Yes, yes, yes! Great way to end this: “Maybe God’s desire is that each man and each woman be who they were created to be– whether spiritual leaders or not.”

I closely knew one couple like this. They were my “adopted” grandparents. (Both have now passed away as they were elderly). She was a Methodist pastor and the spiritual leader. He was her husband. They had a great, loving relationship. He was patient, just the right kind of person to balance out her type A personality – and boy was it type A! And I would never consider him to be a “weaker” Christian because he was not thought to be a leader. He was a father figure to my brother after my parents got divorced, and he was always around to lend a helping hand. And he was loved.

Honestly, demanding these “spiritual leaders” … women are really shooting themselves in the foot if they ignore otherwise great men because of a ludicrous expectation.

I had so many misconceptions of what a husband was to be that I could have ruined our marriage. I certainly made it hard for my husband in the early days in ways I am ashamed of and only our minister and a few others know about. Fortunately they either have short memories or Grace leads the way in their never bringing it up. I must have seemed like a nut to them in the earlier years and I was I think. 🙂 But I had been taught the Spiritual leader sermons and I wanted my marriage to be honoring to God and to ‘make my husband the man God wanted him to be’ which was painful for both of us and the opposite of honoring to God.

The phrase “I wish I knew then what I know now” is applicable to most of my married life. Fortunately God is a God of Grace and I wised up to see what a jewel I have in my husband whose frustration came from me trying to change him. He is the best in supporting me in all I do and in wrapping his arms around me letting me cry on his shoulder in comfort. He may not lead in the church sense, but he has never left me, never wanted to leave me and that is the best of the best after almost 30 years of marriage.

I’ve observed a lot of resentment in Christian women towards their husbands for failing to meet the ridiculously high ‘spiritual leader’ standard.

Kristin wrote:

I’ve observed a lot of resentment in Christian women towards their husbands for failing to meet the ridiculously high ‘spiritual leader’ standard.

It sounds like the Christianese Dating Service shtick of demanding only a man so Uber-Christian and Uber-Spiritual even Christ Himself would fall short. Just shifted to AFTER the ring and wedding. The Christianese equivalent of marrying a guy under false pretenses in order to “rebuild” him into your Perfect Fantasy Husband whether he Sparkles in the sunlight or not.

Kristin wrote:

I’ve observed a lot of resentment in Christian women towards their husbands for failing to meet the ridiculously high ‘spiritual leader’ standard.

I agree Kristin. I also think that the Christian romance books play into this. I have known so many women who read these books and then expect their husbands to be the way the men in the books are. It’s very sad to see women resent their husbands who end up being very patient and loving partners.

Val wrote:

I have one friend who went a year with a broken dishwasher and 4 kids because her husband didn’t get around to it – but he had time for hunting, boating, stock car racing, paintball weekend getaways. I just though, if that was my husband, he wouldn’t be going until the dishwasher was fixed or replaced (her husband said they didn’t need to spend money on a new one, it was a waste,but had money for a thousand other personal excursions). Of course, us girlfriends got to hear how bad it all was, all the time.

We were a QF family of 10.’

I went for 8 months without being able to run the dryer and the hot water heater at the same time. (Just imaging the nightmare of trying to do 10 loads of laundry like that!)

I went through a winter without adequate heat when the youngest was a baby. He went through 6 rounds of antibiotics and was not eating/failure to thrive.

It was all because I believed that wives were supposed to be submissive and husbands had “final decision making authority” over everything in the household. H did not WANT to fix the dryer, hot water, or heat. They just were not very important to him and he did not care. Like the H in your story, he had his own priorities of what to do with money and time.

I have to say that the comments above seem mainly to be finger pointing at wives and feeling sorry for husbands for what “pressure” it puts on them. But my experience as a WIFE was that it felt like I was living in a concentration camp. It was a horrible horrible experience I would not wish on my worst enemy…

“A spiritual leader is someone who is full of the Holy Spirit—someone who evidences the fruits of the Spirit in increasing measure.”–Marlena Graves, Her-meneutics
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

spiritual leader schmiritual schmeader…. when, where, how, why did Christian culture get so hung up on these words?? (words 1 & 2, not 3 & 4)

so many apparently intelligent Christian people just parrot words and concepts they hear and read from famous Christian names, without thinking anything through, without verifying the veracity (sorry) for themselves.

And such people with mics do so without any thought for what the actual consequences might be for those hearing. They just parrot away… So very troubling and ridiculous.

KRISTEN, though, (& so many here) is not such a person. I so appreciate your perspective and ability to communicate, Kristen. I’ve read many of your comments here & there in blogland over the past few years and they have always stood out as very intelligent and well-worded. Your style was quite recognizable to me, & I always could tell which “Kristen” on the face of the blogging world you were. In fact, I deduced that “Kristen” and your pseudonym containing “Wordgazer” were one and the same person (even before I knew about your blog).

Charis wrote:

It was all because I believed that wives were supposed to be submissive and husbands had “final decision making authority” over everything in the household. H did not WANT to fix the dryer, hot water, or heat. They just were not very important to him and he did not care. Like the H in your story, he had his own priorities of what to do with money and time.

I assume his priorities involved “Me, Myself, My, and Mine, Praise God”?

Another angle is a Christianese version of “The Game”, you know, that best-seller about how to manipulate women into your bed by pretending to be an Alpha Male that females are biologically attracted to? What prevents a user and abuser from pretending to be a Christianese Alpha Male/Spiritual Leader until he has his fem-fish hooked and reeled into the altar?

Like that article on “bad bosses” that showed up in the business section of MSNBC online news yesterday. About how companies search for managers who are Ambitious, Aggressive, and Get Things Done — only to find out the hard way after hiring one that they’ve hired a sociopath who will gladly betray his bosses and kill the company for his own gain. (Though usually the sociopath’s superiors are the last to find out — sometimes not until the knives come out at The Red Wedding.)

“But then, a woman who loves her husband and children, expresses that love often, prays with and for her family, is an active participant in her church, etc., who is strong, but gentle– is an equally good thing! For some reason they call it ‘spiritual leadership’ when a man does it, but not when a woman does it. Why not???”

Spiritual Leadership
Why don’t we just drop the whole label?
After all, aren’t we all supposed to be followers?
The label just helps reinforce unbiblical, heirarchical, top-down control.

TedS. wrote:

Spiritual Leadership
Why don’t we just drop the whole label?
After all, aren’t we all supposed to be followers?
The label just helps reinforce unbiblical, heirarchical, top-down control.

Yes, that certainly would be a healthy perspective.

My husband and myself have been married 40 years. We had pre marital counseling (from our pastor) and he emphasied being partners/friends. In the budgeting /finances, childrearing, spiritual responsibilities, etc. Although we have had our share of marital struggles, it was not because of having to fulfill prescribed roles. I am so glad our pastor mentored both of us being subject to one another and to Christ.
Being that my husband is of Irish descent and me of Scottish, our struggles were more in keeping with us both taming our “A” type personalities.

@ elastigirl:

In fairness to Marlena Graves, it’s my understanding she actually believes in full equality in Christian marriage. She told me she wrote the article for Her-meneutics to outreach to an audience largely composed of complementarian women, to get them thinking about the pressure this false standard was putting on men.

ES wrote:

At some point in my teens I realized that many Christian Romance novels make all the good men in the story into a Christ figures who are always right and don’t make mistakes.

Sounds like a variant on “Just Like EDWARD Cullen (sparkle sparkle), Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

And the CHRISTIAN(TM) version is just as capable of “vicarious adultery” away from your own RL husband with the Perfect Fantasy Romance Hero (sparkle sparkle). A genderflip version of Perfect Porn Star Syndrome — how can Reality ever measure up to the Fantasy? And you start to resent your RL mate for NOT living up to your Fantasy.

This is of course contrasted with “evil men” to make sure that the reader knows that you have to be able to tell the difference.

Yet because this is Christianese Fiction, you can’t actually show the Utterly Depraved “EVIL Men” actually DOING anything Evil. Can’t offend the Church Lady. So you undercut the villain and weaken any story you have.

I’ve been into Science Fiction & Fantasy since around 1970, and have often been slammed for “living in a fantasy world”. Well, a couple years ago over at the Lost Genre Guild (blog or Yahoogroup, don’t remember which), we had a lot of Guildswomen commenting on how real-background Romance novels put them into more of a Fantasy World than F&SF ever did. (Including CHRSITIAN Romance novels.) Reason is, a Romance novel has enough of a realistic background (grounded in the real world) that you start fantasizing about that Sparkling Hunk Fantasy showing up at your High School for real. At least you know a nonhuman-looking alien or My Little Pony Unicorn won’t be appearing at your door IRL to sweep you off your feet. The Fantasy background creates some distance between the Fantasy and Real Life; a realistic-background Romance is just as much a Fantasy (often a Wish Fulfillment Fantasy, the most addictive kind) but without that safety margin.

Charis wrote:

And used to get up early every morning and read the Bible for an hour or two (but never shovelled the snow once the entire winter- the children and I were out there doing that while H read his Bible)

That’s a common shtick with the Hyper-Religious of a lot of faiths. Hear about it now and then on blogs and sometimes in the news. Comes from the Platonic/Gnostic Dualism JMJ/Christian Monist writes about on his blog — “H reading his Bible” is SPIRITUAL and GODLY and thus infinitely superior to the FLESHLY and SECULAR and WORLDLY shoveling snow or keeping his house in repair or taking other RL responsibilities. And it devolves into a Mooch-and-Sucker show, breeding Spiritual Pride for the Mooch and resentment for the Suckers.

Remember the word “CORBAN”? Means something like “Physical objects or assets Dedicated to God, not to be used for mundane purposes”. Mentioned in the Gospels and not in a good way; about someone claiming his assets as Corban to shirk his financial responsibility towards aged parents.

Oh wow, I wish daily every Christian was required to start the day with what appears to me to be one of the oldest creeds and comes straight out of the Bible:

Jesus is Lord.

Let me rephrase that : JESUS is Lord.

Not the pastor. Not the husband. Not the longed for husband.

Ladies, you cannot worship both God and A man.

Wow. Thank you for this. You guys are great.

Deb wrote:

I wonder whether this emphasis on male headship springs from Bill Gothard’s chain of command teaching.

Dee, I think Gothard’s thing took hold because certain people – many people, esp those who want to be “biblical” – want guarantees that if they do X, Y will automatically follow – In this case, X being having a “biblical/Godly” marriage/family structure and Y being happiness and blessing (and for some, knowing that they are “right”). This is a kind of magick that attempts to force God to do things, but that’s not something those kind of people can understand. The more likely thing that happens is that they either go nuts trying to live up to impossible expectations, or people/God do not cooperate with The Program and they become disillusioned, potentially and sometimes actually “leaving the faith.” Which is understandable because their god and his “system” did not resemble the Real God and honest relationship in the first place.

I eventually found a Christian tradition that eschews the whole “leadership” idea in favor of a commitment to pursuing humility and love and union with God, with help as much as possible from people who are truly filled with the Holy Spirit – and the more they are, the less they “advertise.” No, people don’t always do that pursuing, or they do it less than whole-heartedly or without much understanding – but that’s still the thing that’s “officially on the books.”

A Mom wrote:

Spiritual sounding board is having a similar discussion. I posted a link to your Ian/Larissa story posted on 6/15/12.
Here are my thoughts:
What about the many vets who have been gone for long periods of time, who have returned or are returning from war. From multiple tours even? What about these men? What about their wives?
These families have sacrificed much for their country.
Some of these courageous men have PSTD, traumatic brain injury, are dealing with multiple health issues, & some may look fine on the outside but are not on the inside. They may struggle with nightmares, triggers, guilt, fear, anger, depression, etc.
Many wives are faithful to & miss their husbands, birth their children & raise them in the ways of the Lord, run the household, and maybe work. They live much like a single Mom does.
These couples are told God wants the man to lead and the wife to submit. What if the man is not able to lead due to the very real problems brought on by the effects of war & combat? Do we put an additional burden on him that may make him feel even less like a man? Do we tell him he is not pleasing God or living up to his responsibility as leader? He may be having trouble adjusting to “normalcy” already. Do we minimize how the wife has cared for their family during this time? Do we tell her that her marriage is less than God’s design because she may need to continue this for a while longer or for the rest of her marriage? Please tell me how this begins to make sense. May God help us and have mercy on us.
I guarantee you, there are couples like this in many churches. And this is the model they are told they need to live up to according to God’s word. And guilt & burden are piled high on them.

This kind of thing is why I gave up on the Patriarchy scheme. Unlike believing the gospel, which has no special qualifications (except to hear it in the first place) and is available to anyone irrespective of circumstance, it is not something that cam be lived out by all Christians at all times. I assume if God wants something a certain way He is going to provide for us to do it, and not in a bricks without straw fashion. He does not necessarily provide this way for this Patriarchal/man as leader thing. And that Ian and Larissa story they had to cram and twist and contort to make it kind of fit sort of if you look at it from a certain angle and don’t look too close does not persuade me differently.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I’ve been into Science Fiction & Fantasy since around 1970, and have often been slammed for “living in a fantasy world”. Well, a couple years ago over at the Lost Genre Guild (blog or Yahoogroup, don’t remember which), we had a lot of Guildswomen commenting on how real-background Romance novels put them into more of a Fantasy World than F&SF ever did. (Including CHRSITIAN Romance novels.) Reason is, a Romance novel has enough of a realistic background (grounded in the real world) that you start fantasizing about that Sparkling Hunk Fantasy showing up at your High School for real. At least you know a nonhuman-looking alien or My Little Pony Unicorn won’t be appearing at your door IRL to sweep you off your feet. The Fantasy background creates some distance between the Fantasy and Real Life; a realistic-background Romance is just as much a Fantasy (often a Wish Fulfillment Fantasy, the most addictive kind) but without that safety margin.

I agree so much with this, it isn’t even funny. True fantasy inspires you. Take “The Lord of the Rings.” It teaches the importance of friendship and fellowship between widely different people. (So does MLP:FIM, incidentally.) It teaches bravery and strength even when the odds are against you. It teaches love and loyalty. The best fantasy you read and then you think about ways you can change your life. Maybe you can’t defend your King like Eowyn did from a ringwraith, but you can encourage those you love, or stand up for a bullied kid in school. Maybe you realize you were judging someone based on something a family member of theirs did to one of your family members, and you didn’t look closer at them and see how they are different (Legolas and Gimli). Sure you don’t live in a magical land, but maybe you can create your own “magic” with love. It is the most powerful good on this earth, straight from God!

(Tangent: MLP:FIM … I think of lot of the backlash has to do with it being a kids show and “girly.” We still have a bit of a double standard with this. Girls can like guy stuff, can read books and watch movies/TV with male protagonists, but guys can’t like girl stuff, can’t read books and watch movies/TV with female protagonists (well, unless they are hot looking and can fight). Girl is often used as an insult. If you “throw like a girl,” you are a “weak” thrower. If MLP:FIM had males as protagonists and a “manly” look to it, I don’t think people would have a problem with males liking it. Which is sad. It is one of the few shows, and actually the only one I can think of, that features mostly girls … no token females here! … and truly shows girls can have relationships with one another that don’t involve all this boy talk, that don’t involve petty bickering (or if they do bicker, they learn their lesson by the end of the episode and say they are sorry), that doesn’t involve some sort of soppy and soapy plot, that doesn’t involve a certainly shallowness to the relationships, and that DOES involve truly deep relationships based on a knowledge that, despite their differences, these girl ponies will be there for each other no matter what, even if they do sometimes lose their way.)

Back to the topic of this post and the whole “Christian” Edward Cullen thing and the whole “my man must be a spiritual leader” thing. I see a tendency toward superficiality instead of spirituality. What’s worse, it seems to be them saying, “I’m so spiritual, I only want a spiritual leader,” when in reality they are being as superficial as those teenyboppers who dream about Edward Cullen. It is superficiality disguised as spirituality. And that sickens me.

And really, what if they got this Mr. Perfect? Are they Ms. Perfect?

Also, gender bend this. Picture a man saying, “Yes, I believe you are a good Christian. I see you really love Jesus. That is not the problem! But, I’m sorry, you are just not submissive enough. Plus … why haven’t you gone on more mission trips! You haven’t made one knit blanket to send to orphans. Have you humbly set the right example for those around you? And the Lord says that your body is supposed to be a temple. Frankly, your temple isn’t as taken care of or as … well built … as I imagine it should be.” You’d want to smack this guy for missing out on a great girl and for being superficial.

@ Charis:Thank you for your comment. I am sorry for the hardships ur “spiritual leader” imposed on u. I would venture to guess that there are many guys who do the same. Leader means reading ur Bible and ignoring everything in it .

@ Dee:

Not to mention they have no specifics of how men should be “spiritual” leaders, but they had no problem coming up with a list of what women can and cannot do so as not to usurp the “spiritual” leader position of men.

@ Bridget:
Good point Bridgit – where is there list of things men must do to qualify as a “leader”?

Jodie B. wrote:

Which is sad. It is one of the few shows, and actually the only one I can think of, that features mostly girls … no token females here! … and truly shows girls can have relationships with one another that don’t involve all this boy talk, that don’t involve petty bickering (or if they do bicker, they learn their lesson by the end of the episode and say they are sorry), that doesn’t involve some sort of soppy and soapy plot, that doesn’t involve a certainly shallowness to the relationships, and that DOES involve truly deep relationships based on a knowledge that, despite their differences, these girl ponies will be there for each other no matter what, even if they do sometimes lose their way.)

Interestingly enough, 10 years back this could have been just as easily said of the show “Powerpuff Girls,” which my son loved! I think it was aimed at a little younger audience (the girls were in kindergarten), but I think this show was one of the strong influences on my son to see girls as his equals, despite the social influence the other way to disparage “girly” things.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

This despite Lewis, Tolkien, and Chesterton’s essays on how children’s stories/fairy tales are the core of a culture’s storytelling, and how the best and deepest children’s stories are those with all-ages appeal. And that Equestria is just as valid a subcreation as Middle-Earth, though far less rigorous.
And harking back to this blog post’s Comp/Patrio theme, take a look at “The Mane Six”. Six archetypes of the female, from take-charge Applejack to free-spirit goofball Pinkie Pie, from timid nurturing Fluttershy to brash and competitive tomboy Rainbow Dash, from elegant fashionista/artist Rarity to nerdy intellectual Twilight Sparkle. Six very different archetypes of being a girl. While God allegedly speaking through Mark Driscoll has only ONE archetype of the male: “I CAN BEAT YOU UP!!!” (Or alternatively, “Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!”)
Either Lauren Faust is more creative than God Almighty or MD and the Comp/Patrios have their signals seriously crossed.

Yes. The best tales truly appeal to everyone. I don’t hear people shaming those who like “The Hobbit” or “The Chronicles of Narnia” and say they are bad for liking “children’s literature.”

Mark Driscoll, Mark Driscoll. Can’t really take him seriously after the whole “I see things” video. Sigh. Though I think it was Doug Wilson who has responsible for the whole “penetrates, colonizes, conquers, plants” thing.

I would say the Comp/Patrios have their signals seriously crossed. I mean, are they ignoring 1 Corinthians 12 about “spiritual gifts”?

I Corinthians 12:4-31: There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body — whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free — and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

So God gives different gifts to people as he sees fit! So, if your man doesn’t have the spiritual gift of leadership …. would you blame God, then? Key phrases in I Corinthians 12: “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work”; “All these (messages of wisdom or knowledge or faith or healing, etc) are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines”; “But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.” Yeah, I think God is pretty creative.

Also, notice that there are no genders mentioned here. It does not say that prophets and teachers are the male gifts, for example, and that healing and helping are the female gifts.

(Tangent for Headless Unicorn Guy: MLP:FIM has its own version of “spiritual” gifts, of course: the spirit of loyalty, the spirit of laughter, the spirit of kindness, the spirit of honesty, the spirit of generosity, and of course “the magic of friendship” – love, or “phileo/philia” – which binds them together.)

I, personally, support the idea of men assuming a leadership position in the home. Not how Driscoll describes it. But how God describes it in Ephesians 5 and the rest of God’s word. It’s man who has manipulated it for his own selfish desires. God never intended it the way it is being played out in many Christian homes.

I wonder if wives are falling prey to some of the abusive things being touted as “leadership” b/c they are hungry for a strong, responsible man. I am seeing a lot of weak Christian men in churches today. (And dare I say the boys following on their heels are embarrassingly worse.) These are oftentimes the men who become the pastor’s “yes-man” and they go along to get along, all the while their wives and children are suffering abuse at the hands of the church govt. These may be the passive men who don’t usually question issues in the churches and end up following church leadership blindly. And they fail to protect their families from such abuse b/c they have been taught to submit and not to lead.

So, while no woman wants the abusive male stereotype of the 1950’s leading their home, having a bunch of emasculated men in our culture is also a disaster.

Of course,Christians will continue to have different opinions about how a Biblical marriage should look.

Daisy wrote:

The quote, “Or at least every man or woman who feels no call to celibacy and who desires to be married.”
I don’t really think celibacy works that way. The Bible says sex outside of marriage is not permitted, so if you are not married, you are to refrain from sex – it is a matter of obedience to what the God says in the Scripture, not that most celibates, such as me, are “called to celibacy.”
I would like to get married but cannot find anyone to marry, but in the meantime I remain celibate; it’s not a “gift” and God did not “call me” to it.
I liked the rest of her post. I don’t think the Bible teaches that the man is to rule over the wife or be the “spiritual leader.”
These sorts of teachings also leave out men and woman who never marry.
But I’ve seen some more several complementarians who think all women, single and not, Christian and not, should be under the control of Christian men, and I see no support at all in the Bible for that.

What do you do, then, with 1 Cor. 7:7? Paul says, “Yet I wish that all people were even as I myself am [unmarried and celibate]. However, each has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.” Paul is saying he feels he has a gift from God of being able, not just to stay celibate and wait for a spouse, but to never marry. This certainly implies that God has, in fact, called him to celibacy– and he wishes that more people could be as he is.

ForgivenMuch wrote:

I, personally, support the idea of men assuming a leadership position in the home. Not how Driscoll describes it. But how God describes it in Ephesians 5 and the rest of God’s word. It’s man who has manipulated it for his own selfish desires. God never intended it the way it is being played out in many Christian homes.
I wonder if wives are falling prey to some of the abusive things being touted as “leadership” b/c they are hungry for a strong, responsible man. I am seeing a lot of weak Christian men in churches today. (And dare I say the boys following on their heels are embarrassingly worse.) These are oftentimes the men who become the pastor’s “yes-man” and they go along to get along, all the while their wives and children are suffering abuse at the hands of the church govt. These may be the passive men who don’t usually question issues in the churches and end up following church leadership blindly. And they fail to protect their families from such abuse b/c they have been taught to submit and not to lead.
So, while no woman wants the abusive male stereotype of the 1950′s leading their home, having a bunch of emasculated men in our culture is also a disaster.
Of course,Christians will continue to have different opinions about how a Biblical marriage should look.

How do you define “emasculated”? I find that too many times masculinity is defined as “leadership/authority,” particularly over a woman– so that being a man means being a leader. Then if any man isn’t interested in leadership and being in authority, or if he doesn’t desire to lead his wife but wants to share leadership with her, he’s described as wimpy or emasculated.

If you’re defining masculinity as “strong and responsible,” then does that mean women are not to be strong or responsible? Is passivity a feminine trait? Is it good for women to be passive?

KR Wordgazer wrote:

What do you do, then, with 1 Cor. 7:7? Paul says, “Yet I wish that all people were even as I myself am [unmarried and celibate]. However, each has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.” Paul is saying he feels he has a gift from God of being able, not just to stay celibate and wait for a spouse, but to never marry. This certainly implies that God has, in fact, called him to celibacy– and he wishes that more people could be as he is.

I have read on other sites that some of the translations have gotten it wrong, in that singleness and celibacy are not referred to as “gifts.”

This page has links to pages which discuss it (not that I share all views by either blog referenced):
Is Singleness Really a “Gift”?

You might want to look at the book “Singles at the Crossroads” by Albert Hsu. I think he discusses some of the incorrect views of celibacy/singleness Christians have, including the “gift of singleness” cliche which gets thrown at singles a lot.

I bristle at this too because Christians who maintain this line of thought are causing more pain and offense at singles like me who did not choose to be single into our 40s.

I would still like to marry (and have Tex – put letter “S” in front, am not using word or else it triggers moderation) but God did not send me a “Mr Right.”

I was not “called to celibacy” just by mere fact I am practicing it.

Refraining from Tex apart from marriage is called ‘self discipline’ and ‘self control’ – a lot of Christians mistakenly believe that a celibate past 40, such as myself, have been endowed with magical powers by God, where God has stripped us of all libdio and desire for a spouse, and this is wrong.

By default however, I am said by Christian culture to be “gifted with celibacy” (or with singleness), just because I happen to be single/celibate.

I did not choose this, I do not like it (at times I’m okay with being single, other times no), and God did not “call” me to either lifelong celibacy or singleness.

I do not think singleness and singles should be treated disrespectfully, as though marriage is better than singleness, but to go the other route and hype singleness or over-spiritualize it (by saying it is a ‘calling,’ or a ‘gift,’ etc) does a dis-service to Christian singles who want to be married.

Many singles (who want marriage) do not consider our prolonged singleness into our 30s, 40s, and older a “gift.”

Daisy wrote:

The wives are supposed to “rule the house,” not the husbands. /blockquote>

Of course you’ll only find the word “rule” in a couple translations as other Bible versions subtly translate it “guide…manage…take care of…or keep.” But the meaning of the word is (Strongs):

G3616
oy-kod-es-pot-eh’-o
From G3617; to be the head of (that is, rule) a family: – guide the house.

Val wrote:

I have one friend who went a year with a broken dishwasher and 4 kids because her husband didn’t get around to it – but he had time for hunting, boating, stock car racing, paintball weekend getaways.

I’ve heard some married women who say in situations like that, they call the repair guy in, and once the husbands sees the bill, it makes them less inclined to put off repair jobs. 😆

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

It sounds like the Christianese Dating Service shtick of demanding only a man so Uber-Christian and Uber-Spiritual even Christ Himself would fall short.

Sorry to be a broken record, there are male equivalents out there who are like that.

I met a few of them on Christian singles forum, and one guy who has a single guy blog. They don’t expect the ladies to be “spiritual leaders,” but they are looking for are women who follow incredibly narrow, unrealistic gender roles.

The ones on the forum wanted Mother Theresa in Angelina Jolie packaging.

The blog guy insists any woman he marries must stay at home all day and cook and clean, unless they need a second income, in which case he will “allow” his wife to work, but even then, if she works outside the home, she must play the ‘Submissive Wife’ role to the hilt, in his view – he’s very dogmatic about it.

It’s not just that the blog guy believes in the gender complementarianism, but the attitudes he has towards women on his blog reeks of pretty steep Texism (add “S” in place of “T”) and condescension.

He says he wants to be married, but I say with an outlook like that, he will stay single (he partly blames feminism for why he’s single).

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Another angle is a Christianese version of “The Game”, you know, that best-seller about how to manipulate women into your bed by pretending to be an Alpha Male that females are biologically attracted to? What prevents a user and abuser from pretending to be a Christianese Alpha Male/Spiritual Leader until he has his fem-fish hooked and reeled into the altar?

Some of them don’t pretend, some Christian males intentionally set out to be “Alpha,” and I’ve heard them use these terms (Alpha, Beta) on their Christian blogs. They make fun of other men, who they assume are single, by saying they are “Betas.”

One thing I’ve mentioned to a couple of Christian guys online – the ones who say they are single and want dates – and they either write or read these “women tip” blogs is the reason the “Alpha” types get dates is no mystery. There are no magic tips. You don’t have to read PUA material that talks about “negging” a woman.

Here’s the non-secret for men who want dates:

You have to approach a woman you are interested in, face the risk of rejection, and ask her on a date.

That’s all there is to it.

The only reason “bad boys” and “jerks” get dates, and “nice guys” don’t, is because one group (the jerks) asks women out, the other (the “nice guys”) is too afraid to do so (they hope that by doing nice gestures, such as taking her dog for a walk or weed eating her yard for free, the woman will just throw herself at them, or magically figure out his romantic interest).

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Comes from the Platonic/Gnostic Dualism JMJ/Christian Monist writes about on his blog — “H reading his Bible” is SPIRITUAL and GODLY and thus infinitely superior to the FLESHLY and SECULAR and WORLDLY shoveling snow or keeping his house in repair or taking other RL responsibilities

I was just talking about something like this on Imonk the other day. It’s associated with one of my pet peeves of Christendeom, when some Christians say God does not care at all about our earthly happiness, that God only cares about making us more “like Christ” and making us “holy.” I believe that view is hog wash.

Sometimes Christians who preach it later contradict themselves.

Like one TV preacher has on occasion that God doesn’t care about our “happiness,” only to make us obedient and holy, but some TV preacher, several months later, in another, said that God wants us to prosper in the here and now (and no, this guy is not a “Wealth and Health” preacher).

Well, how is it God does not want us to be happy here (or does not care if we are not happy), but does care that we are prosperous? It seems to me that being prosperous could or may cause someone to be happy.

But anyway, I don’t remember any verses that say “the Lord your God does not care if you are unhappy.”

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

I’m going to be the ornery one and call BS on the whole topic. I’d be willing to bet that we couldn’t even agree on a definition for “spiritual leadership”.

I agree. I’ve never understood what the phrase is meant to convey.

About the closest I’ve seen are Christians who say the husband is supposed to be the home Bible study starter every evening. If that is their understanding, I still don’t understand, because a woman could do that just as well. What makes initiating Bible study at home a uniquely male practice?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

What it comes down to is “ME MAN! ME SPIRITUAL LEADER! YOU WOMAN! YOU! SHUT! UP! GOD SAITH!”

I’ve been meaning to tell you for months now that your Mark Driscoll / John Piper / gender compish Cave Man impression has always reminded me of the old Captain Caveman cartoon character 🙂

I’m certain I would not be able to adequately answer the questions directed at me. 😉 While I find this topic very interesting, I much prefer to discuss it in person as I don’t enjoy going back and forth attempting to type out my answers. I threw my 2 cents in and I accept responsibility for that. Beyond a couple of quick comments,it’s not possible for me to engage in the discussion further b/c, quite honestly, it would take too much time. I’m not trying to be rude; it’s just that I now realize this topic is much too lengthy for me.

We all know that proof texting can be dangerous. Not just in taking it out of its context, but in also leaving out what the entire Bible says about an issue. And I would say that if someone has a husband harshly “leading” them, then we’re no longer talking about issues of leadership, we’re talking about the omission of love. Because love does not do those things. Pride does those things. Fear does those things. Anger does those things.

The 1Tim15 verse, as I understand it, is talking in the context of widows and how the younger ones should re-marry and concern themselves with keeping a home rather than going around being busy-bodies. It doesn’t say she should rule her husband, but it is talking about managing her home.

Daisy wrote:

I hate to say it, but I ran into guys like this (thankfully, they appear to have been in the minority) on forums for Christian singles several years ago. Most appeared to be 20- something, which I think is part of the problem.

“Stupidity is like hydrogen; it’s the basic building block of the universe.”
— Frank Zappa

Daisy wrote:

KR Wordgazer wrote:
What do you do, then, with 1 Cor. 7:7? Paul says, “Yet I wish that all people were even as I myself am [unmarried and celibate]. However, each has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.” Paul is saying he feels he has a gift from God of being able, not just to stay celibate and wait for a spouse, but to never marry. This certainly implies that God has, in fact, called him to celibacy– and he wishes that more people could be as he is.
I have read on other sites that some of the translations have gotten it wrong, in that singleness and celibacy are not referred to as “gifts.”
This page has links to pages which discuss it (not that I share all views by either blog referenced):
Is Singleness Really a “Gift”?
You might want to look at the book “Singles at the Crossroads” by Albert Hsu. I think he discusses some of the incorrect views of celibacy/singleness Christians have, including the “gift of singleness” cliche which gets thrown at singles a lot.
I bristle at this too because Christians who maintain this line of thought are causing more pain and offense at singles like me who did not choose to be single into our 40s.
I would still like to marry (and have Tex – put letter “S” in front, am not using word or else it triggers moderation) but God did not send me a “Mr Right.”
I was not “called to celibacy” just by mere fact I am practicing it.

Well,I agree that Paul isn’t calling “singleness” a gift – he’s saying some are called to lifelong celibacy. I’d be the last to say that someone who desires marriage and simply hasn’t gotten married due to circumstances, has a calling to lifelong celibacy. Frankly, I wasn’t aware that there was a current teaching that singleness is a “gift” such that people who want marriage shouldn’t actively look for a spouse, and I think that’s nuts.

Paul was happy the way he was– he actually felt called to it. It wasn’t that he wanted marriage but hadn’t met anyone (in fact, since Judaism at the time required all adult males to marry, Paul probably had been married at some point in his earlier life. It’s likely that his wife had died young.) But he actually had a gift — not of singleness, but of never marrying. The problem I see with denying this is that marriage can come to be so expected for everyone that no one is allowed to feel called to celibacy. In many of the complementarian/patriarchal churches, marriage and family seem to have actually become an idol, so that the Christian life is seen as centering around them rather than around Christ.

I’m really sorry to hear that singles who want to get married are being taught that seeking a mate is unspiritual.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Actually, HUG, there is more than one view about what an Omega is (and I am definitely one — it doesn’t have to be a male:) According to UrbanDictionary.com http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=omega%20male the Omega is the one who has no need to dominate or be dominated; but has “relations with people from all groups and carr(ies) a resourcefulness and cunning (sometimes strength) to get a job done with their own skill.”

I learned about this kind of Omega and recognized myself reading the “Alpha and Omega” books of Patricia Briggs, about werewolves, which you might enjoy. Written for adults and much darker than the Twilight books (I know how you feel about Edward!) One of the main characters is a very strong Alpha wolf, but his consort/mate/wife is an Omega. As one who is outside the ordinary dominance order because she desires to neither submit nor dominate (and there’s no sexual connotation to these terms, btw) she has a very important function in the “pack.” Briggs also does a very good job describing the important roles of the alpha wolves and the genuinely submissive ones.

I found a lot of insight about how people relate to each other in the workplace and (unfortunately) in the church.

This is the first book. http://www.amazon.com/Alpha-Omega-Companion-Novella-ebook/dp/B001IZC3LU/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375015297&sr=1-19&keywords=patricia+briggs

@ KR Wordgazer:

Daisy and KR –

What is just as sad as minimizing singles who want to be married is the dismissing of those who want to stay single but serve in the church. Try to be an elder/deacon as a single person who has no desire to marry. When was the last time any of us saw such a person (outside Catholicism)? The American/Evangelical (probably beyond America) church is doing a good job of destroying the “members of one body” teachings from the first century. They don’t seem to recognize that Jesus, Paul, several of the windows, and probably many others all ministered as single men and women.

Bridget wrote:

What is just as sad as minimizing singles who want to be married is the dismissing of those who want to stay single but serve in the church. Try to be an elder/deacon as a single person who has no desire to marry. When was the last time any of us saw such a person (outside Catholicism)?

Holdover from the Reformation Wars, when having married or single clergy announced Whose Side Are You On. Protestant Clergy MUST be married because The Enemy’s Clergy must be single.

@ Bridget:

widows ministered . . . windows not so much 🙂

@ Charis:

Obligated! AND many women actually desired to please God and were led to believe, by way of these teachings, that submission and meekness was the way to please and honor God in their marriage relationship. Then, as the women began to have serious dissonance between what they believed God wants for their family and lives and the reality (under the submission teaching) in their home and marriage, they are then shown the “suffering for the sake of the Gospel” hand (teaching 🙄 ). It was scripture USED for selfish gain — plain and simple.

Charis wrote:
<blockquoteHe is robbed (robs himself) of the meet/equal help God intended a wife to provide.

Amen!

Phoenix wrote:

Although, interestingly, Omegas do tend, where wolves can wander freely, to separate from the pack.

Do they hole up on the Internet or form packs at various geek conventions with other Omegas?

I was told that men were supposed to be spiritual leaders, but no one ever defined what that meant. I couldn’t see why I needed someone else to tell me to pray or read the Bible, since I was perfectly capable of deciding for myself whether I wanted to do those things, nor could I see how that constituted “leadership” (ok checklists are foreign to my personality type). Also, even at my most “submissive” I couldn’t see how anyone but me could be responsible for my walk with God. I was an adult who’d been a Christian as long as my husband had and had been responsible for myself up until my wedding day — I just couldn’t get my head around the idea that a wedding ring reduced me to a spiritual infant!

Also, I had this mad, subversive idea, which I whispered to a couple of people and received blank stares, that if the men in the church were serious about being spiritual leaders, then the best way they could do it would be to say, “I’ll mind the kids for a while so you can have a break to recharge your spiritual batteries/spend some quality time with the Lord”. Apparently that wasn’t what it meant either.

In the end I realised that there was no such command in the Bible, and felt free to ignore it. My observation was that most women took it to mean they had a licence to do nothing spiritually unless their husbands told them to, since it was the man’s responsibility!

Lynne T…

I see your last sentence attempts to explain the appeal…lack of responsibility.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

HUG, ha! They can if they darn well want to; because no one bosses them around and they don’t have to boss anyone around! Omega fun, woot!

Ooooh I don’t check this thread for a while and it gets good ;).

Forgiven much – slaves were also told to obey their masters, yet once the early church gained enough clout, a few centuries later, they overthrew slavery (so those Ephesian household codes were not considered laws, but advice for a time and place). We are ALL (male and female) a priesthood of believers – you do understand what a priesthood was to the Acts audience, correct? The idea that submit = a follower is impossible as just before the infamous Eph. 5:22 there is Eph. 5:21 saying “submit yourselves to one another” (as in husband to wife, pastor to congregant, etc.). As long as you realize submit doesn’t mean be lead by another, then they whole idea of complementarinism flops.

You know, meditating on the idea that we are a priesthood of believers has giving me such strength in my Christian walk. I used to feel very dependant on “good leadership” and I had the BEST leaders imaginable – who didn’t even know how great they were (and don’t worry, they were not at all emasculated -whatever that means-). I moved (they were college and career leaders) and never found as humble, amazingly godly and competent/knowledgable leaders since then. I used to yearn for those days again. But I have come to realize, I was given a season with them to grow. Now, I am to follow Christ on my own. Paul tells women to *learn* in full submission – great, but once she has learned, she will fly on her own. A student isn’t a perpetual student. Jesus eventually gave his apostles the commission, even though they would never be like him. We may need leaders in our lives at various times, but it is never to be a perpetual state.

The main problem from the late 2nd Century on, has been the idea that the lay people need to “receive” from the priesthood. It didn’t happen overnight, although Constantine hastened it, but the door to the early church’s equality began to close about 200 years after Christ. It was sealed in the Western church in the 11th C. At one time, in the Catholic church, women were ordained as leaders – Abbesses, healers, teachers, you name it – just not priests. In the 11th C. they stopped all ordination except priests/bishops, etc. By the time the reformers got on the scene, congregants had little or nothing to offer the church, they were just supposed to pay tithes and obey. The protestant reformation overthrew the papal authority, but it never properly cleaned up the segregation of laity and clergy. Reading some of Luther or (worse) Calvin’s writings, make it seem like an segregated priesthood is being reestablished, or continued. The Anabaptists were actively opposed to this system – but heavily persecuted, and mostly driven out of western Europe – some came to N. America while still a British colony since life at home was rotten, many fled east to Russia and the Ukraine. But, the overwhelming majority of Christians continued to live as if they needed a priest (just insert “leader” in modern-speak) to “take charge” or “make spiritual decisions” or “protect” them.

A wise IVCF leader once said to us, regarding Catholic teachings and some of our IVCF Catholic members rattling off of church dogma “It is easier to have someone tell you what to do, even if you don’t agree, then to have to go figure it out yourself” That (although unfair to all Catholics) was sage advice. When I grew in my faith, I had to let go of looking for a “good” “strong” or “knowledgeable” leader to be lead by, and realize I had to discern (listen/read/see) God’s leading for myself – all in the days before the internet was anything more than a few geek-filled chat rooms.

So, after a string of disappointing leaders, my own very strong interest in History, my years living in South Asia – in the only Hindu country (Nepal) and realizing this was the last of the Ancient Fertility religions the Israelites were surrounded by for a millennium and going back to the writings of the early church, reading about Greek and so on, I can now say that it is folly to think anyone else must be your leader, if anything, no one must rise above you (were are all a priesthood) in your eyes in regards to decision making, learning and hearing from God. Here is the Biblical reason I have pondered over, and know I must never lose sight of:

25 ‘At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. (not all were made pure and presentable to a groom in this parable – virgins were marriageable, unbetrothed young ladies in Jesus’ time)

2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. (Why didn’t they, were they hoping to get it from someone else?)

4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6 ‘At midnight the cry rang out: “Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!” (notice all of them are Christ-followers, when he calls, they get set to go)

7 ‘Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, “Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.” (I used to think the “wise” ones were selfish, but the ancient church had a much different view on this)
9 ‘“No,” they replied, “there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.” (you need your own oil to meet the bridegroom)

10 ‘But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.11 ‘Later the others also came. “Lord, Lord,” they said, “open the door for us!”12 ‘But he replied, “Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.” (I don’t know you? Remember, Jesus’ sheep *know* his voice, they know what they need to be filled with to follow him).

I will give you two scenarios: 1) The Eastern Orthodox version: The oil is the good works of believers, transformed by Christ into Christlike compassion and poured out on their neighbours, the poor, etc.

2) the charismatic version: The oil is the Holy Spirit, that one must be continually filled with, via repentance or prayer, or whatever it takes to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

3) or… wisdom. In order to be a follower of Christ, you life now is a preparation for complete reconciliation with him. How do you prepare? There are many views, but he is talking about wisdom. The wise are ready *on their own*. Notice, no one tells the wise what to bring, no one is leading the wise. The wise know the bridegroom may return in the night, the wise know they need to be ready for a daytime or nighttime reunion. How do they know this? Good teaching? good leaders? sure, but ultimately, *personal* knowledge or Christ. Notice also, in this end-time scenario, they are on their own. That is also important to learn. Since you are a priest of Christ, there is no one else to stand in for you – like the saying “naked I was born, naked I will return” likewise “alone I chose to receive/follow Christ, alone I will face Christ”

13 ‘Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

Keep watch, because neither your husband nor your pastor knows the day or the hour, and the only one you can prepare is yourself.

I still don’t have that parable all figured out, but I know it was a very important verse in early Christianity and I know I won’t let someone else hand me a pat answer to it, it is something I will meditate on, on this long journey of life. I don’t want to be shut out of the wedding feast, and allowing another to any sort of authority/leadership that involved decision making over my life is not of God. People can offer input, and it is wise to listen, but my oil jar cannot be filled by another, nor can yours.

@ KR Wordgazer:
It is both a command and a gift. We are all called to pray, only some will prophesy, right? But how do you deal with this? 1 Cor 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But *strive for the greater gifts*. And I will show you a still more excellent way.

Why are we told to strive, if it just something we get?

Also that whole 1 Cor 7 chapter says a few times it is better not to marry and if a man is not betrothed, he isn’t supposed to seek marriage (right after saying he should), so there is really no clear command. What we do have is early church history and we know that celibacy was the more revered choice. It was one of the things that began the great divide between laity and ordained Christians, because all ordained members also had to be celibate. Some notes on 1 Cor 7 – the command to continue sexual relations with your spouse is actually in response to some early Christians who were avoiding sleeping with their non-Christian spouses because they felt they would become defiled, that is why Paul pushes married people to continue in their marriages, as they did before. However, overall, he is very pro-celibacy for everyone – gifted or not.

Lynne T wrote:

In the end I realised that there was no such command in the Bible, and felt free to ignore it. My observation was that most women took it to mean they had a licence to do nothing spiritually unless their husbands told them to, since it was the man’s responsibility!

Sounds like a Spiritual(TM) version of blimping out with bon-bons in front of the TV while hubby does all the heavy lifting.

@ KR Wordgazer:

Oh, I completely agree that his letters are turned into laws for all believers today – and it is annoying – but I do find it curious that he asks people to seek “higher” gifts. It is something I have thought about a lot. Not really pertinent to this conversation thread, though, but he does call people to celibacy in his day. He also says marrieds will face trouble in this life.

Again, I’m not saying those are rules to live by, I’m not sure he is speaking to the upper class exclusively here – the Corinth church wasn’t like the Roman church (high society), so it could be a blanket statement to the whole church (all classes). I don’t think there is enough info to say who (which class) he is talking to in his letter, but, I agree it is for the audience of his day.

Celibacy was highly regarded long after the Roman world adopted the Judeo-Christian morals, well into the dark ages, if not the middle ages. I don’t think the protestant realizes how highly esteemed the celibate clergy/nuns were well beyond the 7th century in both the western and eastern church. I think it explains a lot of why we struggle with “what to do” with homosexuality, singleness, divorcees in Protestantism, where the Greco Roman world – most of the converts were in one of these three categories – simply preached celibacy as the way to be Christian, to unmarrieds, homosexuals, divorcees and slaves who had no say over their own bodies. I don’t think Paul’s advice on avoiding marriage was a way to control immorality amongst Christians as it was to try and fit people’s pagan lifestyles into Jewish moral laws. The church was largely jewish then and the new believers could not be easily fit into a traditional marriage. Slaves were often sent to many different beds for reproduction or guest’s pleasure, with little or no say (so celibacy wouldn’t have been an option for them, or marriage -unless they could seek it from their master – to be given in marriage to another salve), women in upper Roman households were not part of the immorality of the Greco Roman world, they stayed in the home. They were married off to whomever their father’s chose. The free men had many temptations, but Paul is still promoting celibacy. I don’t think I can easily throw out 1,000 years of church history, especially since Christians followed and practiced celibacy after the persecutions ended but before the Bible was canonized.

I certainly don’t think we should start telling all the congregants today not to get married, but I think Protestants need to look more closely at celibacy in the early church (post apostles) and how it shaped much of our Christian roots and heritage. There have been monasteries in Northern Africa that date back to the third Century. Much of our bible was preserved by monks and nuns in various pockets of the world until the printing press. They were leaders in social justice, health care and education through the dark ages from Syria to Northern Africa to north western Europe. After Britain’s King Henry VIII kicked out all the Catholics, the death rates in Britain spiked to all time highs. More women died giving birth then than they do today in Niger – it got worse, not better. Why? the celibate orders were the ones with medical knowledge in Europe. Now, we mostly hear about Galileo and how backward the church was, but for a millennium after Christ, it was a leader in Sciences, Education and Social justice. All from the celibate branches of the church.

So, no, I don’t think it is something to just dismiss, even if Paul isn’t making it a law in the Cor. letter, it was certainly widely practiced throughout the Roman empire and is still a large part of the Catholic church today.

Not to worry, Bridget. We all make small mistakes at times. Yours was not as puzzling as the newspaper report : ‘Bishop unveils colorful widow ‘.>@ Bridget:

@ Charis:

Much agreed!

@ KR Wordgazer: The thing is, I’m willing to bet that the “decadence” was confined to a very small group of wealthy, powerful people… most others simply wouldn’t have had the wherewithal to live that way, even if they’d wanted to.

KR Wordgazer wrote:

Numo, perhaps so. But it is the small, in-your-face minority which often defines a thing for everyone else (just as is occurring now with social perceptions of Christianity).

Take it from the guy with 20 years in-country in Furry Fandom:

THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH YOU CAN DO TO DISTANCE YOURSELF FROM THE LOUD CRAZIES WHO PROCLAIM TO EVERYONE (ESPECIALLY THE MEDIA) THAT THEY ARE ONE OF YOU AND YOU’RE JUST LIKE THEM.

@ KR Wordgazer: another thing to note: the Eastern part of the empire (which was xtian, after a certain point) had rulers who far outdid the Westerners (in Rome) at cruelty, in their ruthless pursuit of siblings and others who might be held to be legit claimants to the throne, and in a lot of other things.

The history of the rulers of the Byzantine (Eastern) empire is pretty blood-curdling stuff – and they were supposedly xtians.

Someone mentioned that they think that this idea is so popular because of the idea of “doing it right” – if women can find a man who fit this “right” formula, then naturally it is pleasing to God. Unfortunately, there is no such “right” formula presented in the Bible.

I’ve often said I am a complementarian. Men and women are fundamentally different in how we process information. Being complementary to one another doesn’t automatically mean men are somehow more spiritually savvy. It just means that both men and women should appreciate the different ways we often go about approaching issues and situations, as members of the opposite sex.

I think defining male leadership as solely resting on how often they ask you to pray is sort of shortsighted. My husband is a wonderful steward of resources. His hospitality is amazing, as is his work ethic, desire to provide, and his ability to motivate others. He is a man of action, as I call him. I am exceedingly introverted by nature. He encourages me to step outside my box, socialize with others at church, and gently drags me to our small group when I put out halfhearted protests that I don’t wish to talk to others. =P

I am the one that asks us to pray together, most often talks about Scripture, muses on theology, etc etc. Does this make him any less of a leader? Hell no. He’s made me a better person and made my desire for God and fellowship with other Christians grow immensely.

We complement each other, the way God designed us to. I wish churches would teach that more, vs. some formula.

dee wrote:

@ Terri: What a comment! I may feature it in a post in the future. Unbelievable!
Your insights into the games people play with spiritual headship was dead on. I have not heard it expressed quite like that before.

I hope you won’t unless you get permission from the bereaved family to do so with a sympathetic rendering of what motivated their decisions. I think it would be in poor taste and a violation of their privacy. They have suffered enough (and continue to suffer, I’m sure, without fellow Christians turning them into evil villains).

We have lots of Amish @ where I live. They don’t accept govt handouts. They often homebirth. They use hospitals very sparingly. They shun lots of technology. They forgive humbly and publicly when an English shoots up one of their schools and kills some of their young children

Are they evil villains who should be judged and have their arms twisted into living out their faith in some “christian politically correct” manner?

I’m all for calling out an Amish who is engaging in sexual abuse or beastiality (as has happened in our local news) but homebirthing with tragic results is not something that should be called out IMO.

Just wondering…

@ dee: There are certified nurse-midwives who do house calls for amish homebirths down in MD; not sure about where I live.

I’m not anti-homebirth, either, but without proper care (and a CNM who has admitting privileges should something go wrong), people are taking big chances – even more so in the case of many QF proponents, where family members (*very* much including the moms) are, all too often, not getting proper medical care in the 1st place. The physical consequences of so many pregnancies alone is cause for great concern. (There was a QF couple at a church I used to attend; she had had 7 kids and was working on #8 when I was booted. She looked *so* run-down and far older than she was; during pregnancy #7, she was in extremely bad shape and could have died… I can’t imagine that she was getting what she needed, which would include relief from endless childcare/endless homeschooling, proper rest and medical care + decent nutrition.)

[/rant over]

@ elastigirl:

he||, even @$$ & @$$hole aren’t bad words anymore, either. I’m personally glad for the relaxation. There’s an honesty to it.

i’ll never forget the lesson I learned when meeting my English in-laws for the first time — faith in Jesus Christ to the core with integrity, strong character, kindness, etc. coming out. Along with freedom of language. And cigarettes, gin & tonics, wine, & pints of (room temperature) beer going in.

There are no more sincere, moral God-loving people than they.

Cultural differences. But showed me how arbitrary the “SINNNNNNNN” label can be.

As well as the “DEVOUT & SANCTIFIED” label. (imagine what hides behind that one)

@ dee: I know, and I think lost of hospitals have birthing suites these days.

Still, I have known CNMs who’ve been doing home births for decades now. I have yet to hear of brain damage or fatalities. I’m *not* saying that they never happen, but I think it might be – overall – less dangerous than you are thinking. Of course, i would need to consult some of my sources on this one – and want to note that responsible midwifery practices do NOT allow people with any kinds of problems/complications (during pregnancy) deliver anywhere but a hospital.

fwiw, one of my oldest and closest friends is an alum of the Georgetown U. grad program in nurse-midwifery. I also know CNMs who are on the Yale nurse-midwifery faculty. Out of the G’town class (very small; their approach is different to most) and Yale folks, there are many who have never done and would never do a home birth, unless there was absolutely no alternative. (You know, a severe blizzard and no safe transportation and someone they were visiting just happened to go into labor and… a rare hypothetical, in other words.) some who do home births also do hospital deliveries. Re. the practices I know of that do home births, there are *always* birth assistants (usually other CNMs) on hand – two, in the case of the practice I’m familiar with. (Which handles a lot of MD Amish homebirths, although that’s something that’s not required of anyone – only 1-2 of the CNMs take those calls.)

I think that good practices that do home births do everything possible to minimize risk, but of course, as you’ve said, there are some things that really can’t be done outside a hospital.

@ dee:
Yeah, “complementarian” is a dishonest word because what it apparently means, on its face, is not what those who coined the word actually mean by it. Their position is “patriarchal marriage set up by God” (whether in moderate or extreme form), but of course such words wouldn’t go over very well.

The destructiveness of lying-by-label can be seen (for eg) in how it has caused many to believe that egalitarians think men/women as exactly the same. I have met no feminist or egalitarian who sees it that way although there are likely a rare few extremists who do.

It is disingenuous to define one’s own position by the worst of an opposing view. People who do so are not interested in the truth. Those who coined “complementarian” are more interested in power and authority; Jesus had lots to say about such.

Using shady names is something people in power tend to do. We need to keep watch on that.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
To give a little context on my perspective here, my former church is an agrarian “Christian” community. They farm the land with horses, grow gardens and raise crops, and teach classes on skills such as cheese making, woodworking, soap making, and other homestead skills. Because of the women’s dress, they are often mistaken for Amish or Mennonites of some kind. Here too, girls were molested by their fathers and brothers. It’s patriarchy’s dirty little secret.

My husband and I chose to use Certified Professional Midwives for our births. We were ostracized for not using our “church’s” lay midwives. These are women who are informally trained and have very limited experience. If you should have complications during birth, you can only claim at the emergency room that you were having an unassisted birth. Because these lay midwives are not licensed to practice, you can’t claim that they helped with prenatal care or the birth in any way. It’s illegal. Our CPMs, in comparison, were highly trained and very competent. If a patient does not take care of herself and eat properly they will dismiss her from their services. They have stringent protocols to follow. I felt very safe. I only wish our church had accepted our decision without treating us as “lesser than” for our choice.

@ dee: fwiw, the term I’ve always heard used by CNMs is “lay midwives.”

dee wrote:

Charis wrote:
t homebirthing with tragic results is not something that should be called out IMO.
I have a different view. Life is sacred and needs to be protected.Today, we can save the lives of women and babies due to our ability to quickly diagnose a developing problem and intervene.
For example, during my first labor, something occurred to make my daughter’s heart rate suddenly decline.Her Apgar was in the tank right after the birth but due to the quick thinking of the staff, she pinked up quickly. At that moment, had they not intervened quickly, she could have died or have been born with serious disabilities.
We were at Duke for that birth. Yeah, the labor area wasn’t homey and it wasn’t personal, but they saved my daughter’s life. At that moment, I became an advocate for laboring in an environment that could intervene quickly. This sort of thing is not a problem that can be diagnosed prior to it happening.

Yep your birth was pricey.

Had my 8 in hospital but one was born in a developing country’s “hospital” which lacks our high tech (and the delivery and 4 days in the hospital cost $110). Almost did a home birth for our second child which would have ended tragically. He weighed 10lb 8oz and was stuck in birth canal with shoulder dystocia. THE ONLY REASON we were in the hospital is because we got a Hill Burton Grant which covered the fees. Otherwise we were going to homebirth because we were POOR and could not qualify for Medicaid.

A nanny state or nanny church that FORCES people into the hospital strikes me as really controlling. If you want to encourage QF families to hire a CNM (which aren’t cheap) or go to hospitals, how about funding a charity for that and they can take advantage of your generosity if they want to.

Meanwhile, home birthers are NOT equivalent to child molesters just because they had a homebirth with tragic results. I’m sure they wish they would have chosen otherwise, just like a mommy who turns her head for five minutes and her baby drowns wishes she had done something different. There is a categorical difference between a TRAGEDY and child molestation.

The condemnation toward QF families grates on me but I have no personal axe to grind about hospital or not.

dee wrote:

@ Charis: I double checked. I used another comment not the one to which you referred.

Excellent. Thanks.

dee wrote:

They invent rules to eliminate folks. So, in certain circles, the uncertified midwives would also be required to have been immersed baptized and only read the KJV.

And in a subset of that, only the KJV1611.