time and tuition on a homemaking degree when you can learn how to be a homemaker at home? What value could a homemaking degree possibly have on your resume?
Nicholas,
It’s the literal manifestation of the fabled MRS degree. Young women undertake it for the sole purpose of meeting and marrying a preacher. It’s money well spent if you ask them.
Nicholas,
The homemaking degree threw me, too. Ok sure, maybe some wives of seminary students aren’t good at cooking and want to learn more, or they want to know how to sew or at least mend their kids’ clothes. I think it’s fine to run some courses on those things (I’m sure men could benefit from taking them too!). But unless they’re also writing essays on the evolution of nutritional advice for toddlers, or discussing fabric production processes, those classes don’t qualify as a degree.
I wonder if Mary K and Dorothy P are silent in the churches they attend. I bet not. This complementarianism “push” sure takes up a lot of time that IMO could be spend on better things.
@Eagle
How can she … be so deceptive?
Many “true believers” in most anything can be incredibly self delusional and just are plain blind to their own contradictions. The just don’t see it. My mother operates under this state of mind. She has lots of strongly held beliefs, many religious, that are factually false or contradictory. She either blows off anyone pointing these issues out as a not just understanding or gets incredibly ill tempered with such persons.
Eagle
Please tell us how he responds. I am most interested.
Pam, I agree. Nothing wrong with cooking and sewing classes.
Well, this is a hoot. It seems Tim Bayly is not at all happy with Mary Kassian being in the spotlight so much. It’s unfeminine and unseemly, he whines in a post here:
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2012/11/feminine-modesty
She’s traveling, she’s speaking in front of people, she’s getting-gasp-honorariums. What is this world coming to? Remember, Tim took his toys and went to another sandbox to play when CBMW didn’t give in to his demands to be more patriarchal.
Tim Bayly is clearly a fundamentalist. I hope the PCA never allows him into a position of influence.
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2012/11/pastoral-care-times-war-and-incest
http://www.poohsthink.com/the-new-enlightenment-part-10-the-presbyterian-patriarch-tim-bayly/
@Eagle
See the links above and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_T._Bayly
I know that Dr. Rice is a talented and intelligent individual so her response to the situation is confusing. I have no idea what the motives were behind her statement. I can only judge what she said on face value. So, I am left with wondering if she believed it to be true or she was told to say it for some reason or she had a momentary lapse in judgment.
Regarding Ambassador Rice, my take is she was saying what she was told to say by her bosses, as that was the official policy of the time. Well, it turned out to be a bad call, and now she takes the fall for it instead of her bosses. Welcome to Dilbert.
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is a fairly mainstream evangelical denomination. Tim Bayly is just a fringe fundy who happens to be a member.
Many “true believers” in most anything can be incredibly self delusional and just are plain blind to their own contradictions. The just don’t see it. — Lynn
I have found through experience that as crazy as you can imagine something, there is a True Believer somewhere who’s twice as crazy and dead serious.
Utter Certainty plus Utter Righteousness is a REAL ugly combination. And when you add Absolute Power to Utter Righteousness (like Dominionists or the abusive churches and groups Deb & Dee watch) it gets downright DANGEROUS.
Let’s step back a minute and look at how deceptive Kaissan is. How can she conflict and be so deceptive? The evangelical techniques this crowd uses remind me of Mormonism. Play it up and tell people what they want to hear so you can win them over, and then after they cross the line THEN you reveal the ugly stuff. — Eagle
Anywhere else, won’t BAIT AND SWITCH get you arrested?
But why do they forget this part of history? — Eagle
Because it wasn’t on Ozzie & Harriet or Donna Reed?
This is a great article with lots of evidence, but I strongly disagree with one implication:
“Woman wearing the pants” is not egalitarianism.
Leila, Bayly faults Christians for not tithing: http://contraskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/01/tim-bayly-contracepting-couples-lack.html
“…Regarding Ambassador Rice, my take is she was saying what she was told to say by her bosses, as that was the official policy of the time. Well, it turned out to be a bad call, and now she takes the fall for it instead of her bosses. Welcome to Dilbert…” – HUG
Kinda like Abu Ghraib, only this time it wasn’t just low ranking Army grunts who took the fall.
UGGGHHHH why did I click on that link to the Bayly blog?!?! Spent like an hour reading different articles there with my eyes popping out of my head!
They are just awful! I recognize no goodness or love in their speech.
Looking for You,
Bayly preaches a false gospel of (man-made) law and submission, certainly not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
“Utter Certainty plus Utter Righteousness is a REAL ugly combination. And when you add Absolute Power to Utter Righteousness (like Dominionists or the abusive churches and groups Deb & Dee watch) it gets downright DANGEROUS.”
Agreed!!! If the Dominionists (the theonomic ones I am familiar with) suddenly came into power, our country would be filled with bloodshed. How many people do you know who have committed adultery, are gay, practice witchcraft, had premarital sex, work on Sunday, are incorrigable teens, are apostate, or have blasphemed? They would be killed, maybe even stoned or burned. How many elderly or disabled people do you know who are relying on Medicare or other government assistance to survive or have access to their medications and health needs? It would be cut off since “stolen” money is being used to keep them alive. I asked a theonomist once what would happen to the elderly if theonomists had their way. He shrugged his shoulders and said, “I’m sure many would die and it would be seen as a great tragedy, but there are rich people who would step in and provide for them.” His cool indifference to the suffering proposed by those ideas astounded me. Also his apparent assumption of the inherent generosity of rich people. I doubt they got rich by being generous, why would they change?
Can you imagine the stench of death in this country if that happened?
This is what is so scary about people who exist only to please God and be Right.
Nicholas,
I agree. You can’t imagine how happy I am that their “gospel” is not Christ’s Gospel.
“Woman wearing the pants” is not egalitarianism. — Retha
Because when you define things as Power Struggle, there is no such thing as equality. Only those on top, and those on the bottom. Those wearing the boot, and those with the boot on their necks.
I asked a theonomist once what would happen to the elderly if theonomists had their way. He shrugged his shoulders and said, “I’m sure many would die and it would be seen as a great tragedy, but there are rich people who would step in and provide for them.” — Looking for You
And they go to Heaven or Hell anyway, so what? God’s Will Be Done.
@LfY
I wonder the same thing about the rich suddenly providing for all needs if all government support is cut off. I think Grimms’ fairytales are much more believable.
Arguments and theological ammunition aside, I have to look at this as a human being and ask myself which side comes off as more real and human and honest about both their struggles and triumphs, their weaknesses and fears, and their strengths and joys.
I have to say that RHE wins hands down on this count. She’s real, and honest and humble while still asking some difficult questions and having fun with it. I think this is precisely what scares the knickers off a lot of people because it’s something they can’t control.
The Christians who are going to win over skeptics and questioners and even hostile spectators are those who aren’t afraid to show their human faults and failings and yearnings at the same time they show Christ’s love in their lives. Those who continue using the tired evangelical buzzwords and insider language to put an overly spiritual gloss on every feature of life will only come across looking like some version of the Stepford wives.
My wife and I have been married for 25 years and have never consciously thought about whether our marriage is egalitarian or complementarian (never even heard these terms until less than a year ago). We love one another and allow one another to flourish into who they are without constraining them. I’m better at some things; she’s better at others. We make important decisions together. We know that it is the love of God that holds it all together. Plug any label on that you want. I really don’t care.
But when you plug a label on something, start a movement, make some money, get noticed, ride the speaker circuit and enjoy a little fame, it gets ridiculous. The sanctity of the marriage relationship becomes an industry, with profiteers and power brokers jockeying for positions and power and authority. What a circus.
Lynne said,
Many “true believers” in most anything can be incredibly self delusional and just are plain blind to their own contradictions. The just don’t see it.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
MK’s comments are … sour grapes.
Oh, and obfuscatory. [I just used up my “big word” allowance for the week. ;)]
There seems to be a nervous anxiety to what Mary Kassian, Denny Burk, and so many others (their names elude me at present) are saying in their internet writings.
There's a recklessness to their communicating — like they haven't had the presence of mind to really think through what they're saying — like they're scared out of their minds-extremely frustrated-very pissed off. They're under the influence of something quite strong, such as these…
The eventual demise of CBMW & Co. is fairly certain. I mean, I see the writing on the wall — don't you?? Perhaps they're beginning to, as well. I can't think of a more crazed, confused organization/movement in my recollection of mainstream Christianity since I was a kid.
They'll never pull out of it. Not without gut-wrenching apologies bleeding all over the place for horrible things said and implied, sober acknowledgement for all the lies and half-truths, the denial, the colossal & cowardly enablement. Gotta tidy up the bedroom…. gasp! husband's almost there — he'll see what I haven't done yet today!
Professing to be girls gone wise, they became fools… Wait, no. That’s not right…hmm.
@Looking for You, no goodness or love in their speech is right. The hatred blurs my screen. Disturbing enough to flash me right back to the psychotic ramble found on North Korea’s official web site…but no, it still claims to be Baylyblog.
What struck me as really weird was the denial of Elizabeth Elliot and Edith Schaeffer. I can tell her that far more Aussie Christian women (at least in my generation) have heard of, and read, their books than have ever heard of Mary Kassian!
I don’t get it, one minute their trying to tell us that complementarianism is the way it’s always been (and egals are the ones with the crazy new aberration) and the next she’s trying to tell us that it didn’t actually exist until she and her cronies invented it ..
To me she looks remarkably like someone standing in front of RHE’s book madly waving a placard that says, “Move right along, nothing to see here.”
“The Hidden Art of Homemaking?! I just about fell off my chair. That book was written seventeen years before the inception of CBMW and about twenty years before we adopted the term “complementarian.”
I have never even heard of it. I highly doubt whether John Piper and Wayne Grudem—the founders of CBMW—have read it. So to cite it as the first expression of evangelical complementarianism is hardly defensible." What a funny criticism.
If complementarianism didn't exist even embryonically until Kassian and the CBMW came along, how can they possible describe the movement as 'biblical'? Did they write the Bible, too, at the Danvers meeting?
Sophie – are you still getting over that bug you mentioned the other day? If so, I’m not surprised you’re tired, because it’s probably the same one that’s done the rounds over here (I seem to recall that we’re only a few miles upwind of you). (Lovely morning, btw, isn’t it?)
I agree re a “degree in homemaking”; such a thing would be credible if it has some fairly in-depth modules on paediatric medicine, psychology (evidence-based, not pseudo-science pedaled by clever self-marketers), carpentry and joinery, plumbing and electrical engineering, and so on. I haven’t looked up the above-mentioned course; as far as I know, it may include all those things.
Nick – Beautiful morning! So beautiful, in fact, that I went into the garden without a coat on for while to play with my cat, which was stupid! I'm almost better, thanks. I've had tonsils like golf balls and my head felt like it was full of cotton wool. Pretty much my entire family has had it so it's probably the same thing. Hope you don't succumb to it too! Stay warm!
This is off-topic, but related to some of the broader discussions on TWW.
Everyone here’s familiar with Westboro Baptist. I’m watching the follow-up doco that Louis Theroux did on them last year, and as much as they’re pretty much completely horrible, one thing in part on of the doco stood out as one of the most depressing things I’ve heard. Louis is talking to some of the kids (9-12 year olds, by the look of them) about what has happened in the year since he’d last visited. He talks to them about people who have left, and what they think of that. They, of course, say that they don’t miss them, they’re fallen, etc.
But then Louis asks if they’re afraid that they might one day do the same. Immediately they answer yes. The oldest of the boys (looks about 12) then talks about how the human heart is always evil, and you’re just hoping ‘if the Lord loves you he’ll give you grace’. He then says he worries about God ‘taking him down’. It’s so clear from those boys’ answers that they have no assurance, no grasp of grace – grace doesn’t even seem to be taught to them! – and it’s utterly depressing.
The video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkyiR6XoXi0 the kids start at about 5:00.
Back when the homemaking degree was being planned at SWBTS, this made for great dicussion on the SBC blogs.
First of all, the SBC helps fund the seminaries so tithe dollars were going to build kitchens at the seminary instead of fund missoinaries?
Secondly, I can watch vids on youtube on how to make perfect biscuits or to even learn how to sew or knit. Martha Stewart made millions teaching women the art of homemaking.
If you ever saw the Christmas at Pecan Manor video, then you would know that if most of the women taking the homemaking courses aspire to that lifestyle using OPM in ministry like Mrs Patterson, it is not a good thing for Christendom.
The real question is can we see the numbers enrolled in these courses? I was not under the impression this was to be an MRS degree but something seminary wives of students would be taking. Perhaps it is both, And are the women enrolling in them getting tuition discount from the SBC like the men enrolled in the MDiv, etc?
I kind of like what the SBC state convention of South Carolina is doing. They are bypassing the seminaries and other entities to give directly to the IMB for missions. The seminaries are a joke. My daughter got it right when she could not pronounce it correctly and it always came out: cemetary.
“But why do they forget this part of history?”
Because what you define rightly as true history is not the experience for the upper classes. People do this with Victorian times, too. They were filled with horrible work conditions for poor women and children but the aspiration is to model the upper classes and ignore the majority.
The irony is that that world wars (and back even to Crimean war) were the catalyst for huge changes for society. Not right away. Even back to the Crimean war, women going to the war and nursing men was considered unseemly. By WW2 women were flying transport planes, spying and building ships.
Eagle, did you ever read about the Harvey Girls who helped settle the west once the trains were running? Fascinating stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Harvey_Company
Eagle, There is nothing weak or soft about having a baby in the back of a covered wagon as you push westward for a land grant. Or strapping a baby to your back while you pick cotton.
I am a bit astonished Kassian is using the term “mutuality”. Their chutzpah never ceases to amaze me. She is attempting to hijack a term many egal Christians have been using for years and redefine it for comp/pat use. Another bait and switch because it sounds better and people have figured out comp is NOT complementary at all. More confusion.
re “Christmas at Pecan Manor video,” and the homemaking degrees…
I remember a few years ago when it dawned on me that the “godly womanhood” being promoted among the patriocentrists is really a form of neo-confederate, Southern Living lifestyle stuff. It began when I saw endless pictures of James Stacy McDonald’s girls posing in antebellum clothing at a local historic landmark and read their rambling about how people would stare at them because of their “modesty.” Laughable! Martha Stewart and Elizabeth Elliot seemed to meet on the pages of Southern Living in their books and that became the promoted standard. And then there is the promotion of the book Fascinating Womanhood by Mormon Helen Andelin. I don’t know if it is still there but Jenny Chancey had a piece recommending it on her Ladies Against Feminism website a while back, telling her readers that it is one book every single Christian woman ought to read if she wants to be godly. Here is a link for more info on the “curriculum” these women use. http://www.midwestoutreach.org/mcoijournal/the-cult-of-godly-womenhood
Eagle
Bayly is on the fringes. He appeals to a fringe crowd as well.One of my prouder moments was when he came after me.
HUG
I am inclined to agree with you about Rice. But, like many things, I doubt the truth will be told. Rice’s situation seemed to apply to Kassian’s “There are no patriarchs in my camp” statement.
Retha
“Woman wearing the pants” is not egalitarianism.” I was attempting, and obviously failing at, being humorous. Sorry about that. Perhaps the better comment would be that there seems to be a whole bunch of cognitive dissonance, “say on thing and do another”, amongst many members of the comp camp.
Muff
My guess is she will be alright and will become the next Secretay of State.
Looking For You
Thankfully, the vast majority of the country looks at domionists like peopel observe an ugly and rare snake in the zoo. They will never come to power. Instead, they will stay amongst their fringe groups and “discpline” people and continue to cause pain but it will be limited. The comment on incest over at his blog is bizarre-and almost everyone knows it.
It is important to note that Kamilla,The Brave Lass, is really in with the Baylys. That is why i warned her when she showed up over here. I have my limits.
I am a bit astonished Kassian is using the term “mutuality”. Their chutzpah never ceases to amaze me.”
Yeah it’s bad enough that they use ‘complementarian’ when they should be using ‘hierarchalist’ or ‘patriarchalist’, not they’re muscling in on ‘mutualist’. It seems that they want to hijack the language of true mutuality because they know their own language sounds sinister (‘Hi there, I’m John and I’m a patriarch’).
If they go on stealing words there won’t be any words left with which to express egalitarianism. At this point, HUG might point out that it’s a bit like how in 1984, Big Brother starts taking words away altogether so nobody can even THINK a thought that’s out of line 😉 After all, if you can’t win an argument through logic or reason, play dirty and just eradicate the existence of your opponent’s proposition altogether. It’s a form of attacking your opponent rather than their argument. I wonder if they know they’re doing it.
I am a bit astonished Kassian is using the term “mutuality”. Their chutzpah never ceases to amaze me.”
Yeah it’s bad enough that they use ‘complementarian’ when they should be using ‘hierarchalist’ or ‘patriarchalist’, not they’re muscling in on ‘mutualist’. It seems that they want to hijack the language of true mutuality because they know their own language sounds sinister (‘Hi there, I’m John and I’m a patriarch’).
If they go on stealing words there won’t be any words left with which to express egalitarianism. At this point, HUG might point out that it’s a bit like how in 1984, Big Brother starts taking words away altogether so nobody can even THINK a thought that’s out of line 😉 After all, if you can’t win an argument through logic or reason, play dirty and just eradicate the existence of your opponent’s proposition altogether. It’s a form of attacking your opponent rather than their argument. I wonder if they know they’re doing it.
…oops, don’t know why that came pout double. Sorry!
Did you notice that the top two links on the Girls Gone Wise Facebook page today are about abuse in marriage? I hope that means they really care about it and not just putting that up there to save face.
And here is the latest scare tactic from the dominionists:
http://www.unmarriedmovie.com/
More emphasis on godly manhood and womanhood and seeing singleness as a curse. This is for their version of a “kickstarter” to raise money for their project.
“If complementarianism didn’t exist even embryonically until Kassian and the CBMW came along, how can they possible describe the movement as ‘biblical’? Did they write the Bible, too, at the Danvers meeting?”
Sophie, that’s what I was thinking. The Bible has been around a long time. MK keeps insisting Complementarianism (wow that word is a beast to type out) is only a few decades old because SHE came up with it, SHE should know. In all her demanding for recognition, she betrays how unlikely it is that comp doctrine is straight from the bible.
Bayly is on the fringes. He appeals to a fringe crowd as well.One of my prouder moments was when he came after me.
You are in esteemed company, Dee. If you’ve read his blog much over the past few years, he viciously attacks any woman who uses scripture accurately to counter his female subordinationism. You know you’re making sense when he shuts you down, deletes your supporting scriptures and posts, bans you, and starts calling you names like “agent of Satan” or some such thing.
Bayly feels extremely threatened by strong, intelligent, and dare I say it – godly – women. I’ve observed on his blog that men can make the same points and he will debate with them, but with women, he quickly resorts to silencing them.
Lynne T
Trying to figure out the reaons why Kassian downplayed Schaeffer and Elliot is the crux of the matter. Something is going on. The CBMW site has been down for months. Kassian is claiming that patriarchy has nothing to do with comp and she has to know that a fair number of her theological “people” are patriarchs.
One thought is that they know they are losing the battle. They are absolutely startled that people are listening to RHE and are rejecting the increasingly strident restrictions on women for men like Challies, Grudem and Piper restricting women from even reading the Bible out loud in church. It is really quite simple. Women can be Secretary of State but can’t read the Bible out loud in a church?
They made the mistake of trying to portray RHE as another Rob Bell. That dog does not hunt.
Unless Kassian is totally ignoring the history of the womanhood movement in the church, and I cannot believe that is true, then something else is going on.
I am deeply distrubed that she would highlight Patterson, the head of a degree program in homemaking and say that comp theology has nothing to do with homemaking. And to top it off, her husband sent a woman back into a home to get beat up and was glad for it. Her concern about violence and women rings hollow in the light of whom she is featuring.
Ten years of analyzing comp/pat doctrine on the internet blogs has forced them to rebrand themselves. But what are they going to do with Driscoll, Doug Wilson (now promoted by Piper and the Gospel Coalition) and Mahaney whose pastors counseled a woman to simply have more sex with her daughter’s rapist and that fact he is promoted by Mohler?
Hijacking language is one of the tactics. NOt dealing with the real problems/outcomes of the doctrine is not a consideration. Comp doctrine was a huge money maker for a long time with conferences, books, etc. I think some are concerned it is drying up.
I watched the video of Kassian and DeMoss above. Just curious: Did anyone else think that they were being awfully vague? They never seemed to give a concrete answer to question, “What does a complementarian marriage look like?” It was mostly generalities like, “shining the light of the gospel” or “you have to wrestle with it”, and so forth. I realize that every married couple would face some unique challenges, but a few concrete examples from their own lives would have been much more interesting.
Perhaps this hints at the real issue: that there is no such thing as “complementarianism without the traditionalism”. And maybe that’s why Kassian and DeMoss wound up saying very little (to my ears, anyway).
Oh, and Dee:
[PS -Next time someone makes up a word, please make it shorter and easier to spell.]
XD I loved this line!
I agree, Dee, it is not all adding up. She may not even be sure of what she is trying to “save” or communicate at this point. HOw can she claim they “care” about the abuse when they have been linked arm in arm with those who call it godly to be abused?
Are they responding to the CULTURE once again?
I watched the video of Kassian and DeMoss above. Just curious: Did anyone else think that they were being awfully vague? They never seemed to give a concrete answer to question, “What does a complementarian marriage look like?”
Serving in Japan, that’s because the minute they answer that question with specifics, their whole house of cards tumbles. If they give the answer they really want to give, they know people will either poke more holes in it than a colander and it won’t hold water, or they’ll turn off too many people from their so-called “truth.”
“Trying to figure out the reaons why Kassian downplayed Schaeffer and Elliot is the crux of the matter. Something is going on.”
One part of it might be downplaying the homemaking part because it is obvious these women are NOT homemakers themselves but basically running ministry businesses. That has been the hypocrisy many have pointed out for a long time. Dorothy Patterson was having q midnight buffet with Arafat at Saddam’s Palace while telling young women to be homemakers. :o)
http://www.dorothypatterson.info/about.cfm
It is in her bio!
“Serving in Japan, that’s because the minute they answer that question with specifics, their whole house of cards tumbles. If they give the answer they really want to give, they know people will either poke more holes in it than a colander and it won’t hold water, or they’ll turn off too many people from their so-called “truth.””
Exactly.
I have been asking for 20 years at what age a boy becomes a man and women are no longer allowed to teach him biblical truths. I have never been given an age. Only that asking the question proves I am rebellious and divisive. :o)
@thatmom
And here is the latest scare tactic from the dominionists:
http://www.unmarriedmovie.com/
I checked it out. That’s a minute I’d like to have back.
They lost my donation as soon as they described adult singleness as “prolonged adolescence”. My singleness is painful enough to me without that kind of insult.
They’re gonna need the donations, too. For editors, if for nothing else. They misspelled the word “singleness” halfway through the trailer. Sheesh.
“They lost my donation as soon as they described adult singleness as “prolonged adolescence”. My singleness is painful enough to me without that kind of insult.”
You mean like Paul having prolonged adolescence? Sheesh!
I noticed on the Girls Gone Wise FB page that they have a quote saying “We miss the forest for the trees whenever we think complementarity is about what male and female legalistically HAVE to do, rather than a grace-soaked, magnificent vision for who we GET to be.”
I.e, stop thinking about what we’re saying and just go along with it.Stop thinking about what you HAVE to do but do exactly as you’re told you HAVE to do. Asking Kassian to define what she means by complementarianism and who represents it is being legalistic! That’s a great ploy. If they never have to define it then they never have to defend it.
I am no expert on, complementarism. However,I have noticed (anecdotely) these patriachal pastors often marry the, so called “lookers “,the hot babes.Some of these women use sex ( which these men crave) to make the hubby think he is head of the home. Trouble comes when the wife gets so sick of playing husbands harlot, or is having the 5/6th baby she rebels or gives up.
I am a 62 year old female, married for 38 years and am so grieved these young women are falling for this nonsense. It’s infected the church I have attended for 27 years. (New pastor / deacons) We Hubby and myself are about to become one of the, “nones”.
I was a, stay at home mom, until the kids were teenagers. My choice and I enjoyed it. This new template for a stay at home mom has been terrible twisted by this new set of male pastors.
Oh, and one last comment, our church went from leaning free will, to introducing, Piper and now leaning, calvanista.
Another interesting connection……Nancy Leigh DeMoss welcomed Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald to her radio program to discuss Passionate Housewives Desperate for God. You know,Nancy, Mary’s colleague who doesn’t like patriarchy? In the dedication of the book, they give all the credit to Tim Bayly for mentoring them about women and their roles. Just sayin’.
Oh my word Thatmom, that movie link…
Is that Kevin Swanson?
It sounds like he is directing this movie more towards those INSIDE the patriarchy movement, but using statistics from the general american population as a scare tactic? Hubby and I (having been involved in the ‘biblical patriarchy’ crowd 10 years) have had many conversations about the ironies of all this emphasis on 200 year plans, young marriage, and babies, babies, babies, but where are the weddings?! We’ve seen enough budding relationships squashed by parents to know that this courtship/parental control idea will be detrimental to the movement. Standards for spouses are insane. Plus the young women have NO opportunities whatsoever to go out and meet ment. None. They must sit at home and pray to God that he sends a single man to their church who will show interest and be approved by their father. Now the leaders are getting frustrated about their plans not working out and they are ready to scare everybody into getting their butts to the altar! Wonder how well marriages will turn out that were born out of fear, not love. That’s the beginning of all things in this movement… FEAR. My GOSH I’m so sick of fear. It devours the soul.
Eagle, There is nothing weak or soft about having a baby in the back of a covered wagon as you push westward for a land grant. Or strapping a baby to your back while you pick cotton. — Anon1
I think they’re imaging Scarlett O’Hara and her fellow planters’ daughters before The War, passed out with The Vapors(TM) for an afternoon nap, hoopskirts sprawled all over while their n*gg*ers fan them.
This is for their version of a “kickstarter” to raise money for their project. — ThatMom
As in “Just like Kickstarter, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”?
I’m a bit late to this party, but I wanted to comment on the Fox article (on lack of femininity allegedly driving men away from marriage.
The thought that came to mind for me after reading the Fox article is that there is one grain of truth in it, but a ludicrous conclusion. I agree that men are fed up. Divorce forms a significant portion of my law practice, so I hear and see a lot. Men are fed up, and it is partially Feminism’s fault. Men are fed up with being viewed as nothing more than a paycheck. Men are fed up with women feeling entitled. Men are fed up with being blamed for women’s unhappiness. Men are tired of being the enemy. But the cure is not, “Put the women back in their place!” The cure is kindness, love, and mutual respect. Men want to be treated as if their needs and desires are important, and that they matter to women at least as much as the family dog. And, come to think of it, a little kindness, love, and respect would be good things for men to develop too. Hmmm….
Mary Kassian’s whole review is at once interesting and confusing.
I feel like she has a much more liberal definition of what “complementarianism” means, and she’s trying to convince readers that this is the ONLY definition of compl. that is ever used, and that Rachel Held Evans was being deceptive by implying that compl. could mean anything else.
The problem here is that, as we all know, there ARE different definitions of what women can and can’t do under compl., and RHE is shedding light on various incarnations of it.
Now, if Kassian wants to claim that her version of complementarianism is better, and that RHE purposely overlooked it because it sounds reasonable…even though I would still disagree with Kassian, that accusation would at least make more logical sense than claiming that there’s only one type of compl. and Kassian owns it.
But you still run into the problem that many of the people Kassian claims as being in her camp have said things that directly contradict Kassian’s claims about what compl. is and is not.
Further, whatever Kassian thinks compl. should be, the reality of how it *actually plays out* in churches is often far, far different from her definition. I mean, really…can she honestly say that church culture (even mainstream evangelicalism) DOESN’T put more pressure on women to set aside their careers and stay home with babies than it does on men? If she can honestly say that, then she is either self-delusional in the extreme, or she’s a complete nincompoop.
For RHE to be “wrong” about what compl. means, it would have to be proven that compl. contains, in no way shape or form, any allusion to the fact that women should expect to set aside their careers at least for a time after marriage or when their kids are little. I have a feeling that Kassian would fall on the side of “Well, yes, they do for awhile, but then they’re not stuck in the home once the kids get older,” or some version of that. Even that loose definition is still technically a reinforcement of RHE’s claim about compl.
My point is, maybe Kassian should spend less time griping how RHE overlooked her definition of complementarianism and instead spend that energy asking why the modern church doesn’t adhere to her definition of compl. either!
Corrie ten Boom, Amy Carmichael and a host of other heroes of the faith – male and female – were “prolonged adolescents then. In fact, they seem to think of themselves as better than Jesus – they are married, He is not. How dare Jesus not understand how important marriage is to the faith? That immature heretic!
That is no reason for us not to ask, or for them not to answer, the “what to do in real life to live it” question they so hate. For everything else, you need some doing to become.
For example: A little kid has to be reminded to say thank you for years before he becomes grateful. You have to practice ballet moves for long before becoming a ballerina. You have to eat right and exercise to become the woman with the good figure.
They have to answer what people should DO to be comps, or or they got no right to speak of what people should become.
A lot of the people who comment here are doing so because they at some point in time came to the conclusion there was serious congnitive dissonance in what they believed or what they were being taught. So they questioned it and sought out community.
Kassian is not doing that. She is trying to hang on to something that is no longer as viable and profitable as it once was by redefining terminology and totally ignoring her comrades teaching over a long period of time. Does she forget we can cut and paste sermons, quotes, etc to prove they were teaching taking abuse as a form of Holiness for women?
Mary Kassian needs to do the same thing many of us did by coming to grips that much of what we believed or taugth is worthless compared to the glories of Christ. And they are not the “Gospel”.
But Mary has a problem. She makes a living from it.
I saw the trailer for the “singleness” bit…and it made me think: well, if the patriarchy types teach – let’s see…..the man is always the head, the woman has to have baby after baby (see Thatmom’s comments on “militant fecundity”), nurse, keep the house clean, HOMESCHOOL all those babies, STAY HOME, and SUBMIT to the DICTATOR (oops… I meant “husband”)….well, all I can say is.. I WOULD STAY SINGLE TOO!
Although I married young and have children, I’ve felt grieved for the sake of single people in my life who are looked down on as “less than” because they are not married in the church.
A while ago on TWW there was a link to a transcript of one of Mark “BJ” Driscoll’s sermons, in which he raved about marriage and babies and said that his advice to young men and women was “Get married, make babies!” and that was God’s best and most perfect plan for His people.
Perhaps I’m just a lowly easily deceived woman, but I’m pretty certain that the Great Commission is to go and make disciples of all nations, not ‘breed and birth’ a great number of disciples in all nations.
This version of “christianity” is just a re-vamped fertility cult.
Sorry, Dee, I did not notice you were joking with the wearing the pants/ egal part. It is sometimes hard to read mood on the Internet.
The whole comp side is fraudulent and full of hypocrisy and oppression. The label ‘complementarian’ is fraudulent from the get-go. It has nothing to do with different roles, it’s all about male supremacy – to use the term ‘complementarian’ to describe their view amounts to theological fraud. The hypocrisy of the women with careers out writi.g, speami.g and teaching
I know very little about Susan Rice. I have no preference one way or the other about whether she is appointed Secretary of State. This isn’t a political statement either: Dr. Rice said the motive behind her statements was U.S. intelligence. Witnesses to the assault said it was carried out by members of the Ansar al-Shariah militant group, without any warning or protest, in retaliation for the video mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Because of these witness accounts, it’s reasonable that this was part of an early explanation.
From the beginning, we knew this was an “act of terror”. But until the investigation is complete, we won’t know the reasons or extent of the planning. Even then, there will be lingering questions. It’s not going to make perfect sense. We’re talking about terrorists here.
I’ve had it with the Benghazi thing. How many other U.S. ambassadors, diplomats, and security contractors have been killed in the line of duty by militants? How many other camps, compounds, and embassies have been attacked that lacked, in hindsight, more adequate security? This is the first time I’ve ever seen an “act of terror” turned into such a divisive partisan issue.
Mary Kassian and Co. are probably glad Susan Rice is taking the fall for this and being attacked by prominent male politicians who are implicating her in cover-up. Dr. Rice needs to go back to the kitchen and work on having a complementarian marriage. Clearly, there are dire consequences to not living out “biblical womanhood”.
Wendy, If we women want to be in positions of power, we have to be willing to take the heat that comes with powerful positions. It is called equality. We should not get special consideration or a pass because we are women. I get tired of that, too.
Darn mobile keyboards! It posted when I wanted to correct. At any rate, the hypocrisy of women with careers writing, speaking & teaching about how women's role is to raise kids and keep the home is laughable.
Finally, the whole comp view is nothing more than oppression of women by a bunch of men with fragile egos who need a group to oppress to make themselves feel superior and have conned some women like MK to shill for them. It's all too sickening.
I have a good friend who went from a working single mom to a married, stay-at-home, homeschooling mother. Over the years, I’ve watched this warm, funny, educated, and once independent woman become more and more legalistic and Calvinista. At their church, women stay home. They homeschool. They join the Tea Party and groups like Rush Babes for America (in support of Rush Limbaugh, formed after his infamous evisceration of Sandra Fluke during which he called her a slut and prostitute and asked for videos of her having sex). They make fun of women who work. They condemn women who choose to public school their children. Twice, my friend has made fun of mutual friends who work, and through no fault of their own, have been unable to have children (one cannot conceive; one has never married). She has caught herself both times, and said, “Oh, well, I know YOU work.” (As if that’s an unfortunate thing for my family and me.)
Finally, the whole comp view is nothing more than oppression of women by a bunch of men with fragile egos who need a group to oppress to make themselves feel superior and have conned some women like MK to shill for them. It’s all too sickening. — Jeff S
Or like the sequence from the old newspaper comic Beetle Bailey:
General screams at the Colonel.
Colonel screams at the Major.
Major screams at the Captain.
Captain screams at the Lieutenant.
Lieutenant screams at the Sergeant.
Sergeant screams at Private Bailey.
Private Bailey kicks the Sergeant’s dog.
Or, to parapharase a trailer-trash Klansman from the Fifties:
“If I ain’t better than a woman, who else can I be better than?”
And quit calling it “comp”. Call it what it is. MALE SUPREMACIST.
Kassian is not doing that. She is trying to hang on to something that is no longer as viable and profitable as it once was by redefining terminology and totally ignoring her comrades teaching over a long period of time. — Anon1
Just like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union when the cracks started showing in their system. Increase Ideological Purity. Purge all Heretics. Party Line, Party Line, Party Line.
Wendy, I don’t even like Rush Limbaugh, but did you find Sandra Fluke credible or even democratic? Do women not have the choice whether or not to work for say, a Catholic group, that does not want to pay for birth control? Must government micromanage everything?
“I’ve had it with the Benghazi thing. How many other U.S. ambassadors, diplomats, and security contractors have been killed in the line of duty by militants? How many other camps, compounds, and embassies have been attacked that lacked, in hindsight, more adequate security? This is the first time I’ve ever seen an “act of terror” turned into such a divisive partisan issue.”
An Ambassador being killed in the Embassy is a pretty big deal. When is the last time it happened because of a lack of security that was begged for in advance? Obviously the people in the Embassy were scared and begged for more help long before the attack occured. That much has come out which did make the video excuse look a bit sinister.
Hug:
You said:’Party Line, Party Line, Party Line.” In the world of Southern Baptist ministry if you do not adhere to this you are very likely to lose your job.
When I listen to a minister in the Southern Baptist world I often wonder if he is only saying what it is safe to say.
Anon 1,
I see both sides of the issue. Didn’t Sandra Fluke discuss the necessity of birth control for health reasons? Didn’t she discuss a fellow law student or colleague who spends thousands of dollars per year on birth control for a serious medical issue? I could look it up to be sure, but my point is that I see both sides. And I won’t even get into the hypocrisy of those who sided with Limbaugh.
My larger and more significant point is that Rush Limbaugh is abusive and exploitive. He should have never spoken about anyone that way. He is being used to advance an agenda. His radio show is the #1 commercial talk show in the country with an audience of 15 million. I have evangelical Christian women on my facebook who are members of Rush Babes for America. He is making a statement, and they are too.
Eagle: stay away from the Bayley Brothers…they are bonkers funagelicals & will do your head in. I clicked on the link above & laughed out loud at the idea that ‘some man’ should have told Mary Kassian she charges too much for her speaking appointments…they are virulently, & yet somehow quaintly, sexist to the point that makes them both depressing & hilarious, like talking dinsaurs or something. I cannot fathom why they give Kamilla the hot flushes…has anyone ever seen a photo? Are they fabulously good looking?
And I’m always interested when someone brings the Schaeffers in because Edith’s has certainly been a life of service, but really not in the way that a lot patriarchs would like their women to be…informally she’ll have taught young men a lot of things about God via L’Abri, which as an organisation allows a good deal of freedom on secondary issues. Mardi Keyes, for example, from Southborough L’Abri, is able to be pro-women in the priesthood without it causing ructions, & woman give lectures on Friday nights all the time. I should know, I’ve been asked 🙂 With men in the audience & everything. All through its life L’Abri has given airspace to intelligent women & allowed them to interact with males, & even challenge their beliefs…you should have been at some of the lunch discussions I headed if you wanted to see it in action!
Wendy, I see both sides, too. I believe Limbaugh apologized if I remember correctly. I see lots of hatred and insults from the left, too.
I just do not want to be micromanaged by the government or the church. I believe in Liberty.
When I was in college before all the HMO’s and government started regulating insurance so badly, I had the choice to include birth control, maternity benefits or not and pay accordingly. What they are advocating is no choice. I always thought the left liked choices? :o)
Mot:
Something is seriously wrong when the only difference between Christians and Communists becomes which Party Line gets recited.
When I was in college before all the HMO’s and government started regulating insurance so badly, I had the choice to include birth control, maternity benefits or not and pay accordingly. What they are advocating is no choice. I always thought the left liked choices? == Anon1
Only if you choose EXACTLY what *I* Want You To Choose.
Only if your choice Agrees Completely with Mine.
Just like Dominionists.
Anon 1,
If you’re inclined, you can research how many of our ambassadors, diplomats, and security personnel have been killed by militants and on whose watch over the past several decades. What you probably won’t find is any information about who emailed whom and who asked for more security and who was probably covering it up and who was lying to the American public and so on.
In 1983, 299 Americans were killed when two trucks armed with bombs exploded in a U.S. post in Beirut. 220 of those were U.S. Marines. In the investigation, it was found that there was horribly inadequate security. The post’s only defense was a simple barbed wire fence and unloaded weapons carried by guards. Did they beg for ammunition? Did they beg for better security? I don’t know if anyone knows. And no one turned into a political conspiracy and cover-up.
As best I can recall, no one turned 9/11 into a political conspiracy and cover-up. We all came together during that time.
Sophie
You know, it just dawned on me that co-opting the term mutualist is probably a clue to a real fear amongst the comps that they are losing the battle for the hearts of people. They will then use the same terminology and not define what they mean in order to get a toe hold into the debate from which they are increasingly marginalized.
I would not defend Rushs’ calling Sandra a “slut” – I think the term “immoral” would be more appropriate – but I WOULD defend his view that it is NOT the GOVERNMENTS’ responsibility to PAY for her birth ‘control. Birth control was not the issue, per say, it was the governments (i.e. – your fellow Americans’) responsibility to pay for it. I believe Sandra Fluke was a law student – a pricey profession at a pricey school…and she wants ME to pay for her immorality? Or even that of a married woman who does not want a child? Keep me OUT of her bedroom, and you stay out of mine!
Anon1
You do not know how prophetic your comment at 9:47 is. Please feel free to list any story that you might know of such as “Mahaney whose pastors counseled a woman to simply have more sex with her daughter’s rapist and that fact he is promoted by Mohler?” The more, the better.
“You know, it just dawned on me that co-opting the term mutualist is probably a clue to a real fear amongst the comps that they are losing the battle for the hearts of people. They will then use the same terminology and not define what they mean in order to get a toe hold into the debate from which they are increasingly marginalized.”
I totally agree with this. Chilling. Let us watch for it to pop up more in speaking and writing from this camp.
Serving
Bingo on this comment.
“I watched the video of Kassian and DeMoss above. Just curious: Did anyone else think that they were being awfully vague? They never seemed to give a concrete answer to question, “What does a complementarian marriage look like?” It was mostly generalities like, “shining the light of the gospel” or “you have to wrestle with it”, and so forth. I realize that every married couple would face some unique challenges, but a few concrete examples from their own lives would have been much more interesting.”
An Ambassador being killed in the Embassy is a pretty big deal. When is the last time it happened because of a lack of security that was begged for in advance? Obviously the people in the Embassy were scared and begged for more help long before the attack occured. That much has come out which did make the video excuse look a bit sinister. — Anon1
There was a screwup. A BIG screwup. And what we’re seeing now is everyone running around in circles covering their asses. “Blame Canada! Blame Canada! Before anyone can think of blaming Us!”
Plus the fact that the Benghazi attack went down using the unrelated riots as cover. Don’t know if that was planned or last-minute improv, but it was a good tactical move on the attackers’ part. Like the professional vault burglary at Baghdad Museum while looters were going through the decoy exhibits on the main floors when things were crazy after Saddam bugged out.
“In 1983, 299 Americans were killed when two trucks armed with bombs exploded in a U.S. post in Beirut. 220 of those were U.S. Marines. In the investigation, it was found that there was horribly inadequate security. The post’s only defense was a simple barbed wire fence and unloaded weapons carried by guards. Did they beg for ammunition? Did they beg for better security? I don’t know if anyone knows. And no one turned into a political conspiracy and cover”
You would think our government would have learned something more from the experience of 9/11. 1983 is about 30 years prior. They did not even have email. Islamic terrorists were not even on the average citizen’s radar. It just makes this last one even harder to understand.
Anon1
I think Kassian is helping to expose the real problem with the comp doctrine. The more she says, the more people realize that there is a problem. Good night! Calling Dorothy Patterson to help downplay homemaking?!!! That was a real mistake.
Leila
Ditto
“the minute they answer that question with specifics, their whole house of cards tumbles. If they give the answer they really want to give, they know people will either poke more holes in it than a colander and it won’t hold water, or they’ll turn off too many people from their so-called “truth.”
Anon1
Can you just picture Dorothy and Arafat?? I get the giggles just imagining it. I wonder if her shoes and purse matched.
Anon1
My 20 year old son was writing a paper for philsophy and asked me to help him with the biblical tie-in. He often asks me to explain the Bible to him. Can you imagine if I told him I couldn’t because he is “of age?”
“Can you just picture Dorothy and Arafat?? I get the giggles just imagining it. I wonder if her shoes and purse matched.”
Hyacinth Bucket and the candlelight suppers.
What was Dorothy Patterson doing at Arafat’s banquet in Saddam’s palace? Why would she be invited?
“Please feel free to list any story that you might know of such as “Mahaney whose pastors counseled a woman to simply have more sex with her daughter’s rapist and that fact he is promoted by Mohler?” The more, the better.”
it is the story, which I believe is part of the lawsuit, of the dad who was molesting the daughter and the mom was told by an sgm pastor to put a lock on the inside of the daughters bedroom door so he could not get in. The mom was then told to give her husband more sex.
I was simply taking the pastors advice to it’s logical conclusion. Have more sex with the molester. Make it the mom’s sin. That should fix it, right?
justabeliever
I wonder if that is the reason DeMoss stays single. She is rich and doesn’t need to be supported. Also, when men see her coming, they know she has a big pocketbook. What do you want to bet that they fawn all over her? How many would trade that for some Mahaney wanna be? Am I becoming cynical? Maybe.
Searching
We wrote a post a few years back in which we featured Danny Akin, head of SEBTS saying that Muslims were having more babies than Christians and so this is how they will take over. he says Christians need to have more babies to counter this. I had a stroke! The Great Commission is now found in labor and delivery.
Eagle
Let me know when we can talk. I have been fascinated by your activities.
Retha
Actually, a good editor would make a joke clear. It is totally my fault and i realized it when I read your comment. Thanks for pointing it out. I need all the help I can get.
Wendy
I liked your comment. i wonder if Kassian is being pushed out there to “illustrate” the comp agenda. I think the patirarchs are hiding behind her proverbial capris. I think she has a problem since it is not easy to deny everything that has been written on this subject. Really-how do you cope with Piper’s condemnation of “muscular” women?
dee wrote “The Great Commission is now found in labor and delivery.”
Well, of course!
“But women will be saved through childbearing….” 1 Timothy 2:15
“We wrote a post a few years back in which we featured Danny Akin, head of SEBTS saying that Muslims were having more babies than Christians and so this is how they will take over. he says Christians need to have more babies to counter this. I had a stroke! The Great Commission is now found in labor and delivery”
Again, more pressure on women to get the results they want. The answer to our problems seem to always lie with women. Ever notice that?
Wendy
Kassian must know about how her comp doctrine is lived out in many churches. I am astonished at her denials. Mrs Patterson-my foot. The queen matriarch of the BS in homemaking degree at SWBTS! Egads! What a mistake.
“But women will be saved through childbearing….” 1 Timothy 2:15
The “Childbearing” is a reference to the birth of Messiah. Ephesus was the center of a huge fertility cult in the Temple of Artemis. Paul is playing on words concerning the referenced woman who is “domineering” by false teaching.
Anon1
I love Keeping Up Appearances. i can do a pretty mean imitiation of Hyacinth. I kept cracking my family up when I fould out the official name of my type of room on the boat was superior verandah. I kept saying “superior” like she would say it. You know what I mean.
Nicholas?Anon1
I forget the reason but maybe Anon1 remembers. Maybe Paige admired Arafat’s authority and wanted some pointers?
All I gleaned from reading Patterson’s bio is that this is a woman who wants to impress people with who she has rubbed shoulders with.
The bio states:
“….she’s been the guest of Yaser Arafat at a midnight banquet in Saddam Hussein’s palace guest house in Baghdad.”
I don’t remember what she was doing at Saddam’s palace guesthouse with Arafat….I remember it being mentioned. I think it was before Saddam was deposed though. Dorothy cavorting with dictators has a sort of ring to it, does it now?
The adventures of Dorothy Patterson, homemaker
Dee wrote: “Most women of a certain age were well aware of Schaeffer, Elliott, et al, long before Kassian jumped to “define” the scene. I even read both books many years ago and sat in on a class that Elliott taught at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.”
Not just WOMEN of a certain age. Over 10 years before Kassian invented complementarianism, I learned something JUST like it, and was introduced to the Schaeffers’ writings by the parents of Doug Wilson. One class for us young men was taught by MRS Wilson, and I (a man) actually learned some really good things from her. Around the same time I met Elisabeth Elliot Leitch at a conference, where she taught a mixed audience. I learned things from her which I consider life-changing. Anyone see anything wrong with these stories, according to CBMW?
The Patterson’s also remodeled and renamed the Presidents house, Pecan Manor at cost to the SBC. They also bought a serious headstone for their dog that died and buried him on seminary property. I wonder who paid for that. One guy who worked for him produced receipts that Patterson charged the seminary to have his safari big game stuffed for his office as decorating costs. There was also serious consternation when Patterson had his portrait painted for the seminary at a huge cost that included his dog!
They are eccentrics on the SBC dime. I often wondered if he wrote off his big game hunts in Africa as mission trips.
“Around the same time I met Elisabeth Elliot Leitch at a conference, where she taught a mixed audience.”
Many of us have often wondered why she does not use her married name officially. Isn’t that a breach of true submission?
Uh-oh, Dave A A! Sounds like you broke Piper’s rule:
“This doesn’t mean you can’t learn from a woman, or that she is incompetent and can’t think. It means that there is a certain dynamic between maleness and femaleness that when a woman begins to assume an authoritative teaching role in your life the manhood of a man and the womanhood of a woman is compromised.”
By letting the Bible teaching of a woman change your life you may have compromised your maleness! Better go chop some wood or something manly, quick!!!
This was a good article Dee. Very informative.
A question–what is a pecan manor? It sounds like a good name for a facility that contains nuts.
I was wondering about Kassian’s claim that comps practice their principles in lots of differents ways…principle is the same but it looks different in different families. So she says—ok to work, go to school, be a professor, author, stay at home –it’s all good. But the underlying glue that holds it all together is the wife MUST submit to her husband and he is the one who leads the fam and makes the main decisions. Right? If the husband doesn’t want you to work, go to school, be a professor at a seminary, will you be able to? I would guess–no. You would have to submit. So why shouldn’t Kassian make comp or “mutuality” attractive for the masses? She knows the husband who embraces patriarchy (which is what comp is) has the control for decisions for his wife with regard to outside employment anyway. It’s not something she has to be concerned about. Caring, isn’t it?
What needs to be made clear is that many of these people are preaching another Gospel…to quote Christianese. Paul preached that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. These folks are teaching that its more important to submit to their pastor, have kids and use God’s sovereignty to shut up and shut up others.
I refer to that other gospel as the “sucks to be you gospel.”
Couple of things before I drag the weans out for a moonlit walk (though the moon seems to have vanished in thickening cloud cover).
This whole Wise Women thing about how comp is “what we GET to be” instead of “what we HAVE to be”. Simple point: that’s fine if you WANT to be that. I don’t believe SAHM’s are condemned in the bible, nor large families per se. Why, then, are these groups so insecure that they need to turn their personal wishes into laws to hold over everyone else? How stupid do they think we all are? Why not leave others free to want what they want?
Actually, I’ve decided not to bother with the second theme, so I’ll leave it there.
[NB: “weans” is a contraction of the Weegie “wee yins”, meaning “small ones”. I.e., children. Properly pronounced “wain”, but in a Scots accent, which means it’s pronounced “ween”. For those interested in exploring authentic Scots accents, neither Groundskeeper Willie from the Simpsons nor Young MacDonald from Sesame Street is a good example.
I hope this information is useful.]
Bridget
Yes, she actually thinks we would be impressed that she met with Arafat. I would embarrassed to say that I had done so.
Anon1
Funniest statement of the week. I have been laughing for 10 minutes.
“Dorothy cavorting with dictators has a sort of ring to it, does it now?
The adventures of Dorothy Patterson, homemaker”
Dave AA
I believe that we are seeing history rewritten but thanks to the Internet, they can’t hide it any longer.
Anon1
I read a book which alleges the Patterson would visit an orphanage in the area of his safari and ten say he was on university business. One teacher said he would stay at the orphanage for a few hours, taking a nap in the back of a classroom and then mosey on off to see what other beautiful creature he could kill and stuff. I think I once named him “Pith Helmet Patterson.”
Diane
Excellent analysis. So, the husband who says "no workee" must be submitted to. Therefore, they get the homemaker by requiring submission to the husband. I never thought of it that way.
Pecan Manor is the name of the SWBTS mansion in which Mrs. P rules the roost, overseeing the cleaners, cook and pastry chef. She toils diligently, keeping track of all the people doing stuff for her, the homemaker. Its a great gig if you can get it. Imagine all the tithes given to churches and turned over to SWBTS to keep Dorothy in pastry chefs.
Leila
I first heard about “sucks to be you” gospel from another reader! It always makes me laugh.
Nick
People become worried when you do not conform yourself to their beliefs. I knew a man who became agitated when I said i believe in an Old Earth. He said he tried to do it and he couldn’t go there-it challenged the core of his faith. So, he decided that everyone had to believe as he did because he couldn’t cope otherwise.
Dee, that’s another man swindled by the Ken Ham types into believing that the Christian faith depends on a young earth. I wonder if Ken Ham had political power, what would he do to those of us who don’t believe YEC?
In a sense, Ken Ham has political power already in the USA, since it seems that anytime someone asks a politician what they think the age of the earth is they can’t get a straight answer.
Nicholas –
Political power with Ham would be dangerous, no doubt. But if you think he views Christians who believe differently about YEC as equals, you better think again.
Anon 1 and Dee
This link gives you the whole story
http://m.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=15135
Regards
Gavin
Just a couple of points:
A homemaking degree does not just prepare one to be a homemaker. There are jobs in the textile industry, the childcare industry, the food industry, and for government entities to be found. Ever hear of a county extension agent? It most definitely is a valid degree, and probably light years more useful than say art history, but then, who complains when a woman majors in that?
I am egalitarian, believing men and women are equals and should function as such. But I’ve never met a man carrying a child within him, and never met one lactating. Let’s cut the ladies who prefer to spend their childbearing years in the home some slack.
And to that end, if she has a degree in homemaking, she can probably do a much better job of it than someone who thinks cooking is heating up a microwavable meal, or that garment care means sending it out to be cleaned,that has no idea what a budget is, and no idea what the developmental stages of growing children are.
To be truly egalitarian women, we support each other in ALL walks of life.
I detest CBM and W teaching because it sets itself up to decide all life issues from an “all women belong in the home or are sinful” mindset.
I hate it egalitarians make it sound like doing anything remotely traditionally feminine as a freely made choice is sinful or stupid.
Thanks Gavin.
And here’s a photo to prove it
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dorothy+patterson+yasser+arafat&hl=en&client=tablet-android-archos&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_by3UJbwFKaI0AWJ84G4DQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=720#biv=i|0;d|eTXoIjINmBQ6DM:
and here they go out clubbing in downtown Baghdad before the midnight dinner.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dorothy+patterson+yasser+arafat&hl=en&client=tablet-android-archos&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=_723ULHGIY6Y0QXp8YCIBA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=720#biv=i|45;d|7U12Tu1QZRwSTM:
Gavin
You’ll need to block the whole link
Bridget, I think Ken Ham believes you can’t be Christian without being YEC: http://www.reasons.org/articles/old-earth-creationism-a-heretical-belief
Ham strikes me as the guy who would be another Torquemada if he had the power.
Here’s Paige and Arafat: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Z37Gr_iOcBo/Rm7s5BSFjOI/AAAAAAAAAF0/DMAZPU0x0ag/s1600-h/arafat_patterson.jpg
I read a book which alleges the Patterson would visit an orphanage in the area of his safari and ten say he was on university business. — Dee
That’s just the old “Justify the Junket as a Business Expense” trick. Just like those “Business Conferences” at a fancy exotic resort — conduct just enough of a business meeting so you can write it off as a business expense, then bounce around like Pinkie Pie with a charge card for the rest of the “Conference” — “FUN! FUN! FUN! FUN! FUN!”
Dee, that’s another man swindled by the Ken Ham types into believing that the Christian faith depends on a young earth. I wonder if Ken Ham had political power, what would he do to those of us who don’t believe YEC? — Nicholas
Fire up the Ovens, what else?
“GOD HATH SAID!!! SCRIPTURE!!! SCRIPTURE!!! SCRIPTURE!!!”
I believe that we are seeing history rewritten but thanks to the Internet, they can’t hide it any longer. — Dee
You mean the Chocolate Ration really WAS twenty grams?
I just found this blog by Suzi Shumaker. She asks some questions and makes an interesting point. This fits in nicely with this discussion.
“You’re Either a Feminist or a Masochist
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:27
According to dictionary.com: a feminist is: “a person who advocates equal rights for women.”
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, feminism is defined as the theory of the political, economic, and the social equality of the sexes.
I am so confused when I meet women who do not consider themselves to be feminists. Here are some things that we, as women, would be denied the access to, had it not be for the feminist movement:
*Education
*Equality in the workplace = equal pay for equal work
*Custody = before the feminist movement, a divorced woman had no legal rights to her children.
*Property = any property owned by a woman or inherited, was not hers, but her husband’s once she was married.
*Voting
*Protection from physical abuse = prior to this movement, men had a legal right to beat their wives.
*Walking in public without a male escort
*Having a bank account
*Driving a car
*Wearing pants
I’m sure the list goes on and on. But I will stop and ask any woman who reads this: “Do you personally enjoy any of the freedoms listed above?” If your answer is yes, then you ARE a feminist.
And to any man who reads this, do you believe your mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters should have any/all of these freedoms? If you answer is yes, then you are also a feminist. It’s not a bad word and it’s not a sin.”
There is more at: suzanneshumaker.blogspot.com
Dee,
I haven’t had time to read all of the comments, so I’m not sure if someone has mentioned this. Denny Burk posted a link to the Kassian review (as did Challies). A few of the commenters and I went after him for this and the comments there remind me of your post here. Here is the link. AW Sanderson’s comment is really great. I also bugged Tim about his ‘here is a useful review’ link to Kassian. No response from him or Burke.
http://www.dennyburk.com/mary-kassian-reviews-year-of-biblical-womanhood/#comments
I don’t remember what she was doing at Saddam’s palace guesthouse with Arafat… — Anon1
Getting ideas for remodeling Pecan Manor from Saddam’s Palace(s)?
Barb, if a woman does not identify as a feminist, then she is not a feminist. Shumaker’s article is a smokescreen. An insepearable part of the feminist movement today is support for abortion, lgbt “rights”, etc and opposition to marriage, Christianity, and the Biblical God.
Barb Orlowski –
Maybe we should send your comment to Mary Kassien so she understands how it came to be that she can work outside the home, attain a college degree, vote, etc. 🙂
“[NB: “weans” is a contraction of the Weegie “wee yins”, meaning “small ones”. I.e., children. Properly pronounced “wain”, but in a Scots accent, which means it’s pronounced “ween”. For those interested in exploring authentic Scots accents, neither Groundskeeper Willie from the Simpsons nor Young MacDonald from Sesame Street is a good example.”
What about Bairns? Is that Irish or something?
@Beakerj
(re: the Baylys) “I cannot fathom why they give Kamilla the hot flushes…has anyone ever seen a photo? Are they fabulously good looking?”
Well, if you’re dying to find out, w\We used a photograph of Rev. Tim Bayly in one of our early Steam Tunnel pieces , “Leap Day Predictions” (Bayly’s photo appears with Prediction #9 ).
Not bad, huh? And if you can believe it, his brother David is an even better-looking guy!
But seriously, though, the physicality of the Bayly Brothers is the subject of one of my more disturbing recollections of their discourse: Last year at their pastors’ conference (a frightening concept in and of itself), David Bayly gave a keynote address in which he told a story about how his brother Tim and two other pastors had debated some theological liberals on the subject of women’s ordination some years ago. He prefaces his discussion of the debate itself by citing the “size advantage” he and his debate partners enjoyed: he actually describes how much bigger the men on his team were than those on the other team (at least one of whom was a woman, BTW)! He specifically mentions that he, at 6’1”, was the smallest guy on the team. It was almost as if he was boasting that God, in His providence, had foreordained that his debate team would be bigger, physically stronger, and more intimidating than the liberals, and that this was a good and appropriate thing. It was the Broad Street Bullies’ approach to theological debate, I suppose.
"Pecan Manor is the name of the SWBTS mansion in which Mrs. P rules the roost, overseeing the cleaners, cook and pastry chef. She toils diligently, keeping track of all the people doing stuff for her, the homemaker. It's a great gig if you can get it. Imagine all the tithes given to churches and turned over to SWBTS to keep Dorothy in pastry chefs."
And please do not forget the special Christmas tree festooned with ornaments from their world travels. Travels Paid for with SBC dollars? What cracked me up about the video was the attempt to decorate the manse in Southern gracious living with huge stuffed safari kill in the mix.
@Beakerj
(re: the Baylys) “I cannot fathom why they give Kamilla the hot flushes…has anyone ever seen a photo? Are they fabulously good looking?”
Well, if you’re dying to find out, we used a photograph of Rev. Tim Bayly in one of our early Steam Tunnel pieces , “Leap Day Predictions” (Bayly’s photo appears with Prediction #9).
Not bad, huh? And if you can believe it, his brother David is an even better-looking guy!
But seriously, though, the physicality of the Bayly Brothers is the subject of one of my more disturbing recollections of their discourse: Last year at their pastors’ conference (a frightening concept in and of itself), David Bayly gave a keynote address in which he told a story about how his brother Tim and two other pastors had debated some theological liberals on the subject of women’s ordination some years ago. He prefaces his discussion of the debate itself by citing the “size advantage” he and his debate partners enjoyed: he actually describes how much bigger the men on his team were than those on the other team (at least one of whom was a woman, BTW)! He specifically mentions that he, at 6’1”, was the smallest guy on the team. It was almost as if he was boasting that God, in His providence, had foreordained that his debate team would be bigger, physically stronger, and more intimidating than the liberals, and that this was a good and appropriate thing. It was the Broad Street Bullies’ approach to theological debate, I suppose.
Linda, Consider one reason we are appalled at a homemaking degree at a "seminary" is that its charter is to prepare people for ministry/missions. It is supposed to be post grad. That is what the funding was for. That is changing the charter without a vote.
Nicholas and Gavin,
Thanks for the links. Patterson is quite the character. Once trying to raise money for a statue of Criswell he had little busts of Criswell made and sold them at an SBC Convention. My mom could not believe it. Can you say, idolatry?
But he was always one step ahead of the firing ax at some point in his career. So many felt they owed him for his CR tactics that they always found a place for him somewhere in the SBC.
The Famous Airport meeting where all the SBC big wigs flew in was all about Patterson and the problems with Criswell. So they made a place for him at SEBTS as Prez. That eventually became a problem so they sent him out to SWBTS.
He is no longer influential in the SBC at all. Mohler owns it now.
Linda, I agree that we shouldn’t go to the other extreme and distrust and critize anything that sounds too traditionally feminine. But I wonder about its suitability in a seminary. This is not a community college (there is nothing wrong with community college).
Let’s also lay off of art history! This is why evangelicals are so BAD with art. So bad.
More seriously, I think that Christians should be wary of the marketization of education. When we ask about the ‘usefulness’ of expertise in a certain subject we should ask ‘useful for what’? Just because the dedicated study of a subject does not lead you directly to a six figure salary or a ‘marketable skill’ does not mean it is not useful. Sorry, pet peeve there.
“He prefaces his discussion of the debate itself by citing the “size advantage” he and his debate partners enjoyed: he actually describes how much bigger the men on his team were than those on the other team (at least one of whom was a woman, BTW)! He specifically mentions that he, at 6’1”, was the smallest guy on the team. It was almost as if he was boasting that God, in His providence, had foreordained that his debate team would be bigger, physically stronger, and more intimidating than the liberals, and that this was a good and appropriate thing. ”
I am biting my tongue off not to respond with another metaphor!!!! :o)
linda
I did stay home with my children and am most supportive of those who choose to do so. Prior to doing so,I earned a BSN and an MBA. I was able to cook meals, clean the house, and entertain as well as participate in church life, actively. I learned how to cook, clean and organize on the fly-reading cook books used to be a hobby and I still love to cook. i do not think it is necessary to get a BS degree in homemking to be a homemaker anymore than a man needs to get a BS degree in managing his leadership skills in the home.
There is a degree at Samford University called Family Life which is essentially homemaking. My daughter’s (she was a nursing major) friends who majored in that degree and did not get married after graduation had to get additional schooling to have a skill such as speech therapy, etc. My daughter said that everyone on campus called it the MRS degree so it was uniformly recognized by the students as such. I would not recommend such a degree to my daughters because it limits their options. However, to each his own.
Our targeting the Homemaking degree at SWBTS was to point out how Kassian claimed that homemaking was not a basis for the comp movement and then promptly consulted Patterson who runs a homemaking program.
Nicholas
Can you show me that your definition of feminism is the one accepted by all women? Women who fought for the right to vote were called all sorts of ugly names by people in their day.
Nicholas,
“An insepearable part of the feminist movement today is support for abortion, lgbt “rights”, etc and opposition to marriage, Christianity, and the Biblical God.”
Inseparable? Can you justify your statement?
Nick Bulbeck,
Beware the elevator enhanced with voice recognition when you need to go to floor “eleven”.
Anon1 – No, “bairn” is used in Scotland. It means “baby”, as distinct from “child”. It’s hard to say exactly when a bairn becomes a wean, but it’s quite young.
I don’t trust lifts (or elevators) with voice recognition. They tend to have their own agendas.
Dee – I don’t know where to start, so much in this thread is comedy gold! Gold I tell you! I had NO idea anyone else in the whole world knew about Hyacinth Bucket, this alone makes me mirthful…let alone your superior verandah!
And then Yasser & Dorothy…you just couldn’t make it up could you? Holy moly that’s a scream. And I’ve never seen a picture of her before – she looks like she could be a friend of Hyacinth’s! And Paige – who I have to be reminded EVERY SINGLE TIME is male, not exactly the alpha male I had envisaged.
And Serge- thanks so much! He is quite pleasant to look at but not exactly ‘hold me back’ material…I think the Bayley brothers would make a fascinating psychological study, I mean, how does one end up with self-esteem that high? Were him & his brother born with birthmarks that say ,’I thank you God that I was not born a gentile or a woman’?
& Nicholas: they are associated, but not inseperable, unless I am a total anachronism…
Beakerj:
They are the most fascinating characters in Evangelicalism that most people don’t know about.
And BTW, I am a big Hyacinth Bucket fan. And Heddy Wainthrop, too!
SMG
I’m a big lurker on this blog, and have enjoyed the comments back and forth for a while. But today I felt I had to jump into the fray.
First: any link to the Blayly website should come with a warning “be careful little eyes what you see” because that is one seriously disturbed man.
Secondly, and more importantly: Kassian says that man & woman are supposed to reflect the relationship between the Father and the Son. Where is this in the Bible, oh “wise” woman from CBMW where the B stands for “Biblical”??? The marriage relationship – husband and wife, not generic man and woman – is held as a picture of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5), not as a picture of Jesus and the Father.
Lastly, nothing she said about women – made to reflect the glory of God to the world, etc. – could not be said about men also.
. On Homemaking or MRS degrees: Our first 15 months of married life, my wife studied Theology. She left school before getting her degree because our son came along and she became a full-time mom. But would the Pattersons say she’d have raised our kids better by studying homemaking?
TAGD “that is one seriously disturbed man”. I think that’s two seriously disturbed men.
Something icky and creepy about Kassian relating husband/wife to Father/Son. I think she gets it from ESS teaching somehow (semi-heretical in itself). Then have you seen her 4th complementary head/heart relationship? Church Elders=Head and Believers=Heart
Linda,
“To be truly egalitarian women, we support each other in ALL walks of life.
I hate it egalitarians make it sound like doing anything remotely traditionally feminine as a freely made choice is sinful or stupid.”
******
I truly have never run across anything like this amongst those who would describe themselves as egalitarian (if only to distinguish themselves from being complementarian).
As far as that homemaking degree goes, just learned this:
Tuition for a minimum of 14 credit hours in home-ec courses alone will cost $3,290 (Southern Baptist woman) / $6,580 (non-Southern Baptist woman). This is towards earning a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities with a Concentration in Homemaking at SWBTS Fort Worth campus.
Not sure what point to make (I think the dollar amounts do it for me, actually), other than to say that all my friends and family and myself are very skilled and knowledgeable in all these things, minus any such expensive credit hours.
Through a glass dimly
"man & woman are supposed to reflect the relationship between the Father and the Son." This is part of the reasoning behind the introduction of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) that we have written about here. This doctrine states that as the Son is subordinate to the Father in eternity, so women are submitted to men in eternity. There is a whole subset of the patriatrchs at SBTS, where Kassian is a professor, who have invented and promoted this doctrine. Don't even bother to protest. They know it is true. Kassian, of course, des not mention this as well. This whole comp movement is becoming a religion in and of itself.
Oh yeah, can you imagine being submitted to a Bayly in eternity?? it gives me the shivers.
Welcome and thanks for your comment!
Dave AA –
Definitely creepy and icky, not to mention (semi?)heretical.
And, two of them? Really? Do you think God regrets it (Gen 6:6)? Lightning alert: Duck, everyone!
Dee and elastigirl,
I should have distinguished between original feminism and modern radical feminism.
BeakerJ
I taught a Sunday school class on how we could take lessons on our church family from Daisy, Rose and Onslow. You know how they always refer to each other as "our Rose", "our Hyacinth", etc. They even call her "our Hyacinth" when she treats them so badly. I said that we need to do a lot more calling each other in the faith "our" instead of finding issues with which to drive us apart.
Can you imagine Patterson bragging about a midnight buffet with Arafat? If there isn't a screw missing or what? And yes, she always dresses with a hat and she has a boatload of them. Does that not remind you of Hyacinth? Do you remember the episode in which she went to an art show and wore that hysterical hat that looked like a big fat beret?
Stick with us-the true stories of the faithful are funnier than anything anyone can make up.
Caleb
I am impressed. On my walks about the blogosphere, I am seeing fine comments written by you.
TAGD: I knew I was being overly kind by adding “semi”, used it anyway from some folks’ fondness of “semi-pelagian” to describe anyone who disagrees.
Nick Bulbeck: “I don’t trust lifts (or elevators) with voice recognition. They tend to have their own agendas.”.
My wife and I and some others took a very small/cramped lift in Glasgow. It had its own agenda. An Englishman on board pressed the intercom. “Hello!” he said, “This is the elevator speaking! We’re stuck!”
No response ensued, so we pried open the doors and climbed out to the floor 3 feet up.
Preoccupation with size? How Freudian…
Beaker,
“. And I’ve never seen a picture of her before – she looks like she could be a friend of Hyacinth’s!”
Dorothy is known for her big hats that match the outfit in the SBC. That, her decorating, entertaining, expensive china bought for Pecan Manor on SBC dime, name dropping etc, is what caused some who used to work for the Patterson’s dub her as Hyacinth Bucket. It could not be more perfect and you are right, you cannot make this stuff up.
She proves there is a way to pair a stuffed cheetah with a crewel embroidered Chippendale sofa. :o)
“TAGD “that is one seriously disturbed man”. I think that’s two seriously disturbed men.
Something icky and creepy about Kassian relating husband/wife to Father/Son. I think she gets it from ESS teaching somehow (semi-heretical in itself).”
Mary Kassian did not get the memo. they gave up on ESS a few years back. The only reason they trotted it out was to map heirarchy of gender to the Trinity. But they left the poor Holy Spirit out!!! The men were god, the women, Jesus.
They gave it a very good go, though. Bruce Ware wrote a book outlining it. Cheryl Schatz ate their lunch with her well researched video on the subject. And again, they did not take into consideration the blogosphere.
Nicholas,
Not all modern feminism is radical feminism. I think that’s where people are getting tripped up.
Feminism still means at its basic level, the belief in equality for women. Yes, there are large swaths of feminists who believe in abortion, etc. However, I have nowhere seen that this is a prerequisite for calling oneself feminist.
I comfortably consider myself a feminist because I believe that my husband and I have equal rights and opportunities. In many other ways, I’m a fairly conservative Christ-follower.
Nicholas – I think that if you do some research, you’ll find that there are many kinds of feminism, not just the one you, um… mentioned in your earlier comment as *the* definition of feminism.
You have probably benefited from the achievements of previous generations of feminists yourself, in ways that might surprise you. (Some were noted in a comment made earlier.)
It can be hard to see, though, if/when surrounded by broadcast media, books, etc. that have very narrow (and often hostile and demeaning) characterizations of “feminists” – and many others – as villains of the highest order.
Linda,
I agree with your comments, but I think Dee and Deb were more so pointing out the irony of holding up a woman who teaches homemaking as proof that comps aren’t only concerned with homemaking 🙂 I wouldn’t start arguing that “Men aren’t all car mechanics” and use, as an example, the mechanic who fixes my car.
Further, I agree with you that there is a lot of push-back sometimes against women who stay home. May I make an observation? I truly believe that women in both camps feel judged by each other.
I often catch myself being negative about traditional females roles. I know I should not do this. I recognize that I do this because I’m scared, because there are lots of women who I know will try to guilt and push me out of my career once I have a child.
I know there are lots of SAHMs who feel judged, guilted, and scared, and I’m sure they react negatively against working moms sometimes too.
I think the trick is to realize that both groups feel threatened, and that both groups must be supported.
That being said, I know a lot more egalitarian woman who did become SAHMs for a short while than I know egalitarian women who kept working after children, without at least a short break. That’s not to say that SAHMs have enough support and social power that we don’t have to worry about hurting their feelings; it’s just to observe that I, as a working woman, feel like there are far fewer egalitarian role models for me than there would be for an egalitarian woman who plans to stay home for awhile.
”Also, I am flummoxed by her use of the term “mutuality.” It appears that Kassian, inventor of the term “complementarian” is now set to redefine a word which is often used by egalitarians.”
They seem to be the center of confusion here I agree. Mutuality in the past has been used by ‘her people’ with terms such as: Gender sameness, Gender Blurring, gender confused, sameness, etc. They beat that bandwagon to death, and I guess now changed their minds?
Mutuality meant SAME to them in the past. It was the cause of men not knowing what ‘biblical manhood’ is, or women not knowing what ‘biblical womanhood’ was. Each gender doesn’t know how to be their gender…bleck.
They seem to be ‘definition’ confused.
I’m honored you quoted my blog. Thank you.
Linda,
In my first comment criticising the homemaking degree, you’d see I did say it would be degree-worthy if it required enough rigour (proper discussion of nutrition and the like). But if it is just cooking classes and a basic-level discussion of nutrition, or learning how to use a sewing machine, sorry, but that’s not up to standard for a degree. A community college diploma? Sure. But to earn the title of degree it should require quite a bit mentally. All the jobs you suggested already have degrees that lead to them – you can study nutrition, early childhood education, design, etc at many universities/colleges. But they require a fairly high level of study. This homemaking degree does not appear to contain any of that, and wouldn’t be sufficient to get a job in those industries.
Also, I know a few people who studied art history. They work in art galleries, run exhibitions in museums, work on preserving cultural heritage, etc. It’s far from a useless fluff degree.
Pam and Linda – I have a grad-level art history degree. it *is* useful, but the problem is that there just aren’t that many gallery and/or museum jobs around. Most people who go for grad degrees in this field end up teaching.
I used to do museum work, and my M.A. wasn’t enough – you have to have a Ph.D. to advance (in terms of types of jobs and pay), and I just wasn’t going along for that ride.
Pam and Linda (cont’d) – the study of art history is a pretty rigorous discipline, and it’s as much a study of cultural history (including religious, economic and military history, among other things) as it is a study of who made x art, when, and why.
to answer the who, when and why (as well as the how) means that you’re up to your eyeballs in cultural (etc.) history.
fwiw, knowing a lot about both the OT and the NT comes in really handy in the study of Western art. 😉
Justabeliever and Anon 1,
Sandra Fluke does not want us to “pay for her immorality”. She advocated that religious institutions which refuse to pay for birth control for their employees be required to cover it. This involves insurers of those religious institutions, not the government or taxpayers. Sandra Fluke was prompted to speak out about this issue due to a fellow student/colleague who required birth control for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome.
I can see both sides of the issue. I have my values and spiritual convictions. It doesn’t matter if I agree or don’t agree with Sandra Fluke. I don’t know her. I don’t know her socioeconomic status. I don’t care if she came from the wealthiest family in the world and could afford to supply birth control for every woman on the Georgetown campus. What Rush Limbaugh said about her was not merely immoral or insulting. His attack was vicious, and no one should be spoken of in that way. Worse, he has crazy people who hang on his every word. I believe Rush Limbaugh ushered in a gang mentality or at least a tolerance of politicans minimizing, qualifying, re-defining, and reframing rape and its consequences. One politician went so far as to accuse some women of being “an easy rape”. Honestly, have you ever heard so many politicians in the course of a few short months say so many horrible things about women and rape?
After companies began pulling their advertising, Rush Limbaugh did apologize for “insulting” Sandra Fluke (to use his word). I call it a non-apology.
“He prefaces his discussion of the debate itself by citing the “size advantage” he and his debate partners enjoyed: he actually describes how much bigger the men on his team were than those on the other team… — Anon1
Is this a variant on Driscoll’s “I Can Beat You Up!” or just the schoolyard’s “Because I’m Bigger Than You!”?
Something icky and creepy about Kassian relating husband/wife to Father/Son. I think she gets it from ESS teaching somehow (semi-heretical in itself). — Dave AA
And ESS means that even in the Godhead, there is no escape from Dom & Sub, Top & Bottom, the boot stamping on the face (literally) Forever.
“There is only POWER — and those too weak to use it.” — Lord Voldemort
Can you imagine Patterson bragging about a midnight buffet with Arafat? If there isn’t a screw missing or what? — Anon1
“That girl’s got more screws loose than I can ever hope to tighten.”
— S.K.Roo Driver, from the old online comic “Macropod Madness”
Anon1 – No, “bairn” is used in Scotland. It means “baby”, as distinct from “child”. It’s hard to say exactly when a bairn becomes a wean, but it’s quite young. — Nick Bulbeck
A bairn becomes a wean when he/she is weaned?
And could “wean” be one of the roots of the American slang term “weenie”?
Thanks for the links. Patterson is quite the character. Once trying to raise money for a statue of Criswell he had little busts of Criswell made and sold them at an SBC Convention. My mom could not believe it. Can you say, idolatry? — Anon1
I assume this “Criswell” isn’t the Fifties pop psychic who hung out with Ed Wood? (If so, that would make it all the more surreal.)
Just like little busts of Caesar to burn the incense before? Or Great Aretmis of Ephesus?
@Beakerj
(re: the Baylys) “I cannot fathom why they give Kamilla the hot flushes…has anyone ever seen a photo? Are they fabulously good looking?”
Harley Quinn Syndrome?
(Only Harley Quinn could fathom why The Joker gave her the hot flushes.)
Not all modern feminism is radical feminism. I think that’s where people are getting tripped up. — Sad Observer
There’s got to be a better term for “radical feminism” — I think Rush Limbaugh coined the term “Feminazi” before he started listening only to his own PR.
Anyway, I prefer the term “FEMALE SUPREMACIST”, just as comp/patrios are Male Supremacist. Funhouse Mirror Reflections, like Communism and Objectivism.
Wendy, It has nothing to do with morality for me at all. Not even a consideration. I have a problem with government mandating for an institution what it must do in this particular matter. It is none of their business. No one is forcing anyone to work there. What will they mandate next that insurers (which is always passed on) must pay for?
“This involves insurers of those religious institutions, not the government or taxpayers.”
Perhaps not with Obamacare. Why do so many seem to like micromanagement of government? I just don’t get it.
Wendy, Morality was not even a consideration for me at all. Did not even think of it that way. I just do not understand why government should mandate something like this for institutions and insurers. The insurer would have to pay for it? You do realize they pass on costs, right? The grand insurer will soon become Obamacare which is the taxpayer.
It is the principle of the thing. Government micromanaging every facet of life for us. No one is forcing women who want birth control paid for by insurance to work for a Catholic (or fill in the blank) organization. What else do people want government to mandate to micromanage us because we are so incompetent?
And poor women are able to get birth control from Planned Parenthood. At least where I live they can.
Sorry for double posting.My computer locked up and I thought it was lost.
Anon 1,
“You would think our government would have learned something more from the experience of 9/11. 1983 is about 30 years prior. They did not even have email. Islamic terrorists were not even on the average citizen’s radar. It just makes this last one even harder to understand.”
It wasn’t on the average citizen’s radar, but Islamic terrorism has been on the U.S. government’s radar for a very long time. No matter how great we get at fighting terrorists, we are going to screw up and make mistakes. As my father-in-law (a Korean War vet) often says, “You can try, but you can’t plan for every eventuality.” We live in a fallen, imperfect world. The point is that previous attacks during the watch of other presidents hasn’t been turned into a political conspiracy and cover-up.
I don’t pretend to be a foreign affairs expert. I don’t know why more security wasn’t provided. The only reason I’ve read is that they were trying to get the Libyans to be responsible for more of the security. And at least one of those four killed has a mother who spoke out. She said her son was confident about the way things were being run there and trusted they were as safe as they could be. Truth be told, there are probably other posts with inadequate security. We don’t want our military personnel, diplomats, ambassadors, and security contractors to be murdered, but thousands of them have been. Needless to say, tightened security would have prevented many of those deaths. The answers are complex.
Anon 1,
“It is the principle of the thing. Government micromanaging every facet of life for us. No one is forcing women who want birth control paid for by insurance to work for a Catholic (or fill in the blank) organization. What else do people want government to mandate to micromanage us because we are so incompetent?”
Again, I can see both sides of the issue, depending on the particular case. But that’s not my point.
My whole point (from comment #1) is that many of my evangelical Christian friends have become stay-at-home, homeschooling, Tea Partying, “Rush Babes for America” women – and make fun of and condemn women who aren’t. Whether we disagree wholeheartedly with Sandra Fluke or not, we shouldn’t align ourselves with a man like Limbaugh who has that amount of influence.
HUG
Not feminazi, that’s an awful, awful term. It’s used routinely as an insult when women speak up on anything at all. Radical feminist is the accepted term, is used by radfems themselves, and should be the term used.
Wendy, very much agreed on what Sandra Fluke said re. polycystic ovarian syndrome and other illnesses/problems that can be helped by the use of the pill. An awful lot of us have been there and done that – and found out that there’s quite a bit of variance in “the pill,” since in reality there are many formulations and what helps one person might cause problems for another. (Again, been there, done that.)
I’ve seen people jump all over women on other forums/blogs re. needing to take the pill for medical problems (and/or as birth control as well) and think the reactions from many media and political figures to ms. fluke – and, by extension, to everyone who’s ever had a medical need for the pill – are horrific.
[/end threadjack]
They could solve the birth control for medical reasons – not babies – deal by requiring insurance companies to get a grip. Then you wouldn’t have a need for this stuff.
I had a medical issue (endometriosis) that used the pill to help regulate things. Insurance wouldn’t cover it (when I had insurance). I went to free clinics when I couldn’t afford it, and they handed me samples (month at a time). I remember a time I paid about $45.00 a month for it about 15 years ago.
Insurance will pay for the operations needed if I didn’t get treatment, but wouldn’t help pay for the treatment to HOPEFULLY avoid the surgeries. The state paid for one hospital stay when i wasn’t insured – between jobs – but again wouldn’t pay for treatment to keep me out of the hospital.
I was on some heavy duty stuff due to my condition, and I think during the hearing she stated her friend would have paid 10,000+/year for the pill. I’m not sure what type she is referring to. Sounds a bit extreme to me($800+/monthly). I had my plumbing yacked so I no longer have to worry about it.
I do believe if your insurance as a prescription plan, and you need it for medical issues? It should be a no brainer. It costs them more in the long run if someone can’t pay, and you end up putting out more later on.
The average woman doesn’t need some heavy duty expensive deal like Fluke spoke about. They can get the most major brands covered for $10 a month at Walmart.
The government can say it will be free all they wish. It still costs. People in the production lines don’t work for free. Packaging company, drivers to pharmacies, etc – they don’t work for free either. Its call subsidized. Not free. That is so misleading. People actually believe it.
Hannah
That’s you blog! I really liked it. Well done!
Hyacinth Bucket and the candlelight suppers. — Anon1
“Hyacinth Bucket” sounds like the name of a My Little Pony, a Bond Girl, or both.
Not feminazi, that’s an awful, awful term.
Pam – Absolutely YES on this, too.
Polycystic ovary syndrome fact sheet:
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/polycystic-ovary-syndrome.cfm
full transcript of Ms. Fluke’s testimony – includes all remarks about her friend with POS, including amounts of $ involved for scripts (and info. on surgery), etc.:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/06/context-sandra-fluke-contraceptives-and-womens-hea/
Here’s a quote
I *so* hear this. I had endo, and many, *many* ovarian cysts, most of which ruptured… 3 of those ruptures put me in the hospital w/acute peritonitis, in the kind of pain described.
At one point, it was thought that my left ovary had ruptured and burst, though that proved not to be the case.
I was in my early 20s when these cysts ruptured. Imagine how it felt to be told that I might have lost an ovary – ??!!!
And then… in my 30s, one of my ovaries was (mostly) consumed by an endometrioma. I was on Lupron Depot for as long as I was able to afford it, which wasn’t very…
Finally, in my 40s, I had everything out, after another bout with cysts that were more threatening, and possibly malignant.
I had no health insurance of any kind for over 10 years, so was unable to get proper treatment for the pain I was in.
Imagine if it were *you* in that position…
… I think a *lot* of catastrophic health care costs would not exist if people were able to have proper access to medical care, medicines and surgeries earlier in the course of these kinds of illnesses.
I know that I lost Lord only knows how many hours of work – and thus, pay – due to what I went through, so I really feel for Ms. Fluke’s friend. The prospect of infertility is a hard one to bear.
Hannah and Numo,
Oh, I’m so sorry. What a nightmare you’ve both been through. I agree – providing birth control for medical issues should be a no-brainer.
numo, so sorry about how much you went through with endometriosis. It seems to be one of the worst conditions a woman can get.
What always struck me in the US healthcare debates was that while there was all the histrionics about birth control being covered, Viagra and other erectile dysfunction pills were covered. The silence from religious employers on that one was deafening. In my opinion, if penis pills are covered, birth control should be too. If birth control isn’t covered, then neither should penis pills.
Pam – err, yes (Viagra, Cialis, et. al. being covered).
Nobody bats a single eyelash at that.
And thanks so much for your kind thoughts… I’ve been pain-free for 10+ years now, and wish i had chosen to go through with the surgery a few years sooner, but c’est la vie.
The thing is, I could easily have been Sandra Fluke’s friend. There are SO many women with endo, POS, etc., it’s not funny. And yet, there are docs (not just men – some women as well) who insist that endo pain doesn’t exist; that it’s all “in [your] head[s].”
That *really* burns me! (Though my hat is off to UK-based novelist and recent Booker Prize winner Hilary Mantel, for being so candid about her own battle with endo – far worse than mine, I think – because she is doing so much to educate and raise awareness…)
Wendy – Actually, I think birth control should be a no-brainer for, well, birth control.
But that’s just me.
Thanks so much for the kind words – and Google “Hilary Mantel endometriosis” for the award-winning novelist’s account of what it’s like to live with severe endo symptoms. (She still has problems, post-hysterectomy.)
Numo & Pam,
You should hear how the pundits (all men) spin it on right-wing ixtian radio in my locale. One would think that all our troubles are caused by these evil humanist women and their enablers who want to destroy America’s religious freedom. And of course as you’ve pointed out, not a word about erectile dysfunction drugs [those of course are in full compliance with God’s holy command to be fruitful and multiply].
I’m glad that the hard core group is loosing support. Compism has got to go! Sick of it! It’s a dirty disease.
Compism makes me sick. It disgusts me.
Thanks for the vent.
With regards to this comment of Kassian’s on RHE’s book:
I’m glad she clarified who exactly she means by “evangelical complementarians.” She’s talking about my people. I’ve been with that movement from the start. She’s walking into my backyard. Her book is specifically aimed at the particular brand of evangelical complementarity of which I am a part.”
I know it’s part of human nature to think in terms of whatever we ourselves happen to care most about– what Kassian says in the last sentence there simply doesn’t follow from what she said in the earlier sentences. Maybe RHE was talking about Kassian’s particular brand of evangelical complementarity in that section of the book. But when I read the book, it was clear to me that RHE did NOT specifically aim it at any one particular Christian group, or any one particular interpretation of Scripture. RHE clearly intended to, and did, explore a wide variety of different groups’ views of how women should practice Scripture– including Amish, Catholic and orthodox Jewish.
Kassian’s whole premise is faulty from the start. The book simply isn’t aimed at her group, however she defines it. In fact, there is a definite self-centered feel about most of the critiques I’ve read from Kassian’s “people.” As if RHE wrote her book as a deliberate and specific attack on them, and them alone.
Still reading your article which I am enjoying and had to stop in the middle of it to comment.
Kassian is irritating. I’ve never met her, I’ve read some of her comments I think over at Burke’s. She irritates me. Had to say that. I’ll hold my tounge now.
Thanks.
KR Wordgazer on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:56 AM
Exactly! and she comments on Gurdem and Piper a bit, so she doesn’t leave “Kassian’s people” out, she just doesn’t quote Kassian specifically.
Nicholas on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 03:15 PM said:
“Barb, if a woman does not identify as a feminist, then she is not a feminist. Shumaker’s article is a smokescreen. An insepearable part of the feminist movement today is support for abortion, lgbt “rights”, etc and opposition to marriage, Christianity, and the Biblical God.”
Is there one organized feminist movement today? I was not aware of it. That isn’t a smokescreen, I think your are mixing up second wave feminism with that list. The first wave was done by Christian women in the early 1900s – fighting for the vote and legal custody rights was done in several countries in the early 1900s. The second wave feminism began in the 60s. I don’t know what that was like back then, but I grew up in the shadow of it. If it did anything for our generation, it got us an education, and still does. Women are more populous than men in universities, women are entering the white collar jobs in higher numbers than their male counterparts – especially medicine and law.
This trend is due largely to second wave feminism – girls were taught to be career focused. The church attempted to undo all this teaching, but as economics has shifted to two income families, they won’t be singing that stuff to their parishioner’s daughters any more.
Many, many Christian feminists are anti-abortion. Some (if you are Catholic you may not agree with their attempts) work in shelters and adoption agencies to try and help these young victims. Others foster abandoned kids. Usually feminists don’t go waving plaque cards at TV cameras, but they advocate for better conditions for the expectant moms to prevent abortions and sustain the children after they are born.
HUG – no, the fact that the Scots noun “wean” shares its spelling with the (somewhat archaic nowadays) English verb “to wean” is coincidence. But as for the derivation of the word “weenie”; well, a lot of nationalities have moved to America over the years, so you never know.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I can’t help wondering whether there’s a subtle connection between the nonsense of the homemaking degree and the obsession with many parties in defining “Biblical™” manhood, womanhood or – for that matter – defining Biblical™ anything else.
As at least one comment on this thread states, there are millions of women and men all over the world who are capable homemakers without any need for a grossly expensive piece of paper from self-appointed experts at a seminary somewhere. But if once you can succeed in “qualifying” a skill, then you can make a money-spinning industry out of that skill. As a senior civil servant here in Scotland put it: whenever government brings in regulation, you get besieged by consultants smelling gravy. But for those in government, box-ticking paper qualifications are easier to see and pin down than something more challenging and nebulous like “years of experience”.
Analogously, the Kingdom of God runs (in a sense) on love. But unregenerate, spiritually-dead rulers, and teachers of Law, can’t cope with something as invisible and challenging to define as “love”. The person who loves others has fulfilled the law, said Paul, but that’s not good enough for people who don’t know the Holy Spirit. They have to have something they can see with their natural eyes. So out goes the Holy Spirit, and in comes the Holy Scriptures. Out goes Christ in us, replaced by Christ in sacraments and/or appropriately qualified preaching (and here I take the liberty of refining the definition of “sacrament” to mean an outward sign of an inward grace that only an elite few can mediate and administer). Out goes the eldership who are simply that – older, and able to set an example – and in comes the leadership class who are qualitatively different from “ordinary” believers.
P.S. And on the “out goes the Holy Spirit, and in comes the Holy Scriptures” thing… state that in some public Christian setting and count how many seconds elapse before the first accusation that you’ve rejected scripture.
@ ThatMom:
“And then there is the promotion of the book Fascinating Womanhood by Mormon Helen Andelin.”
I read your description of that book. It sounds like a ridiculous caricature of parodies of the 50s. Complete crap, in other words…beyond me why anybody would recommend it. And it’s no wonder some of these people shelter pedophiles when the books they recommend tell grown women to look and act like little girls. Men are attracted to that, right? So who’s to fault them when they “slip up” and act out their fantasies for real? They’re male so they’re just mindless sex machines anyway…and it’s all good as long they said they repented.
Dee, you really should look into that Andelin book – it sounds like it could be agonizingly hilarious and excruciatingly sad all at the same time.
Continuing down the side discussion of “weens”…. Where I come from on the west coast of Scotland, wean is pronounced “weigh” with the letter “n” at the end.. There is also “wee one” which sounds like “we’un”, but almost slurred. My family is a combination of the posh Glaswegians and soft-spoken Highlanders, but after years of living in America I sound like an American to them all, to my utter chagrin!
Oh, well, Happy St. Andrew’s Day! See the google doodle here http://www.google.co.uk/
Numo
I used to work for a pharmaceutical company. All of them will freely provide drugs for people caught in between insurances, etc. Do you know if the person to whom Fluke referred asked for assistance? Also, most ERs will assist the patient in contacting companies and even provide samples to tide them over.
Numo/Hannah
Women’s issues have long taken a back seat in healthcare. Thankfully, most medical school classes are equally divided between men and women. I have a made it a point to seek out female physicians, especially for the female side of things. My husabnd remarked, when my son was born, that he and my baby boy were the only males present. He thought that was wonderful!
Numo/Hannah
I am so sorry for the both of you. It also makes me sad for the health care system which did not treat you adequately.
Heather – sorry to hear you’ve lost your accent. Is your avatar picture from your native shores, by any chance? I can’t really tell at that scale but there are several places it reminds me of. Mine was taken on the summit of Conival, with Ben More Assynt in the background, out of interest. Some way north of Bearsden, of course (speaking of posh Glasgow), but still west!
Being english, I refer to “weens” rather than “wains” and get a certain amount of stick for it from a local friend who also derides my pronunciation of “warm” (i.e., only one syllable!).
P.S. Happy St Andrews to you also. We’ll have a wee dram on your behalf this evening. Just finished the quarter-cask Laphraoig, but the Macallan should do nicely.
P.P.S. Or the Glenmorangie… then again there are those Ardbeg minatures we’ve had for years…
Thanks, Nick.
I think the avatar is from the Kyles of Bute. I have to soak in all the scenery I can on the short visits home!
Accents are funny things. Mine changes when I step onto the tarmac at Glasgow airport, or when I am on Skype with my parents. I do have problems asking for a scone at a Starbucks! I can’t remember how they pronounce it here! So say things how you like and have fun with it!
I appreciate your view of these discussions here at at at TWW. It is good to see the little flags popping up by the commenter names. The different perspectives and experiences add interest and depth to the conversation.
I think we share a similar taste in whisky…. Have you ever been to the Whisky Shop in Inveraray? Sweet place! I am partial to Oban, Bruichladdich, Talisker, etc….
All the best
What do they call a tatty scone over there?
(In fairness to everyone else, I should probably resist the temptation to reminisce too much about bonnie Scotland, but I’d be delighted to pick up the conversation if you want to ping me on my blog – it’s a bit embryonic as yet but I’ll get on and put a contact page on it today!)
I suffered horribly also from endometriosis all my life until I had everything removed 15 years ago. I was one of the lucky ones to have had children though. And yes, it was awful being told by friends and doctors that it was all in my head or I was just a big baby to ‘normal’ female pain. I even had pain during pregnancy. Only when the adenomyosis became severe enough that I could bleed to death was it not in my head anymore. Even religiously it was a bit traumatizing because my ‘word faith’ no birth control believing father declared that I went against God by having my body mutilated in this way and I should wait for His healing. So I retorted back at him, “My uterus hath OFFENDED me, therefore I have PLUCKED it OUT! Lol
I had to wait nine months after the surgery to take hormones in order for all the lesions to die off from other areas. I felt like my life really only started then, not run by this debilitating disease.
What always struck me in the US healthcare debates was that while there was all the histrionics about birth control being covered, Viagra and other erectile dysfunction pills were covered. The silence from religious employers on that one was deafening. — Pam
“Me Man! Me Want Boner Pills! You Woman! You Shut Up!”?
Just as to an alky the Constiutional Right To My Next Drink must be protected at all costs, so to a comp/patrio cage-fighting Real Man, the Constitutional Right to My Next Boner must be protected at all costs.
(Aside: Boner Pills are right up there with Nigerian 419s in my spam filters. A couple years ago, I kept getting all this breast-enlargement spam while a female co-worker kept getting all the boner-pill spam. We talked about exchanging spammers.)
Dee – but those same drug companies make people jump through hoops in order to get the meds they need. Also, there are next to zero “free samples” these days.
It’s far too complicated – and difficult – to get needed medicines. I could tell you some stories, but would prefer to keep them off-list.
Heather, “I do have problems asking for a scone at a Starbucks!”
We had similar problems “on holiday” (the word “vacation” was met wth blank stares) in the British Isles, Starbucks posed little difficulty, since most of the employees were Continental. But in some local tea shops, they had no clue what a “Skoan” was, and I’d have to repeat it as “Skahn or Skun” to be understood!
Nick- for St Andrews day I plan to open a Fraoch Heather Ale, straight from Alloa. My wife really liked one she tried over there, so we ordered a few shipped!
I hope my HTML code works okay in this post.
While I do disagree with some of the author’s views in the news article you linked to (The war on men), there are a few points I do agree with the author on, such as this one:
She is correct on that point (and I’ve seen studies and reports in the last few years that back that up, as well as personal experience).
I don’t sleep around, but there is an expectation out there among many men, even some who identify as Christian, that a female should “put out” before marriage. If you say “no,” they can drop you easily because there are ten other women out there who will give them no-strings-attached sex.
I think I wrote on this blog a few days ago a little about myself (summary: I’m a Christian female between the age of 40 – 45, never married, but I always hoped to get married).
I have no idea why I’m not married. (I was engaged years ago, but the relationship did not work out.)
One of several points where I have to part with the author is this broad brush description of all women as being masculine, angry types (she cites those for reasons as to why women can’t seem to nab husbands).
I even disagree with characterizing being educated or successful at a career as being masculine, which is what she appears to do.
The author said,
I think that’s a fair question. Her comment after that, though:
If she means to imply femininity =
be too passive, compliant;
let yourself have no goals outside of being married/having kids;
let your boyfriend/husband make all, or most of, the choices;
have no identity for yourself, etc.;
she is instructing women to be codependent, behavior/ choices/ and attitudes which actually attracts males who are abusive and controlling – so that is awful advice.
The statistics among Christians are that for every two males, there are three females. And knowing that most men are non-committal, what is a girl supposed to do? Luckily, God led me to my husband late, I was an old lady of thirty when we married. I have also read a lot about abuse and domestic violence, and none of it is pretty. I believe that parents, especially fathers, who believe in compism are dangerous to their daughters. Everyone should have an identity that makes them feel valued.
My daughter is having these types of health issues, there is absolutely no one I can confide in about it. Luckily, I am smart enough to connect my daughter with female physicians who will listen and advise her. The comp women I know think we are outright sinners. Talk to a real doctor!
For everyone who is asking about why the Christian gender complementarians don’t give specifics about how one is to live out the comp lifestyle, it’s because even the Bible itself does not paint a consistent picture of all women (even married ones) being quiet, never leading, never teaching, as the comps teach.
There are passages and verses in the New Testament that mention women singing, prophesying, being apostles, and that there is neither male/female in Christ.
Then we have the numerous examples of Christ teaching women, which was not very big in the Jewish culture of His day.
I always wanted to be true to what the Bible says, even as a teenager, and even if that meant God tells women in the Bible to be submissive to their spouses, to never lead in a church setting, etc, even though I personally found those sorts of views very distasteful.
That meant I looked at the Bible verses which discussed married women and how they are to behave towards their husbands and while in church services, etc., and seriously considered what they had to say.
But then I noticed that Christians who push for the view that women should not lead men in church, or never lead in a marriage, tended to ignore the verses that talked about the husband also submitting to the wife, loving her like Christ loved the church, and how the New Testament says all believers are to submit to each other.
Christ said to his followers that they are not to “lord authority over each other” as the Gentiles did.
It seemed to me that the overall teaching of Scripture is that God sees all people as equals who are made in His image, so the verses that mention (in the Old and New Testaments) women leading men, taking authority, etc, are the ones that are timeless and for all cultures/ generations, not the few small verses where the Apostle Paul wrote to a specific church that women in that church should be quiet.
It also seemed to me that Jewish culture way back when (as well as Roman, etc) were pretty sexist. Women were very confined to only holding a small number of roles (usually domestic, or they worked as prostitutes).
If Jesus was truly as revolutionary as other Christians said He was, and if He came to set people free, it made no sense to me why Christ (who so often championed the most downcast segments of society, or treated them with respect and dignity, such as the prostitutes), would uphold and maintain the status quo of the day (which was women are of less importance than men, less intelligent and trustworthy, their eye witness testimony should not be considered in legal disputes, etc).
One big pet peeve of mine is how gender comps try to dismiss or explain away obvious God-approved female leadership mentioned in the Bible, primarily Deborah.
Deborah was a judge who led Israel into war. I’ve heard comp. preachers try to argue that example away by saying God was using a woman to shame men for them not taking up their appropriate role.
Even given that feeble explanation, it still doesn’t matter – Deborah demonstrates that God is more than willing to put a woman in power over men, or in power period.
Eagle, I am glad you brought that up.
I finished reading ‘Gone With The Wind’ not too long ago and wanted to make a couple of posts about it.
What follows are a few excerpts from the 1936 novel “Gone With The Wind,” which is a story set in the 1860s, American Civil War era (author: Margaret Mitchell).
I’d like to break this up in two posts (I’m afraid one very long one might be rude, and it might be easier to read this way).
Here’s post one:
I see parallels between the popular cultural attitudes of what femininity and a woman’s place supposedly is in these excerpts, and the issues with Christian complementarians of today, parallels which I find amusing, scary, interesting, surprising, and illuminating.
Scarlett O’Hara opens and runs a saw mill in Atlanta, becoming very successful at it. She mentions to her friend Rhett Butler that people in town are angry at her over this, and she can’t understand why.
Rhett’s response:
“All you’ve ever done is to be different from other women and you’ve made a little success at it. As I’ve told you before, that is the one unforgivable sin in any society. Be different and be damned!
Scarlett, the mere fact that you’ve made a success of your mill is an insult to every man who hasn’t succeeded. Remember, a well-bred female’s place is in the home and she should know nothing about this busy, brutal world.”
[Scarlett replies,] “But if I had stayed in my home, I wouldn’t have had any home left to stay in.”
[Rhett says,] “The inference is that you should have starved genteelly and with pride.”
Numo,
A couple of years ago, my husband required very expensive medication which we couldn’t afford. The doctor could only provide him with 2 to 4 weeks of samples, if I remember correctly. Then I had to jump through hoops completing paperwork, talking with numerous folks on the phone, getting the doctor involved, etc. in order to get on the medication’s half price plan. Even then, a huge chunk came out of our monthly budget, which we truly couldn’t afford. After the plan expired a year later, I had to do it all over again. After the plan expired again, there was no longer a plan available, and we had no recourse. He went off the medication and has been OK, although it wasn’t under the advice of his doctor.
Post 2
I know that ‘Gone With the Wind’ is a fictional work, but the attitudes mentioned towards women I see in a book written in the 1930s (a book about American Southern society in the 1860s) so eerily reflect how Christian gender complementarians feel in 2012. It’s creepy.
At one point in the story, Scarlett is married to Frank.
To catch Frank, Scarlett played sweet, a little dim witted, and batted her eyelashes at him a lot – this is how Christian women are supposed to behave, according to Christian gender complementarians. They’d deny it, but yes, they believe women are to behave in that way – it’s “feminine” and “biblically” so.
After they got married, Scarlett insisted on lending a hand in her husband Frank’s store and buying a saw mill and running the mill on her own.
Here’s the excerpt (Frank’s attitude reminds me so much of Christian gender complementarians):
Patti,
I’m so sorry to hear what you went through with your health. It’s a shame that some religious folks condemn women for needing birth control to alleviate the effects of debilitating gynecological illnesses. To be made to feel that women are sinning because they need this type of medication or surgery is horrible.
VelvetVoice, I’m sorry to hear your daughter is experiencing this type of illness. You, Numo, Hannah, and Patti have illustrated why ALL employers/institutions should cover birth control to women who suffer with these illnesses.
Daisy – If someone demanded that I “put out,” then he will find himself out – on the sidewalk.
Seriously, the thing about living with someone and having sex but not taking responsibility seriously is really the equivalent of prolonged adolescence. It’s not an adult way of dealing with life.
I don’t have time for a guy like that in my life, and think that the many comp people who allow men to exploit women for sex (Mark Driscoll is just one example) have never become fully adult themselves, nor do they intend to.
Numo, speaking of pastor Driscoll and Christians like him – he also burns me up and angers me because he makes it sound like having sex is inescapable. It’s something a Christian cannot avoid, according to him.
I firmly believed since youth that sex is for marriage only, so I’ve been waiting for marriage. Marriage has not happened. I’m in my 40s now. It’s hard at times going without, but it can be done.
Therefore, I get incensed when I see paraphrases or quotes from Driscoll (or pastors like him) online about how he doesn’t think a husband can or should refrain from sex with his wife for five days in a row or something. As though five days is an ETERNITY.
I don’t mean to misrepresent Driscoll’s views, but I have read several blog pages about things he has said, and I may not be getting this totally correct, but some of these blogs mentioned things like in his sermons (or in a book), he made comments about how even if his wife is having her period and feeling under the weather, he still has a right to have sex with her, or the wife needs to come up with creative sexual activity if she’s not up to the standard/ usual missionary position.
If I can make it this long without sex (early 40s), Driscoll can sure as heck live for five to ten days without.
The New Testament says God has given believers self control. I would suggest Driscoll (and men who think as he does) use that self control and put it to practice on occasions his wife is sick or just not in the mood.
Daisy – Dee and Deb have a lot of blog posts here on MD. You might want to check them out.
“What always struck me in the US healthcare debates was that while there was all the histrionics about birth control being covered, Viagra and other erectile dysfunction pills were covered. The silence from religious employers on that one was deafening. In my opinion, if penis pills are covered, birth control should be too. If birth control isn’t covered, then neither should penis pills”
The ironic thing is that circumcised men have problems with impotence years before intact men do, generally. The New Testament is so clear about circumcision no longer being necessary, I don’t understand why men (and women) are still making this sacrifice.
http://news.menshealth.com/is-your-circumcision-making-you-soft/2011/11/02/
Janna,
I’ve been critisized for leaving my son intact, reading articles like that just make me happier that I refused to remove a large part of his genitals without his consent at birth.
As to why parents are still making this sacrifice, I think it has more to do with urban myths and cultural stigmas than any solid biblical reasons.
Additionally, after learning how painful and torturous circumcision is, I struggled mightily with reconciling the command to circumcise newborns with a loving, merciful god. I still struggle with it.