Complementarianism versus Mutual Submission in Marriage

"When two followers of Jesus Christ are married, it is important to remember that Scripture clearly teaches submission is never the wife's responsibility to the exclusion of the husband's, nor is love the responsibility of the husband's to the exclusion of the wife's. A Spirit-filled, Christ-honoring, God-glorifying marriage is one of mutual submission and love."

Wade Burleson

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Anillos.jpgA Pair of Rings

A week ago my husband and I traveled to Nashville, Tennessee to do some sight-seeing and to meet with Wade and Rachelle Burleson.  Rachelle is working on her Doctorate in Nursing Practice at Vanderbilt University, which she will complete later this year.  As Wade explained to his congregation the Sunday before, he was 'Driving Miss Daisy' and doing all that he can to help her achieve her personal goals. 

We had some wonderful conversations with the Burlesons over dinner both Sunday and Monday, and we also became acquainted with a sharp young lady who lives in the area.  One of our dear readers who works in Nashville and is a friend of Wade and Rachelle made lunch reservations for all of us, and we had a terrific time discussing some pressing topics here at TWW, as well as other interesting faith issues. 

When Dee and I began blogging almost five years ago, I never envisioned traveling over five hundred miles to meet with friends whom I have gotten to know through the internet.  These are interesting times indeed!

One of the purposes for the trip was to begin collaborating on a writing project having to do with 'gifting' versus 'gender roles'.  So much has been written with regard to complementarianism, and even though the term was coined over 25 years ago, many are still puzzled as to what it means and how it plays out in real life.

Two years ago complementarianism was discussed by a panel at the Together for the Gospel conference, consisting of John Piper, Russell Moore, and Greg Gilbert.  The question before the panel was: Is complementarianism essential or expendable?  The highlights of that panel discussion in my estimation were as follows:

Russell Moore stated that we have marriages that are functionally egalitarian.

Greg Gilbert said that functional egalitarianism among the young people that he counsels is just all over the place so you have men who think that being a complementarian really has no feet on it. 

John Piper explained:  "I don't think you have to be a complementarian to be saved." 

Well, thank goodness for that — you don't have to be a complementarian to be saved.  My take away from the 30 minute panel discussion was that those who hold to the complementarian approach to marriage are using it to fight the culture war.   I believe they are taking Scripture beyond where Almighty God would have it to go. 

Then we have Kirk Cameron's sister, Candace Cameron Bure, pushing the complementarian view of gender roles.  I first saw Bure's endorsement on Facebook, then in the national news.  She seemed to be everywhere!  Of course, she got some pushback, as Denny Burk explained in a recent post entitled Egalitarianism and the Functional authority of scripture.  Burk concluded with this warning:

We are not playing games here. The hermeneutics of egalitarianism are serious error and are harmful.

To Burk's credit, he has allowed comments, which are approaching 250 at this writing. 

These are just a few examples that demonstrate the debate between complementarianism and egalitarian is far from over.  In fact, the dispute appears to be escalating.  As stated previously, I am deeply concerned that complementarianism appears to be a tool in the hands of some Christians who are waging war against the culture (be sure to listen to the T4G panel discussion linked above). 

As the mother of two daughters who are now adults, I am concerned about how the younger generation is being influenced to embrace gender roles.  Young Christian men are being taught to be the head of their wives because they claim it is biblical, and I fear that this overemphasis will cause a terrible strain on marriages in the long run. 

When my husband and I met with Wade last Monday, one of the topics on his heart was mutual submission in marriage, which is contrary to what is ascribed in complementarianism.  He described how he believes a spirit-filled couple should make a decision, and my husband and I agreed with him.  I was thrilled that Wade took the time to write it down in a post the following day.

Wade and Rachelle recently celebrated their 30th wedding anniversary, and I believe they have some wise advice to share.  I want to urge married couples, particularly those who have recently wed, to take to heart Wade Burleson's advice, as outlined below. 


Decision Making and Mutual Submission in Marriage

By:  Wade Burleson

Hand+HoldingThe attitude of every follower of Jesus Christ, whether male or female, is one of servant-like submission. "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3). "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who…. took the form of a bond-servant" (Philippians 2:5-7).

The best one word description for this servant-like attitude of "regarding another as more important" is the word submission. To be a submissive person is to be like the bond-slave Jesus Christ became for us. The Bible is emphatic that all Christians, both males and females, are to be characterized by love and submission to other people.

Paul describes this Spirit-filled life of believers in Ephesians 5 where he writes- "and walk in love, just as Christ also has loved you…" (v. 2) and then he writes, "and be submissive to one another in the fear of Christ" (v. 21). Again, these two characteristics of the Spirit-filled life (love and submission) are mandatory regardless of gender. Paul illustrates how love and submission works in the husband/wife relationship in the rest of chapter 5.  "Wives to your own husbands" (v. 22) is what Paul literally writes. Unfortunately, English translators add the words "be subject" after the word wives. Why do our English translators leave off "love?" Paul is writing about love AND submission, and when he writes "wives to your husbands" the emphasis is "Wives, be submissive and loving to  your husbands." Likewise, later Paul "so husbands to wives" (v. 28).  Again, the English translation picks up on the word "love" for husbands, but in the context of mutual love and mutual submission (v. 2 and v. 21), husbands are to express a love and a servant-like spirit of submission to their wives. It may sound strange to your ears to hear that the Bible says a husband is to be submissive to his wife, but it wasn't strange to Paul's ears. This is the teaching of the New Covenant. To say that a husband is to have a submissive attitude toward his wife is as correct as saying that a wife is to love her husband. No gender, whether male or female, is to leave off either submission or love in human relationships. 

Because the Scripture teaches mutual servant-like submission and unconditional love for both the husband and the wife, some Christians who are unfamiliar with Scripture– but who have been indoctrinated with institutional church dogmatism about "authority"– may be confused. "How will a married couple ever make a decision if nobody is the boss and everybody has an attitude of servant-like submission and unconditional love?" they might ask.

Great question. Here is how a Spirit-filled couple makes a decision in marriage. 

(1). Both the husband and wife are able to freely give their opinions and express disagreement because the husband considers his wife "more important" than himself and the wife views her husband "more important" than herself,  so each desires to hear what the other person has to say.

(2). The husband listens to his wife and the wife listens to her husband because there is reciprocal love and respect for one another. This love and respect is the same kind of love and respect that the husband and wife have both experienced from Jesus Christ.

(3). If unity of desire and mutual agreement for the proper course of action cannot be found, then the couple mutually agrees to wait on making a decision. They that wait upon the Lord shall be renewed in strength. During this time of waiting, the husband asks God for wisdom and discernment for himself, and the wife asks God for wisdom and discernment for herself.  

(4). After waiting, when the deadline for a decision approaches, the husband–in a spirit of love and submission toward his wife–will either be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as his wife, OR, the wife–in a spirit of love and submission toward her husband will be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as her husband. Two Christians living together are to honor God by living in harmony with one another. That’s not to say that that the husband and wife are to be the same; harmony recognizes the beauty of differences, and incorporates those differences into a beautiful melody. Mutual submission is the art of hearing from God.

(5). In a Christ-honoring marriage, no person sees himself (or herself) as the "authority" in the home. Jesus Christ has "all authority" (Matt. 28:18), and a marriage that honors God is one where both the husband and the wife look to Christ alone as their authority. Decision making is made with a spirit of mutual submission and love, leaning on Christ to produce unity of hearts and minds.

For anyone married to an unbeliever, this process of coming to unity in decision making may be a tad harder. This is why the New Covenant writers issue a caution about being unequally yoked. However, when two followers of Jesus Christ are married, it is important to remember that Scripture clearly teaches submission is never the wife's responsibility to the exclusion of the husband's, nor is love the responsibility of the husband's to the exclusion of the wife's. A Spirit-filled, Christ-honoring, God-glorifying marriage is one of mutual submission and love.


Lydia's Corner:   Isaiah 60:1-62:5   Philippians 1:27-2:18   Psalm 72:1-20   Proverbs 24:11-12

Comments

Complementarianism versus Mutual Submission in Marriage — 372 Comments

  1. Let me clarify. I meant to say “God bless all of you all” as in the extreme plural, of course, as in Deb et al and Wade et al. This just proves that we southerners are right about this when it comes to you plural. “You” just is not specific enough.

  2. I can testify to 35 years of mutual love and submission resulting in a successful marriage, and we are still very much in love. The most common questions in our home are “what do you want to do”, “what do you think about that”, etc., eliciting from the other, instead of starting with what one wants.

  3. Absolutely beautiful post Wade! Imagine that, mutual love and submission, harmony, and relying on the leading of the Holy Spirit. I have seen this at work in only a few marriages, which is sad. As a single woman, I sometimes cringe at the heavy handed way my female Christian friends are treated by their husbands. As a single woman I will also admit that it is difficult to find a man who agrees with the wisdom in Wade’s post. Not because they have an understanding of the scriptures, but because they are following evangelical pop-culture which is currently obsessed with this subject. Under these circumstances, I’m happy to currently be single.

  4. My personal experience is that complementarianism encourages disunity, not unity. With an emphasis on being separate and different, the focus turns to what role the man should be fulfilling to fit the ‘biblical’ order, and the same for the woman. The promise seems to be that the better or more accurately you fulfill your gender role, the happier your marriage will be because in that you’ll experience God’s blessing for having lined your lives up with his assigned order for your lives. And then, moreover, the church will be blessed, society at large will be blessed…its like their simple prescription to everything: follow the complementarianism guidelines because they’re the Keys to the Kingdom.

    Well its all B.S. The gender hierarchalists teach, think and talk like they have a lock on what it means to be godly, what it takes to make marriage and family life a success, and they have turned it into a big business. It’s their bread and butter. And they make it all seem so simple.

    Actually, it works to create gender order within the home and consequently in the church for those who are in control. Problems in the marriage? Someone must not be fulfilling their role very well! Problems in the church? Someone must be out if order! Problems are looked at and solved first off through a top-down pyramid shaped paradigm first, with a few scriptures thrown in secondly.

    Rather than roles, I think the emphasis is on Oneness. “The two shall become one.” Complementarianism seem to think Oneness is achieved through the woman filling the shape she’s supposed to fill so that she ‘complements’ the shape her husband is supposed to be filling. And then you take those two shapes and fit them together and then bam! Unity, happiness, bliss, angels, harmony, joy, agreement and amazing sex!

    Well it doesn’t work that way. Each individual in the marriage isn’t some gender shaped role. We are first and foremost 100% human and 100% equal to each other within the context of marriage. The man isn’t ahead or above his wife. There must be equality, there must be mutuality, and their must be co-operation. Complementarianism kills all this. It kills it. And robs the relationship of its power by subjugating the woman to the man, and the man to the power of the leaders of the church who assume authority over them both. Complementarianism is a TRAP.

  5. Wade, You say,

    After waiting, when the deadline for a decision approaches, the husband–in a spirit of love and submission toward his wife–will either be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as his wife, OR, the wife–in a spirit of love and submission toward her husband will be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as her husband.

    So what if neither happens and the disagreement is just as strong as it ever was?

  6. Gene wrote:

    So what if neither happens and the disagreement is just as strong as it ever was?

    She has the final word and gets to break the tie. lol

  7. In 35 years of marriage, we have NEVER failed to come to agreement on what we as a couple/family should do in a particular situation. Not to say that we haven’t had some disagreements, in part due to pain from injuries suffered in a car wreck and financial difficulties and other stresses. And at times, we have had to take a break about dealing with a particular issue until we each could pray and think through the issue separately and discuss it again. My greatest gain is her smile and pleasure at whatever we are doing, and I believe that she feels that way as well. So disagreements are mostly a matter of priority, what gets attention first or when we will do something. In the long view of life, it is more important to please my spouse and see her smile, feel her hug, and know she appreciates me, than it is to have my way NOW on something that is far less important.

  8. Deb: “To Burk’s credit, he has allowed comments, which are approaching 250 at this writing.”

    I bopped over there. 246 comments at the time I am writing this.

    Also, I know some of the ones over there pushing back. They are good people.

    It’s nice to see Burk allowing conversation. And it’s nice to see that it is simply good hearty debate, a little snark from a few (which is hard to avoid), but mostly polite.

    Ken ought to go over there. He’d really learn a thing or two.
    And since it’s Burk’s blog, it is comp favoring.

  9. Nancy wrote:

    Let me clarify. I meant to say “God bless all of you all” as in the extreme plural, of course, as in Deb et al and Wade et al. This just proves that we southerners are right about this when it comes to you plural. “You” just is not specific enough.

    That's why we often use y'all here in the South. 🙂

  10. Loved this! It is written in a disarming way, which I truly hope will lead to dialogue and healthy exchange of perspectives. I’ve already shared it with the hope of engaging in conversation, rather than debate. Shalom!

  11. @ Lori:

    What greatly disturbs me is that it appears complementarianism is being peddled to younger couples. After all, so many comp congregations are made up of Christians say under 35. Sadly, these young couples are extremely trusting of their leaders who hold the 'keys to the kingdom'.

    Us older married folks have been there and done that. After decades of of figuring out what makes marriage work, we're not buying complementarianism (which I still believe is patriarchy in disguise).

  12. Victorious wrote:

    Gene wrote: So what if neither happens and the disagreement is just as strong as it ever was? She has the final word and gets to break the tie. lol

    Great response!

  13. Erik wrote:

    Loved this! It is written in a disarming way, which I truly hope will lead to dialogue and healthy exchange of perspectives. I’ve already shared it with the hope of engaging in conversation, rather than debate. Shalom!

    Please let us know what kind of responses you get from sharing Wade's wisdom.

  14. @ Gav Whi:

    I disagree. It is bound up by the KJV, which is a biased translation of the scripture, and is so bound that it does not consider what is really added or missing, only those things it cannot avoid and be considered even of reading.

  15. I don’t know if this would be included here, but in 33 years of marriage, we have never gone with the other spouse to help them pick-out / buy “their” vehicle. We trust one another enough to get what they like and what our budget can stand. It all mutual monies here, btw…..and the vehicles are in each other’s names, never mind in Texas it is community property.

  16. Deb wrote:

    Us older married folks have been there and done that. After decades of of figuring out what makes marriage work, we're not buying complementarianism (which I still believe is patriarchy in disguise).

    I saw this in my parent's marriage. They respected and loved each other as equals. My father would not have been happy to see me in a "comp" marriage. I am thankful for my father who gave me such a wonderful example. Wade's description of a Spirit-filled couple reminds of their marriage.

  17. My parents, born in 1918-19, married in 1940, had a marriage that was functionally egalitarian and mutual but externally comp! Mom did whatever she wanted to do, often managed the finances, traveled w/o Dad when there was a need (family illness, etc.), became an active participant in missions activities and traveled for those, and, when she wanted something extra (e.g., a piano and, later, an organ) for us and for her, she went to work and bought.

    But they would never have described their marriage as anything other than what their church at the time would have called a ‘biblical marriage’ of ‘wifely submission’! For they never really thought about the matter of the difference between their actual life and what they believed.

  18. We have neglected the idea of persons. The marriage discussion must be about persons. The husband and wife must see each other as persons, not just roles or functions. As in: Mister, she is not just your wife, she is Susie Mae who happens to be married to you. God made her and has first claim on her. And Lady, he is George or Max who happens to be married to you. God made him and has first claim on him. That is where it has to start. No person should be bullied or manipulated. And no person should try to be God to another person, And no person should permit themselves to be bullied or manipulated. And no person, married or not, can be reduced to simply a role or function.

    Personal comment/example: in health care “they” got hold of us about this (and I have to say this in harsh but accurate terms because that is the way it went down.) “They” said quit thinking about the gall bladder in room 353 and remember that it is the PERSON in room 353 who is having gall bladder problems. “They” were right. We did used to do that awful thing to persons. We got better-not perfect, just better. Trust me here-lots better.

    It is way past time for the church to get better at this also. First we must stop just thinking about persons as primarily “the wife” or “the husband” and start thinking about them as a precious child of God. He/she has a name and a uniqueness and has the call of God on his/her life to be conformed to the image of Christ–not conformed to some image in someone else’s mind.

    Perhaps in evangelicalism there is too little emphasis on the fact that in the Holy Trinity there are three PERSONS, not just three functions. So we believe, do we not? And are we not invited to have relationship with each of the Persons of the Trinity. For decades I “heard” from Baptist pulpits something about God that sounded more like functions than persons. That is not good enough because it is not the whole story.

    The men in the pulpits first need to get it right about God. Start there.

  19. Gene wrote:

    So what if neither happens and the disagreement is just as strong as it ever was?

    Do you believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of a married couple? It is interesting to me that some believe in the power of irresistible grace which overpowers a person and brings them to faith in Jesus but appear to have far less respect for the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers.

    If there is a serious matter that is causing serious division, then the church provides a place to seek wise counsel. That sort of division has lasting implications for life and someone pulling the “I’m in charge ad therefore get the last say” card can cause great harm over time.

    To me, this is the trump card of the comps. For all the shouting and jumping up and down, it seem to always boil down to no women pastors or elders and men get the tie breaking vote.

    Here is a true story. I cannot reveal the name of the pastor due to a promise I made to someone but he is very well known. He also told this story to his church, well, not all of it. Said pastor, after telling his congregation to sacrifice and not move to a nicer house and give the money to the church, decided to “disobey” his own edict and move up to a much more expensive home.

    His wife didn’t want to leave their nice, smaller house because she liked the location. He, on the other hand, insisted on the move because he would be about 10 minutes closer to home. She didn’t want to move. He pulled his “I’m in charge” card and moved to the really nice house.

    This decision showed that he wanted what he wanted and screw her. He got his house. Bet he’ll buy a bigger one soon. No one brought up the fact that it was not vital for him to move. Why not stay longer in the old house? What was the emergency?

    Many of these so called “important” disagreements are not that important. And the way men pull the trump card speaks volumes as to their underlying belief that somehow they “know better.”

  20. I love reading this post and the comments. I have never married and am happy, although at times in my life I did want to marry. I sometimes wonder if CLC hadn’t pushed submission so heavily if I would’ve married. The way they presented it simpy horrified me.

  21. dee wrote:

    Do you believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of a married couple? It is interesting to me that some believe in the power of irresistible grace which overpowers a person and brings them to faith in Jesus but appear to have far less respect for the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers.

    Yeah, it makes me want to shout to all the complementarians:  Are you Christians, or what? Don't you believe one single word you read in the bible about the fruits of the Holy Spirit?

  22. The word “complementarian” is a fraud. It flat-out oppression. “Complementary” means each brings different knowledge and skills to the table. It does NOT mean that one or the other is prohibited from doing something. Moreover, even accepting their definition of “complementary” is an epic fail. They prohibit women from engaging in many religious activities, so to truly be “complementary” using their definition, where is the complementary flip side? That is, where are the religious activities that men are prohibited from engaging in? There are none. If one group can do anything but another group is prohibited from doing some things based solely on how they appeared at birth, that is oppression!

    In a marriage, the two become one flesh, it’s the ultimate partnership. Every individual has different knowledge and skills, therefore, there is no universal rule that can dictate how these are to be put together in the partnership. Moreover, why does one or the other have to have the final say on everything? That’s not one flesh, it’s not a partnership, it’s a superior-subordinate relationship and goes against what the Bible teaches is to be the case. In a true partnership, especially one based on love, the two parties are fully capable of working things out in mutual submission as Wade so eloquently put it. To dictate that one of the individuals must be in charge based on their anatomy is oppression and sets the stage for a ruinous marriage and will not result in the two becoming one flesh.

  23. I still remember my pre-marriage counseling, watching a video about “wifely submission”, one of the couples sharing their stories talked about learning to trust God’s process, the husband made a terrible financial decision that the wife strongly opposed, but she “submitted” and after years of financial hardship due to the husband’s terrible decision, they had learned a few lessons and so: it was good. Somehow.

    I shake my head when I think about how very much was wrong with that story… why wasn’t the husband repenting of his foolishness and lack of respect towards the very wise advice from his wife, who could have saved him years of hardship? He was utterly foolish, and yet somehow still in the right, and she was “right” to submit to him. Even at 21 years of age I knew it was bunk, I learned a lesson watching that video, but it wasn’t the lesson that I was supposed to have learned. :p

  24. gus wrote:

    Don’t you believe one single word you read in the bible about the fruits of the Holy Spirit?

    I think many of them believe that the husband, besides being more level headed and reasonable, is supernaturally endowed by the Holy Spirit to better make these all these important decisions.

    So, yes, I think they believe in the Bible and the Holy Spirit. It’s just their understanding and application is all a skewed by all their extra-biblical, gender-specific obsessions.

  25. Searching wrote:

    the husband made a terrible financial decision that the wife strongly opposed, but she “submitted” and after years of financial hardship due to the husband’s terrible decision, they had learned a few lessons and so: it was good. Somehow.

    Sometimes, I wonder if this is just a way to keep conflicts from disturbing the pastors and elders. Instead of submitting to her husband, I wonder what would have happened if she brought the matter before some elders in the church. Usually elders are chosen because they have got bucks and position in the community (wrong motive I know but more often true than not to the shame of the church) I bet Joe Banker would have looked at her husband and asked him what in the world was he doing.

  26. Gene wrote:

    Wade, You say,

    After waiting, when the deadline for a decision approaches, the husband–in a spirit of love and submission toward his wife–will either be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as his wife, OR, the wife–in a spirit of love and submission toward her husband will be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as her husband.

    So what if neither happens and the disagreement is just as strong as it ever was?

    @Gene-We’ve been married 42 years, started out as young ones at 19! Anyway, we have come to some decision points in our years together that we were unable to come to a united response, although not angry about the impasse (usually!)

    In those times, we have used our particular “Giftedness” to break the tie. My husband has wheels, tools and gears in his head, so anything regarding cars, electronics etc is decided by him. He is also a personnel guy for a large college district & excellent at surveying people and situations and suggesting the best ways to delegate. He also is a great judge of character in someone who is just recently joined the business, so I really take his opinion seriously. He is also in charge of listening to my (Frequently expressed) worries and offering encouragement.

    I vote any tie-breaker on financial matters as I do all the bills, taxes, savings accounts, etc. He totally turned the choice of curriculum, style of learning,etc over to me as I home-schooled 2 kids from K-12 independently. listen to his problems at work, and endeavor to keep dozens of people straight in my mind whom I’ve never met.
    IT boils down to the idea of Moses & Hur the Hand Holder…the guy who helped Moses hold his hands high to insure an Israelite victory.(Exodus 17:12) We just take turns being Moses!

    Sorry this is long but us older folk do have a lot to offer in terms of mistakes we made and what worked better.

  27. Gene wrote:

    Wade, You say,

    After waiting, when the deadline for a decision approaches, the husband–in a spirit of love and submission toward his wife–will either be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as his wife, OR, the wife–in a spirit of love and submission toward her husband will be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as her husband.

    So what if neither happens and the disagreement is just as strong as it ever was?

    Time for marriage counseling.

    I do not mean to be flippant, but the evidence of the Spirit’s presence is unity, and when there is no union in marriage, there is trouble in the marriage. Remember, union is not uniformity – it is two people–with differences and unique perspectives–who come to mutual agreement by the power of the Spirit.

  28. @ Gene:
    If bad goes to worse and the experiences written by other commenters don’t work, take turns making the final decision. Or use urim and thummim techniques. It’s less problematic to use these options as last resort than to push responsibility on one half of the partnership beginning to end.

  29. Wade Burleson wrote:

    Time for marriage counseling.

    Perhaps…but one should be very, very careful who they choose to counsel them. Otherwise, the outcome is predictable…in favor of the “headship” of the husband. 🙁

    Hate to say it, but I’d strongly consider secular counseling.

  30. Gene wrote:

    Wade, You say,

    After waiting, when the deadline for a decision approaches, the husband–in a spirit of love and submission toward his wife–will either be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as his wife, OR, the wife–in a spirit of love and submission toward her husband will be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as her husband.

    So what if neither happens and the disagreement is just as strong as it ever was?

    You turned a decision making process that Wade was talking about into “a disagreement as strong as it ever was.”

    Did you notice that you did this, Gene?

    I think something that weighs into this thinking that a “tie break is needed” is that in many comp churches you are also considered the worst sinner you know and totally depraved — even after salvation. Husbands and wives are trained to view each other as sinners instead of as redeemed men and women with the Holy Spirit empowering them. Because of this view, there is always this underlying current of belief that husband can’t see clearly and wife can’t see clearly, so it is just two sinners going after what they each want. In this scenario someone has to be anointed as the tie breaker. These churches are functionally promoting that wives and husbands are enemies (because of their sin) instead of promoting the Holy Spirit at work within all believers – who brings unity in Christ. These churches are training husbands and wives to NOT walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, but to trust in their approved process of the “husband is the tie-breaker.”

    Most churches today function in this same way with their leadership structure. I view those structures as man made as well and for the same reason. They usurp the Holy Spirit working in the body to bring unity in purpose. One (or a few) men end up being the decision makers. I believe this violates what Christ taught about leadership and authority.

    Sorry this was so long.

  31. I recently created a profile with an online dating site, and like many women decided that smoking was an automatic dis-qualifier for any romantic relationship. When a man who used the phrase “God-fearing” to describe himself sent me a message, I felt very uncomfortable without knowing why. Upon further reflection, I also decided that I am not interested in meeting any man who uses the words “God-fearing” or “godly” to describe himself in his profile.

    Because the phrase God-fearing is not commonly used in our culture, like most people I did not know what it meant. According to Yahoo Answers, God-fearing means that “a respectful fear (that) is fundamental if we are to worship God acceptably.” The phrase comes from Psalm 111:10 which says that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Because the Evangelical cultural warriors have appropriated this perfectly good phrase for themselves, it has become a good screening tool for online dating. Many men who believe in patriarchy may lie about their beliefs to lure a woman into a relationship, and may not reveal their true beliefs until after marriage when she is already trapped. But these men indirectly reveal their true beliefs when they use the words God-fearing or godly to describe themselves in their profile.

  32. @ Victorious:

    This is so true, unfortunately. If you go in for marriage counseling to the pastor of a comp church, the wife is often automatically under suspicion for not submitting, joyfully 😉 The counseling, like the doctrine, can make things worse instead of helping to bring unity.

  33. Victorious wrote:

    Wade Burleson wrote: Time for marriage counseling. Perhaps…but one should be very, very careful who they choose to counsel them. Otherwise, the outcome is predictable…in favor of the “headship” of the husband. Hate to say it, but I’d strongly consider secular counseling.

    Great point! Biblical counseling is becoming popular among the Neo-Cal crowd. Can there by any doubt how it will be implemented in the complementarian corners of Christendom?

  34. dee wrote:

    Do you believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of a married couple?

    Of course. But I wonder if you aren’t confusing the work of regeneration with the work of sanctification. Of course, that’s another issue so I won’t deal with it here.

    But at the end of the day, two people (or more) who believe in good conscience that they are listening to the Spirit can still disagree. And with a deadline (as Wade said), something has to be done. There is likely no time for marriage counseling, and that likely isn’t the issue anyway, since marriage counseling typically deals with how disagreements are handled, not with what conclusion two people should come to. In marriage counseling, I never would tell a couple what to do, apart from biblical obedience, and no responsible marriage counselor would. I would suggest how a decision should be arrived at and how disagreements should be handled. Lack of agreement is not an indication of trouble. Handling it poorly (by fighting, withdrawing, etc.) is an indication of trouble.

    Imagine the mutual submission some of you are expressing in the image of Ephesians 5 where the church submits to Christ. That is a powerful image that speaks loudly if you understand the gospel.

    We all have stories as you do. Let me relate one. Years ago, my wife and I were having infertility issues after a miscarriage. It was very trying. We were trying everything from timing to meds to injections. We went to her doctor who recommended a procedure that would scrape out her uterus cleaning it of any scars or tissues left from the miscarriage. (I don’t remember the exact medical description). But it was a procedure that had to be done in the next day or two, because it had to be done at a particular time of her cycle. She wanted to do it very badly. I was not comfortable with it. I wanted to wait. We disagreed. Ultimately, against her desire, she agreed to wait. Today we have a boy because of it. You see, she was pregnant. Had she not agreed to put her desire aside and follow me, our boy would have been aborted. She has thanked me many times for that.

    Other decisions have been different. We decided to buy a house, and I was not in favor of it, but she strongly wanted it. So we bought it. I wish we wouldn’t have. But I did not feel strongly enough about it at the time to say no. I like the house, but I still wouldn’t have bought it. We have done the same things with cars and with other issues as well. We listen to each other and make decisions together. That’s complementarianism at work.

    So for every decision you can point to that is bad, others can point to one that is good.

    Molly’s ideas of areas of expertise and knowledge is a great one, and one that we frequently use. But I have no idea how that is a counter or alternative to complementarianism. That’s not contradictory to what I have ever taught about complementarianism or to what I have ever heard anyone else teach about complementarianism.

  35. Wade, I wonder if you might take a minute and specifically address the image Paul uses of the church submitting to Christ as the model for how the wife submits to her husband. How would you explain how that image supports your view? Where are some examples of where Christ allows the church to make decisions against his will and judgment? When a church disagrees with Christ, how would you counsel that church? And how would that be relevant to your point here?

  36. You know what will never work in the context of a truly defined complementarian relationship? A marriage between Complementarianism & The Gospel!

    It’s definitely NOT a match made in heaven.

    As hard as some try to make it work, there’s simply no mixing and matching those two. But “Complementarianism” is the one always out there posting things on their FB page about how they’re married to their Best Friend “The Gospel,” and how everything is sooooo perfect.

    Well, sorry to break it to you Complementarianism but somebody needs to tell you the truth (not that you’ll ever accept it). You only IMAGINE you’re married to The Gospel! But the truth is The Gospel never asked for your hand in marriage, there’s no ring on your finger, there was never an authentic, official ceremony and there sure as heck hasn’t been anything even remotely close to a honeymoon!

    So, buzz off Complementarianism! The Gospel isn’t into you and never was. You two are not a couple and never were! You’re nothing more than an Annoying Stalker and a Fake Wannabe and that’s the truth!

    So, go take the truth and twist it like you’re so fond of doing, Complementarianism! You’ll probably do something now like dispel any rumors of your fake wedding to The Gospel by getting on FB and posting something false about how you two are the bestest bed buddies when we all know it’s a lie!!!

  37. Bridget wrote:

    The counseling, like the doctrine, can make things worse instead of helping to bring unity.

    I’d suggest a course in Negotiating Skills for the couple. Maybe even a priority before marriage. It’s imperative to learn compromise to the satisfaction of both.

  38. @ Victorious: in reality, “secular” counselors/therapists are far more likely to be helpful, because they’re not constrained by feeling the need to toe the line on doctrine; also because the good ones are literally professionals.

  39. @ Teri Anne:
    Haha Teri Anne, that’s pretty good.

    I’m not sure how I’d be at online dating. I think I’d steer clear of the God-fearing ones too. I’d be curious to know what that means as well. Does it mean he’s got a big ol’ bible parked on the coffee table? Perfect Attendance

  40. Deb wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    Wade Burleson wrote: Time for marriage counseling. Perhaps…but one should be very, very careful who they choose to counsel them. Otherwise, the outcome is predictable…in favor of the “headship” of the husband. Hate to say it, but I’d strongly consider secular counseling.
    Great point! Biblical counseling is becoming popular among the Neo-Cal crowd. Can there by any doubt how it will be implemented in the complementarian corners of Christendom?

    None of these people would bat an eyelash at going to an M.D. for a physical problem. Mental health professionals -very much including good marriage counselors – really shouldn’t be viewed with suspicion. But they are and will continue to be, if only because they would view each spouse as a person in their own right, and thus, equal.

  41. Wade Burleson wrote:

    Gene wrote:

    Wade, You say,

    After waiting, when the deadline for a decision approaches, the husband–in a spirit of love and submission toward his wife–will either be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as his wife, OR, the wife–in a spirit of love and submission toward her husband will be led by the Holy Spirit to begin having the same desires as her husband.

    So what if neither happens and the disagreement is just as strong as it ever was?

    Time for marriage counseling.

    Wade Burleson believes his 5 step model for decision making is perfect, infallible and should apply to every decision making process. So if the disagreement continues (the 5 step model doesn’t work), Wade just shifts the blame to the couple, which is known as victim blaming, and suggests marriage counseling. Now the couple is faced with more decisions, such as how do we go about selecting a counselor, what should we expect from the counseling and probably the most important what do we do if both of us disagree with the counseling? It just becomes a cycle with no resolution. I suggest there is a simpler more effective way of ending the disagreement. Just flip a coin – the husband can say we’ll flip a coin – heads it’s my way, tails it’s your way. The couple will also save money by not having to pay counseling fees.

  42. (continued: accidentally touched “Post Comment” on my last comment)

    …attendance on on his lapel?

    Also, the verse “be not unequally yoked” is always used as a hard and fast rule in determining all kinds of things regarding dating, courtship and marriage. Was Paul even referring to marriage and relationships when he wrote that.

    I’m looking for someone who I can relate to, who gets along with me and likes me, who is fun to be with and I enjoy their company. If it so happens that they are also a believer then great! But I’ve decided I’m not going to close myself off to unbelievers. But that’s me.

    I saw a picture of a runner on FB recently with a caption that read, “Dating Tip: Run as fast as you can toward God, and if someone keeps up, then you can introduce yourself.” I was like, “Gag”

  43. @ Joe:

    I am unaccustomed with strangers telling others what I believe. You wrote:

    “Wade Burleson believes his 5 step model for decision making is perfect, infallible and should apply to every decision making process.”

    My wife, who knows me better, would tell you what I really believe is that NOTHING I write, say or teach is perfect, that only Scripture is infallible and my interpretation is ALWAYS fallible (liable for error), and that often times we simply flip a coin when we can’t come to agreement, so my proposal does not apply to even us in “every decision making process.”

    And besides, I already said Molly’s answer was far better than mine!

    In the future, it would be best to possibly make comments based upon what you believe rather than what I believe. Thanks!

  44. Joe wrote:

    the husband can say we’ll flip a coin – heads it’s my way, tails it’s your way.

    Would that work, do you think, if that suggestion came from the wife? Just wondering. ….smile

  45. Arce wrote:

    @ Deb: put quotes around biblical in “biblical counseling”, cause to me it ain’t biblical at all.

    My mistake. Sorry. 😆

  46. @ Joe:

    Where does Wade say his suggestion is perfect and infallible? If the couple can’t agree on any decisions, not even counseling, there are probably some issues in the relationship. If the couple agrees to flip a coin and abide by the result whenever they are in disagreement, then they have agreed on how to resolve their issues 🙂 What part God has had in the process is a different question in this scenario.

  47. @ Joe:
    I’m with you on that. It’s what I do when I’m truly stumped – flip a coin and just go with it, and usually everything works out as it should and we wind up headed, somehow, in the right direction. Although, I must say, I don’t flip coins when it comes to not knowing what road to take. Im big on maps, GPS, and pulling over to ask directions!

  48. @ Joe:
    Look, if a couple is so irretrievably unable to agree on anything that every decision is a battlefield, they’re better off skipping counseling and retaining lawyers for the divorce. If they’re normal people with a few areas of conflict that are difficult to resolve, the prospect of seeking counseling shouldn’t be so fraught. People so obsessed with who gets the tie breaking vote seem to think marriage is a war. They also don’t seem to be able to accept that sometimes you have to learn to live with disagreement and ambiguity.

  49. Bridget wrote:

    You turned a decision making process that Wade was talking about into “a disagreement as strong as it ever was.”

    Did you notice that you did this, Gene?

    Notice I did what? Wade was talking about a couple who disagrees. He says, If unity of desire and mutual agreement for the proper course of action cannot be found, then the couple mutually agrees to wait on making a decision. If “agreement … cannot be found,” then there is disagreement. So my question is, What if they do what Wade says to do, and the differing desires are as strong as they ever were which means that “unity of desire and mutual agreement for the proper course of action cannot be found”? As you can see, I didn’t change anything Wade said at all.

  50. Gene wrote:

    She wanted to do it very badly. I was not comfortable with it. I wanted to wait. We disagreed.

    You were not comfortable with it. So, what you are saying is that you “knew” something that the medical professional did not know? If so, how did you arrive our your conclusion? Did you consult medical journals to make the decision or did you go on feelings? And, if your wife had not paid attention to you, and went with the medical professional, God would have punished her by causing her to have an inadvertent abortion? he would have punished her to that extreme?

    This is a very difficult road if you make the claim that disagreeing with the husband will lead to death and destruction. On the other hand, for you, when you allowed your wife to do what you did not wish, it just results in a house that doesn’t float your boat.

    Also, that procedure could have been postponed for a month until you were both comfortable with the advice without any harm except another month of waiting.

    In case you think I am not sympathetic to your experience, my husband and I made a very difficult decision not to irradiate our 3 yo dgtr’s head when she was dealing with a brain tumor. However, our decision was made based on extensive medical advice, reading, along with prayer. It was the correct decision, by the way.

  51. Joe wrote:

    Wade Burleson believes his 5 step model for decision making is perfect, infallible and should apply to every decision making process.

    Huh? That is not what he said unless we are reading two different blogs.

  52. Gene wrote:

    Wade, I wonder if you might take a minute and specifically address the image Paul uses of the church submitting to Christ as the model for how the wife submits to her husband.

    I just had a thought. Could you (or Wade) show me some decisions in which Christ submitted to the Father in which it was not a decision that had been made a priori? (Meaning pre-Incarnation)? In other words, it was something that He intended to do which was different than what the Father wanted Him to do?

    I will reject the “let this cup pass from me” example because we know that Christ came to do exactly what He said he would do. he was expressing a reluctance appropriate to the situation? obviously he did not want to go through with the crucifixion because of the pain and humiliation but he planned to do so.

    In other words, what did Christ do that he did not intend to do as a show of submission to the Father?

  53. dee wrote:

    You were not comfortable with it. So, what you are saying is that you “knew” something that the medical professional did not know?

    No, I am saying I was not comfortable with it. We were being asked to make a decision in just a few minutes in order to schedule it. My view was to wait because next month was coming. It was not a necessary procedure, and God wasn’t punishing anyone or anything. The reality is that we would have never known had we done it, just as in the previous example of buying a house, the pastor and wife would have never known. Remember, we never go down the road not taken to see what it would have contained.

    This is a very difficult road if you make the claim that disagreeing with the husband will lead to death and destruction.

    I never claimed that, as you know, so I am not sure why you would even suggest it. I hope no one will read your statement and think it is in anyway related to anything I have said.

    Also, that procedure could have been postponed for a month until you were both comfortable with the advice without any harm except another month of waiting.

    Exactly. But she did not want to do that. She was, however, willing to submit to me.

  54. dee wrote:

    Could you (or Wade) show me some decisions in which Christ submitted to the Father in which it was not a decision that had been made a priori?

    I can’t think of anything. But I wonder how this is relevant here? Is there something I am missing?

  55. Joe wrote:

    So if the disagreement continues (the 5 step model doesn’t work), Wade just shifts the blame to the couple, which is known as victim blaming, and suggests marriage counseling.

    I’ve experienced victim blaming. That’s not it. Wade seemed to me to be communicating that the issue goes beyond the scope of what’s been covered here and requires more resources to resolve it.

  56. Gene wrote:

    But I wonder how this is relevant here?

    It is a claim, by many complementarians, that the wife submitting to the husband is a way to reflect how Christ submitted to the Father. As you know, the major problem with submission in marriage comes up when the two wills are at odds with one another.

    So, in order to more fully understand this word picture that the comps claim is present in Christ and the Father, we should see examples of how that was exhibited.

  57. Gene wrote:

    Wade, I wonder if you might take a minute and specifically address the image Paul uses of the church submitting to Christ as the model for how the wife submits to her husband

    I’m not Wade, but I share my view of the passage in question.

    First, notice that there is absolutely no mention of the word authority or rule in the relationship between Christ and the church. The focus is what Christ did for the church … laid down His life. That sacrificial giving up of His very life is the focus of the way a husband is to love his wife. She, then is “subject to” or the beneficiary of that degree of self-sacrifice just as the church is the beneficiary of Christ’s giving Himself for our benefit.

    Paul is nowhere setting up a hierarchy as is evidenced in his neglecting to command husbands to be an authority, leader, ruler, or decision-maker to his wife. The only admonishment to husbands is to lay down their lives as Christ did.

    Hope that helps.

  58. The original post:

    I am deeply concerned that complementarianism appears to be a tool in the hands of some Christians who are waging war against the culture

    That is something that began dawning on me a few months ago, and I raised it on the Spiritual Sounding Board blog a couple weeks ago or so, and here on this blog within the last few days.

    My impression is that the gender complementarians are motivated not by concern for women and esteeming women, but using these gender teachings to be anti-feminism, anti-liberalism, and anti- whatever- else- they- think- is- wrong- with- culture, weapons.

    One tip off to me that this is what motivates them is that the garden variety gender comps almost never address the needs and issues of childless, divorced, widowed, or never- married adult Christian women.

    They usually only talk about a woman as wife and mother.

    There has to be some weird agenda going on if you claim you are concerned for “biblical womanhood,” but then proceed to ignore a lot of women in the process.

    If gender comps really cared about all women, they would also be addressing the divorced, the never married, the childless, the widowed women.

    Secondly, any time they talk about the gender role topic, that I have seen anyway, it’s almost always couched in terms of how awful secular feminism has been for American culture.

    I don’t recall seeing them just discuss womanhood in positive terms, only in terms of how they think feminism or liberalism or whatever else has ruined women or society.

    Of course, there appears to be another type of gender complementarian that is pushing even beyond obsessing about women as wives and mothers, to keep any and all women, (whether childless, single, married, whatever), from having any offices or jobs of leadership any where – such as trying to convince even single, childless women that they also need male headship, and should not be allowed to hold jobs, etc.

  59. Gene wrote:

    I never claimed that, as you know, so I am not sure why you would even suggest it.

    You appeared to say that because your wife submitted to you, you were rewarded with a baby. If she had gone ahead, she would have aborted a a baby.

    In our marriage, we have made a point of not jumping the gun in any decision which is not life threatening. So, for us, this is a mutual submission sort of thing. We both give and take in this situation. It appears that this is the case for the both of you as well. So, we are back to square one. How is your situation an example of complementarian theology any different than my example?

    I am looking for specifics here. Just like we are to be baptized if we are Christians, what must we do or not do if we are complementarians?

  60. Daisy wrote:

    They usually only talk about a woman as wife and mother.

    This is a very important observation. What do they do when a woman is neither?

  61. dee wrote:

    It is a claim, by many complementarians, that the wife submitting to the husband is a way to reflect how Christ submitted to the Father.

    Really? I don’t recall ever seeing anyone claim this. Do you have any sources I could look at?

  62. FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 2013

    John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy

    It’s hard out there for a complementarian. No one understands them. Whenever an argument erupts between complementarians and egalitarians in a comment section, complementarians are quick to say “What you’re describing isn’t true complementarianism!”

    Well, then, what IS true complementarianism?

    Complementarianism is the belief, held by many conservative Christians, that men and women are created by God to be fundamentally equal but different, and that their differences complement each other.

    Oh! Well that sounds relatively harmless, I guess. I don’t believe that myself, but to each their own, different strokes for different folks, etc. etc.

    Furthermore, they believe that these differences preclude women from holding positions of leadership in the church or in their home. One of the differences between men and women, you see, is that women don’t make good leaders. So men should lead the church (as pastors and deacons) and lead in the home (as husbands and fathers), and women should submit themselves to this leadership.

    Oh. So they believe in a hierarchical relationship between men and women, with men as leaders? Isn’t that oppressive?

    At this point, John Piper, King of the Complementarians, would probably give an avuncular chuckle and shake his head. Because, you see, the men are actually supposed to be servant leaders. So there’s no problem.

    Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

    Certainly not! says Piper, probably while waving his hands dramatically. You see, Jesus was a servant leader too! If the man leads like Christ, there’s no problem!

    I see. Well here’s the thing: conservative Christians like Piper generally agree that Christ was perfect. So in saying this, they are essentially saying that in order for complementarianism to function properly, it requires a perfect husband.

    Or, to put it another way, the more Christlike a husband is, the better a complementarian relationship will function.

    This gives them a great deal of leverage when arguing with egalitarians. Any concerns that egalitarians raise about abuse of leadership by men can easily be dismissed. That’s not true complementarianism!

    A true complementarian would never abuse their wife, either physically or verbally, because Jesus never did that. A true complementarian would never abuse their authority in any way, because Jesus never did that. A true complementarian would never oppress a woman in any capacity, because Jesus never did that.

    Right. Just like a pastor would never abuse their authority, right? Why I bet if I go ahead and google “pastor abuse authority” I wouldn’t even get a single—

    Oh. Well, obviously, those aren’t REAL pastors! 

    This line of “reasoning” is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. You make a statement, such as “All Scotsmen put honey on their porridge.” The unfortunate consequence of this is that in order to disprove your statement, all I have to do is find one Scotsman that doesn’t put honey on his porridge. When I find him and triumphantly show him to you, you simply shake your head and say “That’s not a true Scotsman.”

    That’s the problem with the complementarian philosophy (and with the conservative Christian philosophy in general). It’s not enough to have a belief about how men and women relate. That belief has to be true for everyone. Everyone alive today, everyone who has lived, and everyone yet to be born. 

    The problem arises because humans are a diverse bunch. They can’t all be fit into the same mold. So questions arise. Like what to do if a complementarian husband abuses his wife. 

    Piper’s original line of reasoning is that the wife should involve the church authorities if this happens. Recently (four years after the statement in the previous link) he clarifies his position to say that women can involve the police if the church authorities can’t resolve the situation.

    At no point is the complementarian position violated. The abused woman is always under an authority – her husband, her pastor, or the civil authorities. In Piper’s world, two out of the three are guaranteed to be male, and there’s a good chance the third will probably be a man as well.

    Well, what if the police can’t resolve it either? Can the woman get a divorce?

    I mean, I know it’s next to impossible that the situation wouldn’t be resolved by this point – we’ve involved not one, not two, but three men and their massive male brains! But, hey, humor me.

    Hmmm…nothing about that in his “clarification”. I don’t believe he mentions it in the original video either. I’m sure it’s just an oversight. I’ll just pop over to desiringgod.org and take a look…

    Nope. I couldn’t find anything in which Piper said that an abused spouse could get a divorce. (If someone can find me a link to such a document, I will gladly post it.)

    This is the problem with making blanket statements such as “women must always submit to an authority” – what happens when all the authorities fail?

    God, of course, is the final authority in Piper’s mind. And God never fails, right?.

    Daisy,

    Thanks for sharing that article! I enjoyed that and it was good to have a laugh at a sad, frustrating topic. Like this bit at the end, “So if you’re a victim of abuse, take heart! In John Piper’s mind, you’re just doing God’s work.” Sad, true…but at the same time hilarious!

  63. One thing that puzzles me about gender complementarians and how they approach the Bible on verses that mention gender/ marriage, etc.

    You have a verse that talks about every one submitting to every one else (Eph 5:21, ‘Honor Christ by submitting to each other.’)- that verse gets ignored by gender comps, but putting that aside for the moment.

    You have another verse that talks about husbands loving their wives, as Christ loves the church (Eph 5:25).

    Then there’s another verse gender comps love to quote from Eph. about wives submitting to their husbands.

    I’m not sure how to ask this, but given that gender comps fixate on the “wives submit to the husband” verse as they do as meaning only wives must submit to husbands, do they mean to narrowly apply such verses so that the verse “husbands love your wives,” means that a married woman should not love her husband?

    If I’m a married woman, is it okay for me not to love my husband?

    In the style of gender comp Bible interpretation, it looks to me as though women can ignore “husbands love your wives” as meaning that they, the wife, do not have to love their husband, since there is no explicit verse which reads, “Wives, love your husbands as Christ loved the church.”

  64. Victorious wrote:

    First, notice that there is absolutely no mention of the word authority or rule in the relationship between Christ and the church.

    That is defining the problem out of existence. The word “subject” is a word of rule (look it up). By saying it doesn’t mean authority or rule is merely to change the definition to make it fit a conclusion. But the point is that Christ is the head of the church. In the NT, that is a position of rule. Start with Eph 1:20-23, and go from there. Find a place where Christ submits to the church.

    She, then is “subject to” or the beneficiary of that degree of self-sacrifice just as the church is the beneficiary of Christ’s giving Himself for our benefit.

    This completely turns to the point on its head. Hupatasso doesn’t mean beneficiary of. It means subject to, or in subjection to. Again, look it up.

    Hope that helps.

    Not at all.

  65. Omgosh what did I do I accidentally posted the whole article when I only intended to post the final part of what I said to Daisy good grief of did that happen I don’t know I blame it on the small screen I’m using on my phone and my neanderthal copy/paste skills.

  66. Daisy wrote:

    If gender comps really cared about all women, they would also be addressing the divorced, the never married, the childless, the widowed women.

    That is a straw-man argument without any empirical evidence to back it up.
    I love you. It makes me bristle, however, when blanket statements like the above are made which aleinate us from our complementarian friends (many of who follow this website and care very deeply for single women, mothers, and victims of abuse – even in the choice of their career/profession). We would get much more mileage by inviting them to the table – “Come, let us reason together…”

  67. dee wrote:

    You appeared to say that because your wife submitted to you, you were rewarded with a baby. If she had gone ahead, she would have aborted a a baby.

    Not at all.

    How is your situation an example of complementarian theology any different than my example?

    I am not sure how you are not complementarian other than railing against it here. I don’t know you or how things work, so I can’t really draw differences between us. For us, complementarian means I desire, respect, and seek out my wife’s input on things, particularly in areas of her knowledge and ability. At the end, when it comes time to make a decision, we try to make it a mutual decision that we both agree on. If “push comes to shove” (it’s a metaphor, not a real action), and we are at a deadline without agreement, the final decision is mine, whether that means I say, “We will do it your way, even though I would do it differently,” or “We will do it my way, even though you would do it differently.” We have never had disagreement over anything major, and occasionally we have had some “I told you so” moments, most of which are pretty good-natured. But in the end, someone has to lead. There is no such thing are true equality in any decision making process.

    what must we do or not do if we are complementarians?

    I would say recognize that God has created us with different gifting and different roles. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

  68. Deb wrote in the Original Post,

    As the mother of two daughters who are now adults, I am concerned about how the younger generation is being influenced to embrace gender roles.

    I’m in my early 40s now. It’s not just the younger generation hearing this stuff.

    I was brought up on this stuff by my Christian mother and saw these views in books, magazines, and TV shows by Christians growing up in the 1980s and 90s.

    I was taught growing up in the 80s that Christian women were to be quiet, demure, very nice, non confrontational, non assertive, the man was to be in charge, men should be leaders in marriage/ jobs/ politics, etc.

    We’d sometimes get fliers and pamphlets in the 80s/90s mailed to our home from surrounding Southern Baptist churches, and their articles and advice columns assumed the gender comp world view.

    The tips for ‘how to help your husband’ or ‘how to be a great wife’ in these mailings would be based on the assumption that the woman reading it was a stay at home wife/mom and believed that the husband was the head of the marriage, and yada yada.

  69. If gender comps really cared about all women, they would also be addressing the divorced, the never married, the childless, the widowed women.

    The ones I know do. But this is a straw man, as Daisy said. To quote Jesus, “These things you ought to have done and not left the others undone.” In other words, it’s not “this or that,” it is “this and that.”

  70. @ Gene:
    Gene, that is not the complementarianism taught by the NeoCals. To them, complementarianism would mean that you always get what you want in any disagreement is you are the husband, and she does not really challenge you on any preference you have or decision you make. What you describe in the comment referred to sounds a lot more like mutuality, aka egalitarianism.

  71. @ TedS.:

    I am living the life of a never married, childless adult woman in my 40s – it’s very true. It’s in the entirety of Christian culture, from gender comps, to Southern Baptists, to evangelical, to the Neo Reformed.

    Ditto marriage as idol. Churches do not spend money on ministries for adult singles over 25 – 30, and the singles notice it.

    Go into any Christian bookstore, observe the mountain of books on divorce recovery or how to have a great marriage

    Tell me, how many books do you see for single adults on how to live a single life? There are next to none.

    If you don’t notice the discrimination against single adults it’s likely because you are already married or under the age of 25.

    Please get the books “Quitting Church” by Christian author Julia Duin and “Singled Out” by Christian author Field and Colon for more on this.

    One reason many adult singles stop attending church is because most churches (evangelical, fundamentalist, Baptist, Neo Cal) are obsessed with nuclear family and marriage.

    One reason of several I am borderline agnostic and leaving the Christian faith is precisely all the marriage and parenthood worship that goes on in Baptist/ evangelical circles… adults singles who don’t have kids are either ignored or treated like failures /freaks for not achieving the Christian Dream of being Married With Two Kids.

    Don’t tell me I’m creating a Straw Man when I am living out this reality.

    And yes, Gender comps are very much into the marriage and parenthood idolatry which makes anyone who has never married or had children feel excluded.

  72. If “push comes to shove” (it’s a metaphor, not a real action), and we are at a deadline without agreement, the final decision is mine, whether that means I say, “We will do it your way, even though I would do it differently,” or “We will do it my way, even though you would do it differently.”

    BTW, Dee, in many of these cases I do it her way, cuz you know, If momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. Seriously, I often do things I would otherwise do, but I do them because she wants to. For me to “put my foot down” (metaphor, people!!), it is going to have be something I am strongly convinced of. But I have confidence that we are a team, and we trust each other.

  73. TedS. wrote:

    That is a straw-man argument without any empirical evidence to back it up.
    I love you. It makes me bristle, however, when blanket statements like the above are made which aleinate us from our complementarian friends

    A strawman argument is a purposefully flawed argument one puts up so that they can knock it down later.

    That aside, I also must say I don’t see the problem with Daisy’s observation. The comp crowd really does act as though every woman worth referring to is married and has children. That’s been the experience I’ve had in every evangelical church I’ve ever been to. Total disregard for female singles. I’ve even had married women tell me that they found they were astonishingly found more “fit” for various ministries by their churches when they got married, things they would have been passed over for when single.

  74. Sheesh … last post should say, “I often do things I wouldn’t otherwise do.” Feel free to edit that one and delete this one if you can.

  75. @ dee:

    As a never married and childless woman, when I read material by gender comps, I always wait for the part of the article or book where they talk about womanhood in a way that is applicable to me (childless and single), but they tend to go on and on about motherhood and wives.

    Some of the few times I have seen gender comps talk about single women, it’s usually assumed that the single woman reading the books / blog is 21 and will be married by 25 or 30.

    It’s not just gender comps in particular but Baptist and evangelical culture that does this and since I’ve been exposed to Neo Calvinism online the past few years, it crops up in Neo Cal writings and attitudes as well.

    When I read material by gender comps, I am looking for stuff that applies to single women but it’s never there (unless they assume you will marry by the time you’re 25).

    I used to read “biblical womanhood” stuff growing up in my teens and 20s about a woman’s role being a wife and mom, and it did not bug me too much back then, since I assumed I’d be married by 30 or 35, but I’m still single in my 40s.

    There is nothing in Christianity for me, because most Christians presuppose you are married with a kid.

    If you have never married or had children, you are persona non grata at most churches or in Christian culture.

  76. @ Gene:
    Are you aware of the SBTS generated theology of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) and how this ties into the eternal submission of women both now and in eternity? You can start reading here.

    http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/eternal-subordination-of-the-son-the-basics-part-i/

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2008/10/semi-arianism-masquerading-as-othodoxy.html

    Women and men in marriage are to reflect the Father and Son. Marriage is supposed to be a word picture that leads people to the Gospel which is tied up in this submissive relationship in the Godhead.

    The battle is not over simple roles here on earth. That is why it is vital to understand what is really being said.

  77. Arce wrote:

    To them, complementarianism would mean that you always get what you want in any disagreement is you are the husband, and she does not really challenge you on any preference you have or decision you make.

    Can you point me to someone who actually says this or espouses it so I could see it?

  78. @ Daisy:
    Your comment could have basically been written by me except that I’m approaching 30. Which is practically spinster-lady-esque in evangelical christian years.

  79. Gene wrote:

    BTW, Dee, in many of these cases I do it her way, cuz you know, If momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. Seriously, I often do things I would otherwise do, but I do them because she wants to.

    And so does she. So, again, what is the difference?

  80. dee wrote:

    Gav Whi wrote:
    A better place for more accurate exposition.
    OK-back off, Gavin. It is starting again. Last warning.

    I made no criticism of anyone or their views. I suggested there were more accurate expositions to be found than the one given. Only Arce considered it and then replied, giving reasons why it was not persuasive. I am not persuaded by what Arce said, so we continue to hold our own opinion. And that’s how it should be.

    Now as for Joe.
    There might be something else in play with Joe when he suggests ‘flipping a coin’. In a remarkable coincidence, less than an hour before I read the post, I had been browsing through Bryan Chappell’s commentary on Ephesians and had come across the exact phrase. Only the context was (kind of) different. Chappell explained that he had been counselling a young couple whose marriage was in trouble because of the husband’s view of biblical leadership in the home. Asked to explain his position the young man said that “If I come home from work and am trying to relax by watching tv or by reading the paper, my wife may ask for some help with something in the kitchen, or with the kids ( he had three pre-schoolers, including a set of twins). To make sure we both know who is the head of our home, I flick a coin in my mind. If it comes up heads, I help. If it comes up tails I don’t. That way there’s no question of who is in charge”.

  81. @ Gene:
    Gene, what you describe in this comment is egalitarianism or mutuality, not complementarianism — you let her have her way and that is not a complementarian thing to do in NeoCal land.

  82. dee wrote:

    Are you aware of the SBTS generated theology of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) and how this ties into the eternal submission of women both now and in eternity?

    Yes, but that’s not SBTS generated. That’s historic orthodoxy of functional trinitarianism (as opposed to ontological trinitarianism). Presbyterian Charles Hodge was saying that around the same time SBTS was started in the mid-1800s. But neither suggest that there was disagreement between the Father and the Son to my knowledge.

  83. @ dee:

    That is kind of tied into how gender complementarians tie stereotypical gender role views to men and women.

    My study of codependency opened my eyes to another problematic thing with gender complementariansm: they may not even be aware of it themselves, but it seems that at the back of their minds, is a belief that there is a ‘blue Jesus’ that men are to pattern themselves after, and a ‘pink, girly Jesus’ Christian women are to copy.

    It appears to me that the Bible teaches that Christians, male and female, are supposed to emulate all of Jesus’ character.

    Women are not to emulate only the “compassionate, loving” side of Jesus, while men are to emulate only the “tough guy, assertive” side of Jesus.

    If you are a woman, you are supposed to balance the compassionate side of Jesus’ traits with Jesus’ assertive side. (Ditto for men. )

    But gender complementarians keep wanting to divide up characteristics of Jesus Christ into a “boy category” and a “girl category.”

    So, you end up with Jesus’ yelling at Pharisees in public, or over-turning the tables in the temple (i.e., showing anger, being assertive), as being something men are to emulate, but women are not.

    Women are encouraged, by gender comps, to copy Jesus only on things like washing dirty feet (i.e., servant hood, waiting on other people, meeting other people’s needs) or Jesus weeping at Lazarus’ tomb (showing compassion, sad feelings).

  84. Gene wrote:

    I am not sure how you are not complementarian other than railing against it here.

    How do I “rail” against it? What I say, over and over and over, is that there is little that makes sense to me in the theology. I believe that theology has meaning for our lives. If organizations are being formed,(CBMW) money being raised, new theological theories (ESS) being espoused, women being told to leave their positions in Christian academia, etc. then something is vital, really vital about this doctrine. I am doing my darndest to figure it out. It makes little sense to me.

    And, you can be sure that if I, who makes this sort of thing my avocation is having trouble, you can be sure that most people are having trouble. And, if the Gospel is being tied to these gender roles (and it is), then it is vital that I come to an understanding of the whole shooting match.

    I have often said that people would not be able to differentiate between my marriage and a comp marriage. Yet we had a pastor rail against us in the pulpit claiming that we deny make headship! Yet, I have been married for a looooong time and have lead a traditional life. So, the problem for comps is telling me where I am going wrong because I can’t see it.

  85. @ Gene:

    Where are some examples of where Christ allows the church to make decisions against his will and judgment?

    I know this probably doesn’t contribute to the discussion, but just one or two caveats based on my experience:

    1. Husbands aren’t perfect so there are some key differences between husbands and Jesus. Namely, the husband can be wrong and thus does not have an automatic right to have his opinion treated as gospel/absolute truth.

    2. Where does this end? I’ve known comp wives who have to run all their clothing choices past their husbands and if he says take it back to the store, they do. They have to ask their husbands’ permission to join musical groups. I’ve known comp husbands who tell their wives which days of the week they can and cannot leave the house. If we take your statement above as absolute (which is how you phrased it) without taking into consideration the differences between husbands and Jesus, we end up in patriarchy, where the wife has to run to her husband to get permission for literally everything, and the husband has absolute veto power over even the smallest disagreement, since he’s “Jesus.” You obviously don’t believe that, and we know from common sense and experience that marriages that run that way usually aren’t very healthy.

    So how and where do you draw the line in practicality to keep it from ending up there? And if the wife gets to make her own decision about something (anything, really, in your example), is it just a gracious “concession” on the part of the husband to “allow” her such freedom? The corollary to this, of course, is that he would be completely justified in “cracking down” at any moment, and no one could criticize his decision because he’s “Jesus” in the marriage and thus his word is law.

  86. Gene keeps giving us examples of decisions in which his wife got her way. My point is that that is mutuality or egalitarianism, and not comp as taught by Piper, the NeoCals, etc., etc. Gene is living the egalitarian life and calling it comp! Just like my parents, except my Mom probably was the leader in the relationship but would have denied that in a nanosecond.

  87. @ Moxie:

    Being single in most Christian circles doesn’t get any better the older you get. It seems to get worse in some ways. 🙁

    I don’t see why that guy was saying I was ‘creating a straw man’ when I am relating things based on my own experience of being a never married / childless woman who was brought up in a gender complementarian home / church background.

    As I was growing up and got into my mid 30s, I kept waiting for Christians to come up with books and sermons for what to do if you’re still single/childless past your mid 20s (beyond the usual “just keep waiting and God will send you a husband” type advice), and I’ve yet to hear much of anything on the topic of how to live life as a celibate single past your mid 20s.

    And, on the internet in recent years, I’ve run into more and more other adult singles who are like me, who have noticed the very same things in Christianity.

    There are also books by Christians who are celibate singles who have interviewed other celibate, Christian adult singles (I noted some of those titles above), and they too are chock full of sad or horrible stories of never married /divorced / childless women (and men) who feel excluded (or insulted) in or by churches.

    This is a very real problem that exists, not a straw man argument I am manufacturing to bash gender compism.

    The Gender Comps tend to be worse about all this, because they are so obsessed in upholding traditional marriage and having babies to fight secular culture and feminism.

  88. Gene wrote:

    But the point is that Christ is the head of the church. In the NT, that is a position of rule.

    Why did Paul not tell husbands to “hupottsso” their wives, then? Not one place is scripture is that found. No, the picture of Christ as head of the church is that of laying down His life for us. That’s the command for husbands.

    Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.

    Husbands lay down your life for your wife just as Christ did for the church. Wives will be the beneficiary of that type of love just as the church is.

  89. dee wrote:

    So, again, what is the difference?

    Again, I don’t know you well enough to know the difference. What you describe about your relationship, at least here, is complementarian in sound. I am willing to leave it at that and not sit in judgment on someone’s else marriage.

    Arce’s comment that what I am describing is egalitarian indicates that something is seriously amiss. I don’t know any complementarian would who disagree with what I have said.

  90. Hester wrote:

    So how and where do you draw the line in practicality to keep it from ending up there?

    Honor her gifts, intellect, personality, education, abilities, personhood, and contributions to my life and our family. Treat her like a person because she is a person made in the image of God.

  91. Gene, in fact, Jesus specifically said Christians are not to exercise authority over one another. See Luke 22:25; Mark 10:41-45; and Matt. 20:25-28

    Why would Paul contradict Jesus’ words?

  92. And “head” in the NT context does not mean boss or ruler. It means source. Adam was the source of Eve (she was made from something taken from his body, according to Genesis). Jesus Christ is the source of the church. The human head is the source of the body, because through it come all the necessities of life. According to first century thinking, the heart was the boss of the body, where thinking etc., was thought to occur. Hence all of the language, extant even to today about emotions being in the heart, and one giving one’s heart to another (never actually happens, but turning one’s mind over to God does happen!!!) The verses in question are terribly misinterpreted and misapplied.

  93. Hester wrote:

    @ Gene:
    2. Where does this end? I’ve known comp wives who have to run all their clothing choices past their husbands and if he says take it back to the store, they do. They have to ask their husbands’ permission to join musical groups. I’ve known comp husbands who tell their wives which days of the week they can and cannot leave the house. If we take your statement above as absolute (which is how you phrased it) without taking into consideration the differences between husbands and Jesus, we end up in patriarchy, [etc]

    All of that behavior you describe, where the woman is not making her own choices for herself, based on what she feels / knows is right for her, and is allowing another adult to make decisions for her (especially if she is doing so out of guilt, feelings of obligation, or fear), is called codependency.

    If you make a list of the typical traits of codependency, and make a list of the typical ‘womanhood’ traits gender comps think women should have, the lists would largely be identical.

    Gender complementarianism is codependency under religious veneer.

    And codependency is not biblical.

    In the Bible, God actually warns people against being codependent, especially in numerous examples in the Old Testament, where He tells the people to fear Him only, to follow Him first, and not cave into what other people decide or want for you, out of deference or fear to people.

  94. Victorious wrote:

    Why did Paul not tell husbands to “hupottsso” their wives, then?

    Bingo!! You have hit the nail square on the head. Paul didn’t tell husbands to “hupostasso” their wives because he, by inspiration of the Spirit, was a complementarian.

    And BTW, someone brought up wives loving their husbands. First part of the church’s submission to Christ is to love him, and second, Titus 2:4 does tell wives to love their husbands.

  95. @ Daisy:

    All of that behavior you describe, where the woman is not making her own choices for herself, based on what she feels / knows is right for her, and is allowing another adult to make decisions for her (especially if she is doing so out of guilt, feelings of obligation, or fear), is called codependency.

    Indeed it is. And the kind of really controlling situations I’ve described, also fostered manipulative behavior and blameshifting in the wives, where they would say things like “I’m so glad all I have to do is submit, that way everything is his fault.” Because that’s Christian.

  96. Arce wrote:

    Gene is living the egalitarian life and calling it comp!

    Or maybe you don’t know what complementarianism actually is?

    And “head” in the NT context does not mean boss or ruler. It means source.

    Um, so the husband is the source of the wife, and God the father is the source of the Son? Please do at least a little exegetical work. You don’t have to be an expert, but we could at least do away with stuff like this, can’t we?

  97. Hester wrote:

    “I’m so glad all I have to do is submit, that way everything is his fault.”

    Yes, in a twisted, round-about-way, it’s an effort to maintain some measure of control by being manipulative and blameshifting.

  98. Gene, in fact, Jesus specifically said Christians are not to exercise authority over one another. See Luke 22:25; Mark 10:41-45; and Matt. 20:25-28

    Why would Paul contradict Jesus’ words?

    I don’t think Paul contradicted Jesus. If you read those verses, you will see that they are talking about something different than this. Everytime you see “authority” or a similar word, it doesn’t mean the same thing. Remember, children are to obey their parents. Is that a contradiction? Of course not. And Rom 13 says that God ordained human authorities. So obviously, there is a bit more to this than simply trotting out a few verses and claiming victory.

    I need to slow down here for a number of reasons. I have tried to be respectful enough of those who have interacted with me to give a response. But I need to move on, so unless someone specifically asks me a question or a direct comment, I will likely not say much more.

    I do hope Wade will get a moment to address the authority of Christ over his church. I would like to see his comments on that.

  99. Daisy wrote:

    This is a very real problem that exists, not a straw man argument I am manufacturing to bash gender compism.

    I agree, and I haven’t even had time to experience the full complement of stuff that is hurled at single women in the church. I have, however, been handed that “Lady in Waiting” book by someone in a bible study, to whom I had not even expressed the desire to be married!

    The thing is, I think I may actually be “called” to singleness. I may never get married. My only real unhappiness over this prospect is the way I know I will be treated by other people. Sometimes, when I have daydreamed about being married, I’m usually dreaming about how nice it would be to not show up as the single person in social situations, or to be treated with more respect and dignity, to not be passed over and disregarded for my singleness. I rarely am dreaming of Mr. Right. So all of the ladies who gave me unsolicited advice about how if I was just content God would send me a husband– they are the ones who manufactured my discontent! I’m actually fine… I am a PhD in a hard science, I have a nice job, strong opinions, family, friends… I am whole. It’s the churchianity, nuclear-family obsessed culture that has decided that I am not.

  100. I re-read that page I linked to above,
    No True Complementarian,
    and I did notice (the author makes this point), that while complementarians claim that the genders are “equal but different,” and claim that their difference complement each other, that in the end scheme of things, in gender complementarianism, the men end up with all the power and control and in-charge. 😆

    So, gender complementarianism is not about complementing anything, but about a male-favored hierarchy.

    It is rather suspicious that in a world view, whose proponents claim to be about male and female equality and complementing, that the males end up with all the power and final say-so. 😆

  101. Daisy wrote:

    I did notice (the author makes this point), that while complementarians claim that the genders are “equal but different,” and claim that their difference complement each other,

    Something just hit me too. It seems so obvious now that I write it out. If you actually had a world view that said men and women were two incomplete halves that complement each other, and you believed that men are the stronger half of that equation, it makes sense that you would disregard singles and especially single women. If women are an incomplete and inferior half, it makes sense they would be treated so poorly and with such disregard. So complementarianism, even if it is kept to the confines of marriage, hurts single women (and men) as well.

  102. Moxie wrote:

    My only real unhappiness over this prospect is the way I know I will be treated by other people.

    I know what you mean. I still would like to be married. Being single was probably most hard when I was in my mid and late 30s.

    I’ve arrived at a place now where, no, I’m not thrilled to still be single, but I’ve kind of made peace with it.

    Where I really relate to what you write is if I’m having a day, week, or month where I’m basically doing okay with being single, but then I run into a married Christian person in person, or on a blog, or TV show, who makes me feel bad about being single.

    I was doing just fine until they said or did something to suggest there is something wrong with being a single adult.

    It is funny that some of the Christian married people who lecture us loudest about “being content” in our singleness make us feel the most dis-contented at times, what with the unsolicited advice, or unintended put-downs.

    Some of them can come across as condescending, too, even under the guise of trying to help singles.
    So, I am also not a fan of the articles by married Christian people who seek to reassure us singles that we are not big losers just for being single.

    From some of them, it comes across as insulting but they are trying to be encouraging.

    There’s also a lot of the “your greatest role in life, given by God, is to be a wife and mother” view aimed at women in gender complementarian or traditional- gender- role flavored preaching, book writing, and blogging.

    I don’t think these guys realize how hurtful or offensive it is or can be, since not all women marry or have children.

  103. Gene wrote:

    Bingo!! You have hit the nail square on the head. Paul didn’t tell husbands to “hupostasso” their wives because he, by inspiration of the Spirit, was a complementarian.

    My mistake, Gene. Sorry. What I meant is why did Paul not tell husbands to rule or have or exert authority over their wives. Nowhere in scripture is such a verse found. So, we’re reading something into scripture that’s simply not there. When we admit there’s no such scripture, then we must re-evaluate what Paul meant when he spoke about wives in relationship to their husbands.

  104. Does Christ submit to the Church?

    Hmm, well, He called his disciples friends and told them (and by extension, us) that they (we) are welcome to ask Him or the Father for things in His name and He would do it. Quite often, during His earthly ministry when He encountered a person in need, He would ask that person what it was that he or she wanted. It’s not a ‘Jump, sir? How high, sir?’ kind of submission but rather a ‘You guys climbed the roof and made a hole in it so you could get your mate on his stretcher into the house to Me, why, of course I want to heal him’ kind of attitude. He’s not a genie in a lamp either.

    I read somewhere recently that ‘hupotasso’ means strict military obedience in a military context but in ordinary circumstances it means more in terms of co-operation. I’m sorry I didn’t make a note of where I read it as ‘co-operation’ gives, to me at least, the idea of working together as a team, whether in a marriage or a church community or among friends or colleagues, but also of maintaining healthy boundaries and forestalling abuse. Forced co-operation is not co-operation, it is coercion.

  105. Gene wrote:

    I do hope Wade will get a moment to address the authority of Christ over his church. I would like to see his comments on that.

    He has written about authority in marriage several times. If you’d like to read his views, you can access them here:

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/search?q=+authority+in+marriage

    Or do a search for additional information.

    BTW, Paul expressly says the wife has authority over the husband in the area of sexual intimacy in 1 Cor. 7.

  106. Moxie wrote:

    It seems so obvious now that I write it out. If you actually had a world view that said men and women were two incomplete halves that complement each other,

    Oh, good points! Yes, I’ve heard pastors on TV say this sort of thing. I sometimes see it on blogs or in Christian magazine articles.

    When they give marriage sermons, I’ve heard some of them teach that a man alone, an unmarried man, is only ‘half’ of God’s image, and a woman by herself is only half of God’s image, and for them to be one whole being, who fully reflects God, they must be joined (married).

    As an unmarried person, you hear that stuff and wonder if these married men who give these sermons or lectures never stop to think about the ramifications of their gender role and marriage views on people who are not married, and may never be married, or whose spouses have passed away or divorced them.

    I’d also like to know, where is the Bible verse that says that a woman has to be married to a man to be considered a “whole” person and to be totally in God’s image?

    I also heard a sermon from a male preacher (on TV) whose entire premise was that a woman can accomplish her meaning in life by serving her husband well.

    I kept waiting for that preacher to say, “for those you ladies who are not married, here is how you can fulfill God’s calling in life,” but he had nothing to say for, or to, single ladies.

    Yet another preacher, in another sermon (and he also gave a “single people are only on half a person until they marry” sermon earlier), taught that a man cannot meet his purpose and dreams in life alone, that he needs his wife for that (and vice versa).

    I don’t think the genius stopped to consider he may have divorced people, widowers, or never married adults listening to his sermon.

    The implication with his view is that if you are single, you are unable to accomplish your dreams, God’s goals for you, etc.

    I write on other blogs and sites, and I have heard from Christian men who are 40 and older who have never married (a few were divorced and single for years after), and they sometimes get insulting comments and attitudes as well.

    Some of them have attended churches or denominations that teach a man is not a “real” man unless he marries and has ten off spring.

    Getting married and/or having children is equated with being a “real” grown-up in many denominations. You’re not a “real” adult, godly man unless you marry. You’re not a “real” adult godly woman unless you marry and have children.

  107. Victorious wrote:

    Gene wrote:

    I do hope Wade will get a moment to address the authority of Christ over his church. I would like to see his comments on that.

    He has written about authority in marriage several times. If you’d like to read his views, you can access them here:

    http://www.wadeburleson.org/search?q=+authority+in+marriage

    Or do a search for additional information.

    BTW, Paul expressly says the wife has authority over the husband in the area of sexual intimacy in 1 Cor. 7.

    Gene,

    I would encourage you to read the links Victorious has referenced. “Authority” is a word totally misused and abused by evangelicals. Christ has “all authority” but in relationship to the church, He woos us with His love, bestows upon us the title of “co-heir” with Him, and calls Himself our “bond-servant.” THAT is the kind of authority all Christians need to seek!

  108. @ Searching:

    The guy I was engaged to for several years was the same way.

    He would make a decision I knew was bad or wrong and would cost him money or grief. I would warn him.

    He would disregard my warnings. Then he’d go ahead with the decision and end up losing money or getting grief.

    After about three years of this, when he’d make a mistake (and where I had warned him beforehand), he’d turn to me and say, “I don’t know why I don’t listen to you. You’re always right.” (But he would still blow off any warnings or advice I gave him.)

    I heard that comment from him on more than one occasion (the “you are always right I should listen to you”).

    I finally stopped warning him after awhile and let him make stupid choices knowing full well the outcome, and yes, those additional stupid choices cost him more time/ money/ jobs/ a stolen car.

    And gender comps would have wanted me to submit to that foolishness?? No thank you. Had I married that joker and “submitted”, I’d be living in a box under a bridge starving.

  109. dee wrote:

    Joe wrote:

    Wade Burleson believes his 5 step model for decision making is perfect, infallible and should apply to every decision making process.

    Huh? That is not what he said unless we are reading two different blogs.

    Wade stated, “Here is how a Spirit-filled couple makes a decision in marriage.” To me, that is an emphatic statement because he lists a 5 step model with explanations of each step. He doesn’t allow for the possibility that there could be more than 5 steps, or the model may not apply in all situations or there could be a somewhat different model, etc.

  110. Gene wrote:

    So what if neither happens and the disagreement is just as strong as it ever was?

    Are you assuming while asking that the default should be “why the man gets the final say so.” Because that is how most gender comps respond to that scenario. Why should the dude get the final say so?

  111. @ Deb:

    I don’t mean to be a broken record, since I mentioned this several posts above, but this stuff was around when I was growing up in the 1980s and the 1990s. I was exposed to it as a Christian teen growing up, by my mother, and in Christian books, magazines, and sermons.

    It started to get pushed a little bit harder around the time the SBC came out with that agreement thing about “wives should submit graciously to their husbands,” whenever that was, the mid or late 1990s? That was in the papers a lot whenever that happened.

    This indoctrination of traditional gender roles have been around since the 1980s (maybe 70s), but I think it’s gotten even more strident now, maybe, than back then.

    Maybe that is due partially to the existence of the internet now, where non-gender comps can immediately respond to comps online, and the gender comps have notice this, and that they don’t have an easy monopoly on the discourse?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the acceptance of homosexual marriage gaining ground the last five, ten years has also spurred this stronger push by the gender comps recently.

    (I.E., as I said above, gender complementarian views are less about defending women, or being pro woman, than they are about using gender comp as an anti-feminism, anti-homosexuality, anti-liberalism weapon).

    You also have more and more articles and books published the last five years about how women are out-pacing men in college, the workforce, and how more and more people are not marrying at all, or not until an older age, and the women who do marry are not having children.

    Maybe gender comps think if only women stay out of school, marry by 21, and have ten kids and be housewives, then it will help men get all the jobs and do better in college, and there will be more marriage and more babies?

    I could be wrong, but I really do suspect that the gender comp views are driven more by wanting to smack down feminism, and homosexuality, and to return America to 1955 Ward and June Cleaver nuclear cultural family ideal, than it is in being pro-woman, or faithful to the Bible, etc.

    I’m still a social conservative, and I used to be a gender comp, so I tend to understand how they think and why they think what they do. (I no longer share all their views or agree with how the views should be carried out, though.)

  112. Wade Burleson wrote:

    Christ has “all authority” but in relationship to the church, He woos us with His love, bestows upon us the title of “co-heir” with Him, and calls Himself our “bond-servant.” THAT is the kind of authority all Christians need to seek!

    Yes, He does, and yes, we should.

  113. @ Arce:

    That sounds like my parent’s marriage.

    My mother sincerely believed in the stuff about the man being the leader and having authority, but I noticed even as a kid, she made most of the decisions and got her way.

    It made me wonder as a kid, teen and 20 something, why she bothered telling me that was a proper way for a Christian wife to think/ act if she didn’t live it out consistently.

  114. JeffT wrote:

    That is, where are the religious activities that men are prohibited from engaging in? There are none.

    I agree with the gist of your post, and it is true, but there is maybe one exception:

    Depending on the church or denomination, men who are not married (including widowers) are often prohibited from working as preachers, Sunday School teachers, or elders.

    Mark Driscoll not too long ago wrote a long response to a single man who asked him about this on his blog.

    Driscoll’s response was one long justification of discrimination against singles in church. He thinks only married men should be preachers and serve in other leadership roles.

  115. Great post Dee and Deb! I have to say the more my husband and I grew in the Lord, the less controlling we have both become. We allow the other (where their gifts lie)to usually be the deciding factor in making decisions. I am 100% in agreement with this article by Wade; excellent! Submission towards one another is what creates harmony and peace-it really does.
    It is tragic when couples become deceived into thinking that a “caste system” within marriage is the “biblical” model of marriage. 🙁

  116. Daisy wrote:

    JeffT wrote:
    That is, where are the religious activities that men are prohibited from engaging in? There are none.
    I agree with the gist of your post, and it is true, but there is maybe one exception:
    Depending on the church or denomination, men who are not married (including widowers) are often prohibited from working as preachers, Sunday School teachers, or elders.
    Mark Driscoll not too long ago wrong a long response to a single man who asked him about this on his blog.,
    Driscoll’s response was one long justification of discrimination against singles in church. He thinks only married men should be preachers and serve in other leadership roles.

    And even if there is not a written prohibition, you try and get a job as a pastor in your 30s without a wife/ kids…local member of church staff could not move due to his lack of marital status. Sadly for him, finding a wife that was not divorced or had other problems was difficult once he got into his 30s….he is now eligible to retire, but probably won’t. He has no life outside the church building….and that’s sort of sad….

  117. @ Gene:
    Yes, I do know exactly what complementarianism is and what it isn’t. And it is an oppression based on faulty understanding, due to errors in translation of the scriptures. It is not only man have the last word, but also a requirement of total submission of women to their husband, and, if not married, to another male (father, pastor, etc.). It becomes patriarchy in practice.

    Egalitarianism does not say that everyone is the same, just equal in rights and in relationship. Of course men and women are different, and within each gender there are wide differences in abilities, so that in any way you would choose to look at differences, some women are more of whatever than some men, and some men are more of whatever than some women. The only biologically based differences are in the reproductive system, and the necessary related hormonal differences, and there is variation in the hormonal systems as well.

    So, if you think we do not know what complementarianism is, please provide a description that you, Piper, etc., all agree upon, and how that is different than what Piper teaches, which is patriarchalism.

  118. Teri Anne wrote:

    Many men who believe in patriarchy may lie about their beliefs to lure a woman into a relationship, and may not reveal their true beliefs until after marriage when she is already trapped

    I’ve heard of that happening from reading other sites.

    It’s interesting you read his profile, the guy who contacted you.

    My experience has been (and other women have said the same thing in their dating site experiences too) that men rarely read a woman’s profile.

    They merely glance at the photo you have on your profile and contact you based on the photos, if they think you are attractive. Non Christian men also do this on dating sites.

    It’s so bad that a woman recently did an experiment where she borrowed a model friend’s photo (with said friend’s permission), used that as her profile picture on a dating site, and made herself out to sound horrible in her profile.

    She still got hit on by bazillions of men in moments of signing up on the dating site.

    This experiment of hers was reported on several well known sites.

    These men either did not read her profile (where she admitted to using men for money and other bad things), or they did not care she (her fictional persona) was horrible. They only saw the photo and cared about the photo.

    When I used dating sites, I saw men who listed themselves as Christian, have very tawdry, sex related jokes or language on their profile pages. That was an immediate turn off to me.

    Once I get to know you well, a bit of bathroom humor is fine with me, but if I don’t know you, and it’s on a dating site, I expect men to behave like gentlemen.

  119. Gene wrote:

    Wade, I wonder if you might take a minute and specifically address the image Paul uses of the church submitting to Christ as the model for how the wife submits to her husband. How would you explain how that image supports your view?

    It also says that a husband is to love a wife the way Christ loves the church.

    If you only apply that verse to males only, it means wives don’t have to love their husbands.

    Do you believe the Bible teaches that married women should not love their husbands?

    No? Then why would you understand the “wives submit” verse to mean only wives submit to husbands, and never, ever vice versa?

    Gender comps are too narrow in their application of biblical verses.

    (Earlier in the Ephesians chapter, it says all are to submit to all. Gender comps ignore that verse, though.)

  120. @ Joe:

    And what is your solution to Gene’s question, that the husband gets the final decision making position?

  121. dee wrote:

    Many of these so called “important” disagreements are not that important. And the way men pull the trump card speaks volumes as to their underlying belief that somehow they “know better.”

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence that many of those most hardcore Neo-Cal comps also seem to struggle with narcissistic tendencies.

  122. Evie wrote:

    If it so happens that they are also a believer then great! But I’ve decided I’m not going to close myself off to unbelievers. But that’s me.

    I’m of the same mindset. For many years, I was holding out to marry a Christian man, but there are none out there my age and single.

    Leaving me with the choice of living the rest of life alone, or considering marriage to a Non Christian. I’m now okay with the idea of dating or marrying a Non Christian.

    Most of the only folks who chaff at this are
    1. Christians who are already married or
    2. idealistic Christians who are under 25 years of age who deep down believe God will send them a Christian spouse eventually.

  123. Hear that? It’s the hum of my printer, whirring out copies for each of my children and a few extras for ready distribution.

    This is an uncannily timely post as I just (half an hour ago!) finished having a conversation with two of my teens that included this very issue. So thankful for a clear, gracious statement on the matter that speaks to both exegesis and practical function.

    Thanks Wade, Rachelle, Dee & Deb. You are tremendously appreciated!

  124. @ Lori:

    I celebrate my 36th wedding anniversary next Tuesday. Perhaps I have my head in the clouds, but in my experience I have not seen so many women struggling under the weight of complementarianism that it would make single women glad to be single. Plus, I very much agree with Wade’s post, and know many men who are not egalitarian, who try to live in the way Wade describes.

    Seems to me that this is just good marriage 101.

    Sin is present in both complementarian and egalitarian marriages, and failure to respect and submit to each other is problematic in both marriages. It happens in both too.

    At least within marriage it seems that much fuss is made over semantics. A complementarian husband who lords over his wife will unlikely get much “luvin”, and an egalitarian husband who fails to consider his wife’s position will also have to deal with the consequences of his sin.

    In my marriage, I am the husband, father, fixer of the cars (because I can), and generally take care of the tougher chores around the house. I weigh 205 pounds, my dear wife weighs 110. So I will see to the strange noise in the basement at night.

    My spouse is the wife and mother and grandmother. She is complementary in her views and has chosen not to pursue earnings outside of the home. That is her choice and desire. We have a large home, and she is free to hire help if she needs it.

    I am sure she would say that I am the head of the home, although I am unlikely to.

    What I am trying to get to, is that Wade’s really good description of mutual submission doesn’t slam dunk either position. It is just good Christian living within marriage.

    I cannot be a mother. She cannot be a father. She is needed as a mom in the home more than I am needed as dad (I can’t breastfeed) in our mutual opinion. This, at least within marriage, is obvious and complementarian.

    Thanks Wade for a great piece on living in a Christian marriage. Hopefully it will cause singles to desire and seek such a marriage for themselves.

  125. dee wrote:

    On the other hand, for you, when you allowed your wife to do what you did not wish, it just results in a house that doesn’t float your boat.

    I have noticed in many of these debates (not just here but on other blogs) when the gender comp man says he gave in to the wife on some point or another, it’s almost always about purchasing a house, a car, or where/if to move. I’m not sure what to make of that.

  126. @ JeffT:

    In fairness, men who believe in comp are prevented from those really fun roles of wiping poop, cleaning toilets, washing dishes, and folding clothes

  127. Gene wrote:

    I never claimed that, as you know, so I am not sure why you would even suggest it

    You may be baffled by that, but I too thought the same thing when I read your comment, that you were implying that a wife not going along with her husband, or him not having final say, could lead to death or God punishing her or both.

    You may not have meant that, but it was how it came across to me when I read it.

  128. Gene wrote:

    Really? I don’t recall ever seeing anyone claim this. Do you have any sources I could look at?

    Some gender complementarians do claim this.

    When Christian gender egalitarians began drawing parallels to humans and the trinity, to poke holes in some gender complementarian positions and who how weak those positions are, gender complementarians began retorting by saying, oh no, Jesus the son was not only somewhat subordinate to God the Father while incarnate on earth, but also in eternity past, and will be subordinate to the Father in eternity future.

    This is called ESS, Eternal Subordination of the Son.

    If you do a search for the phrase “eternal subordination of the son,” you can find a lot of pages about the topic from both a complementarian and an egalitarian view.

    Why the Trinity is Not the Complementarian Trump Card: Part 2

  129. Daisy wrote:

    One thing that puzzles me about gender complementarians and how they approach the Bible on verses that mention gender/ marriage, etc.

    Daisy wrote:

    Gender comps are too narrow in their application of biblical verses.

    I completely agree!

    I think most Christian leaders would greatly benefit from spending more time studying exegetical theory and the historical-critical method before jumping into exegesis proper. (Especially when said exegesis is applied to very sensitive and controversial topics).

    I have seen (and continue to see) many a Christian leader vigorously defend a particular theological position based on faulty exegesis. The problem is when such a leader refuses to acknowledge the difference between “what Scripture says” and “what I think Scripture says.”

    One good example of the harm that this sort of approach does can be seen in secular scholarly criticism of Scripture. Case in point (based on my own particular area of study): many Christians historically interpreted the so-called “Conquest Account” in the OT to mean that a giant horde of millions of Israelites swept through the ancient Near East and annihilated bunches and bunches of huge fortified Canaanite cities.

    In the 19th and 20th centuries, archaeological evidence began to paint a much different picture. The result was that the Bible (in academic and secular circles) came to be seen as blatantly deceptive political propaganda. The reality is that the Bible never actually made such claims, and it was only certain Christian interpreters who invented certain readings. When READ PROPERLY in its original social and historical context, the biblical account of the Israelite conquest of Canaan actually makes no unrealistic claims (millions of people, dozens of huge cities completely annihilated) and actually accords quite well with existing archaeological and textual data.

    All of that to say, faulty exegesis has been making the Bible (and the Lord, and Christians) look bad for hundreds of years. (I’m sure Dee and Deb and others could speak quite well on this topic as applied to Gen. 1-2!). I see the comp-egal debate as yet another example of this

  130. Daisy, i noticed you mentioned there was nothing left in Christianity for you and that caught my attention. I was reading this morning about going through a crisis of faith and I know that’s happened to me, and it sounds like it’s happened to you. What I read said that most of us go through times where we question and doubt, but when you’re ready to throw in the towel, that’s a full blown crisis going on there.

    I don’t know your particulars, but I just want to encourage you exactly in the way I need someone to encourage me.

    Please hang in there. There’s so much that appeared to be God’s way when it wasn’t. There’s so much that has been distorted. And you’ve come to a place where you recognize the falsehoods but it all feels empty, like what your faith was attached to was nothing but a shell.

    I know what it feels like to pray and not see answers. To wait, and grow tired of waiting. To feel defective and unable to change. To hope for love only to encounter people who don’t seem to have a clue as to what love is.

    But I think you know the Jesus who hung on the cross and died is with you and he always will be. And sometimes things change unexpectedly. If you would like or need someone to pray with you and for you at this time when your faith feels nonexistent or irrelevant, I’m willing to be there for you. There’s no distance in prayer, and I’m free to be your friend. No need to respond if you don’t want to, but if you do just ask Dee or Deb for my contact information. I’d like to help if I can.

  131. Nancy wrote:

    I haven’t seen a lot of actual struggling going on.

    Ha! Touche.

    I was trying to be polite, but you’re right. The most blatant offenders don’t seem to try very hard to work on it. (Maybe if they went to an actual therapist instead of a nouthetic counselor . . .)

  132. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    In fairness, men who believe in comp are prevented from those really fun roles of wiping poop, cleaning toilets, washing dishes, and folding clothes

    Just like Jesus, right? I mean, he totally avoided difficult and dirty tasks as much as he could.

    /sarcasm font

  133. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    @ JeffT:
    In fairness, men who believe in comp are prevented from those really fun roles of wiping poop, cleaning toilets, washing dishes, and folding clothes

    LOL.. our dishwasher recently broke. During the time it took to get it repaired, I got my complementarian butt behind the kitchen sink and washed many a dish. It was broken during Christmas… I insisted (without waiting on the Holy Spirit guiding us both mutually) that she stay out of the kitchen while I washed dishes and pots and pans for the large crowd of children and grandchildren that had Christmas dinner with us. Thankfully, despite her sweet willingness to help me, she submitted to my desire to give her a break and neat on her complementarian butt and watched tv while I worked.

    Again… marriage 101

  134. Evie wrote (quoting “John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy“):

    Right. Just like a pastor would never abuse their authority, right? Why I bet if I go ahead and google “pastor abuse authority” I wouldn’t even get a single—
    Oh. Well, obviously, those aren’t REAL pastors! 

    I’m glad you enjoyed that blog page.

    For anyone just reading it here, under where it says, “I wouldn’t even get a single—” on the guy’s blog is a screen capture of Google search results for “pastor abuse authority,” where Google says it found 5,770,000 results for that term. 😆

    One of the links in the screen capture says, “Ex-church members say pastor abused his power,” and another, “Thugs in the Pulpit.”

  135. @ Wade Burleson:
    Wade Burleson, you are one wise guy.

    In all of the 23 years I’ve been married, one thing has become clear:
    Getting (done) what you want is usually not as important as the happiness of your spouse. Most decisions problems where we wanted different things were really easy to resolve, so much so that our kids started making jokes about us continually asking each other questions like “Are you sure that you don’t want to …? Do you really not mind if we …?”

    In the few cases where differences were more difficult to reconcile, we decided we were going to do neither of the alternatives, and in all cases that proved far better than what we had wanted in the first place.

  136. Gene wrote:

    For us, complementarian means I desire, respect, and seek out my wife’s input on things, particularly in areas of her knowledge and ability. At the end, when it comes time to make a decision, we try to make it a mutual decision that we both agree on. If “push comes to shove” (it’s a metaphor, not a real action), and we are at a deadline without agreement, the final decision is mine, whether that means I say, “We will do it your way, even though I would do it differently,” or “We will do it my way, even though you would do it differently.”

    A lot of that sounds like a functionally egalitarian marriage.

    Why not lead God lead in your marriage, if you believe in that?

    Why not let the wife have the final trump card if it’s so dang fire important for only one spouse to have the final trump card?

    I don’t see anything in the Bible that says either partner gets a final trump card.

  137. Daisy wrote:

    I’m now okay with the idea of dating or marrying a Non Christian.

    I’ve been thinking the same. My very best friend is a non-Christian and she married another non-Christian about six years ago. About three years back, when I was still drinking the A29 kool-aid, I asked her who makes the decisions in her marriage when they have a disagreement about something. Her initial response was, “What???” It literally took me rephrasing the question a couple of times for her to even understand what I was talking about! LOL Her and her husband simply don’t view their marriage in those sorts of terms. I think she was worried I was hinting that her husband was abusing her. Eventually she said, “Well, I guess it usually comes down to who cares the most about the thing at hand. Usually we talk about it, and someone gives in.” She said it in a “well obviously” kind of tone of voice and kind of shrugged. She also reminded me that “Marriage isn’t a court of law, you know.” I remember feeling kind of embarrassed at the time for asking the original question. But now when I think about it, that’s an example of a couple of “pagans” who have figured out how to love each other better than the comps. For what reason should I be against marrying a non-Christian if he took this same approach to marriage?

  138. Gene wrote:

    The ones I know do. But this is a straw man, as Daisy said.

    It was not ‘Daisy’ who said it’s a “straw man,” it was some guy telling me (Daisy) that.

    It’s not a straw man, since as I said above, to the other person, it’s based on my life long personal experiences, and other single Christian women over the age of 30 have noticed it, too.

    Christian women who are over the age of 30, who have never married or had children, have blogged and published books discussing this problem (and it does exist and is not a straw man):
    That most churches, especially the ones who promote “biblical womanhood roles,” are too family and marriage focused, so that singles, and those who are childless, feel unwanted, so they drop out of church. Some even drop out of the Christian faith due to this (like me).

    Sometimes, men over the age of 30 experience being left out or ignored by Christians who are into gender complementarianism, because they get sermons or attitudes that a man is only a “real” man one once he marries and is a father.

    I have heard from these men not just on this blog, but on other sites and in e-mails. Some of them have also discussed this in books when interviewed by Christian authors.

    Where are these many volumes of books or videos and pod casts by gender comps for single, childless women, Gene?

    Where are all the magazine articles, books, and blogs for single, celibate, childless Christian adults, and by gender complementarians, Gene?

    The vast amount of gender complementarian blogs, magazines and sermons are all about wives and motherhood (or on occasion, about husbands and fatherhood).

    You can probably point me to one or two token online blog pages by gender comps about single, adult celibacy, but I can tell you that about 99% of gender comp material is obsessed with marriage and parenthood.

    Growing up in a gender comp church and family, I kept looking for material that addressed my life and situation (single and childless), but all I kept finding were more articles by gender comps telling me how to be a good wife and mother.

    When I heard sermons up ’til my mid 30s or so about a woman’s role in life, I used to wait and wait for the preacher (and these are usually gender comp preachers) to get around to telling me in the sermon, me, a woman who has never married or had a baby, what God thought of me or expected of me, but they never, ever got around to it.

    When I have visited gender complementarian blogs, the vast majority of content for women assumes they are married or have children, or that they are 21 and will be married by the time they are 25.

    Over the years, I’ve only seen one or two blog pages by gender complementarians for single ladies, but they are sugary pieces talking in condescending platitudes about ‘finding meaning in Jesus.’ There is little to no concrete, practical information for adults single women by gender comps.

    There is no staunch defense for being single and celibate in your 30s and 40s by gender comps, as there are the avalanche of gender comp articles, blogs, and books about how secular feminism has supposedly ruined marriage and contributed to divorce rates, how and why women should keep sparking kitchens, and how to raise godly children.

    For any gender complementarian blogs or articles that might exist about single, celibate women, there will be about a hundred with titles such as,
    “How to Be a Helpmeet to Your Husband,” “How to Raise Godly Children,” or, “Why Submission to Your Husband Is Not A Bad Thing.” etc etc etc.

    Gene said,

    In other words, it’s not “this or that,” it is “this and that.”

    What does that even mean?

  139. Maybe it’s because I’m not married that I can’t understand the Comp position. It’s just that there are so many other types of relationships– siblings, coworkers, friends, etc. where you have to make decisions. In none of these relationships is anyone put “in charge” and yet decisions are made in all scenarios. Sometimes I give in, sometimes another person gives in, sometimes we come up with an alternative solution or sometimes there is a compromise. Surely the same basic principles apply in marriage? Surely agreements can be made where sometimes the final resolution ends up being the wrong or right answer, no matter who proposed it? These are basic social skills I was introduced to in pre-school. No one needs to be the “boss”– those kids were the ones put in time-out, as I recall.

  140. Daisy wrote:

    Depending on the church or denomination, men who are not married (including widowers) are often prohibited from working as preachers, Sunday School teachers, or elders.
    Mark Driscoll not too long ago wrote a long response to a single man who asked him about this on his blog.
    Driscoll’s response was one long justification of discrimination against singles in church. He thinks only married men should be preachers and serve in other leadership roles.

    I agree with your observation, but it isn’t based on their anatomy. Speaking of that issue, the NY Times did an article a few years ago on the difficulty single seminary graduates were having find a job in smaller conservative churches because of that prejudice. In addition, many of those churches view marriage as important because they view the wife of the minister as free labor.

  141. Gene’s behavior kind of proves my point on this.

    Since I submitted my last post (a reply to him about how, yes, there is little to nothing out there by gender complementarians for and about adult, celibate singles), I scrolled down the newer replies to see if he’s responded to my post or two above about this since then.

    Other than his one post to me of, “No, gender comps don’t ignore single ladies, that is a straw man!,” he continued debating with others about if a wife should submit to a husband or not.

    He has nothing more to say about the gender comp world view concerning single, celibate, childless women.

    He’s brushing off single, celibate, childless people (and how gender comps ignore them)… to keep arguing about marriage.

    You’ve proven my point, Gene. You, as a defender of gender complementarianism, have shown a fixation on a married woman, on wives.

    I realize the main heading of this post is about decision making in marriage, but when you talk to a childless single woman on this thread…

    Your only come back is to say, “Nuh-uh, gender complementarians do have plenty to say for and about singles, it’s false to say we don’t!”
    …but then you proceed to argue about marriage more. 😆

    I’m telling you, 99% of gender complementarianism is concerned only with marriage and parenthood and using strict gender roles to fight feminism and other things they don’t like.

    It’s not about esteeming all women.

  142. @Moxie – I myself feel called to be single, due to a variety of factors. I am definitely a very independent person, as well as introverted, though not antisocial. I have a very full and mostly satisfying life, and feel that I’m happier alone and free to be more of who I truly am.

  143. Gene wrote:

    by inspiration of the Spirit, was a complementarian.

    The Bible no where states that Paul is a complementarian, or hints that held to a comp worldview.

    Poor Paul has been maligned even among Non Christians who assume he had a low (i.e., a gender complementarian) view of women.

    You should see comments by Non-Christians who despise Christianity on other forums and blogs, especially where topics like spousal abuse or abortion come up, they are convinced that Paul of the Bible thinks about women just as you are saying he does – and that is one reason of several they hate the Christian faith.

    I think Paul was actually delivering the opposite, and a liberating, message to women.

    Gender compism is not liberating; it even comes across as rank sexism to Non Christians who only have a basic familiarity with the New Testament.

    Gene said,

    And BTW, someone brought up wives loving their husbands. First part of the church’s submission to Christ is to love him, and sec

    No, no, if we are going to interpret the Bible as gender comps do, you have to ignore passages that don’t fit your premise, such as, gender comps ignore that a woman, Deborah in the Old Testament, was a leader over all Israel, that Junia was a woman apostle, Galatians says there is neither male nor female, etc. You have to ignore that or say that stuff doesn’t really count.

    So, in gender comp Bible interpretation, I can safely ignore any passage from Titus or whatever about wives loving husbands.

    I’m looking only at the verse from Ephesians that says “Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the church,” and I conclude from that (using gender comp manner of hermeneutics) that wives do not have to love their husbands, only husbands have to love their wives.

  144. @ Mr.H:

    It’s rather like a lot of people assume there were three wise men who visited Jesus, but the New Testament never says how many there were. I had read the Bible before, but when I saw a similar statement, I thought that can’t be right.

    I pulled my Bible out and re-read the birth narratives in the Gospels, and sure enough, no explicit number is ever given in the text.

    People just assume there were three men, because every time you see a Christmas play, there are always three wise men.

    I don’t thin Genesis mentions what kind of fruit Adam and Eve ate off the forbidden tree, but people assume it was an apple.

  145. @ Evie:

    Thank you very much for the encouragement, and I will think about your offer 🙂

    I have different reasons why I’m drifting away from the Christian faith. with the singles one being only one aspect. I have other reasons that have contributed, which I don’t feel like going on about here and now.

    One of the few things that even keeps me barely holding on to the faith at all is the person of Jesus.

    I don’t know about Christianity overall anymore, about most Christian people, or the rest of the Bible, but I am still drawn to the person of Jesus I see in the Gospels, and maybe a little in the book of Revelation.

    Thank you again for the encouraging words 🙂

  146. Daisy wrote:

    That is something that began dawning on me a few months ago, and I raised it on the Spiritual Sounding Board blog a couple weeks ago or so, and here on this blog within the last few days.
    My impression is that the gender complementarians are motivated not by concern for women and esteeming women, but using these gender teachings to be anti-feminism, anti-liberalism, and anti- whatever- else- they- think- is- wrong- with- culture, weapons.
    One tip off to me that this is what motivates them is that the garden variety gender comps almost never address the needs and issues of childless, divorced, widowed, or never- married adult Christian women.
    They usually only talk about a woman as wife and mother.
    There has to be some weird agenda going on if you claim you are concerned for “biblical womanhood,” but then proceed to ignore a lot of women in the process.
    If gender comps really cared about all women, they would also be addressing the divorced, the never married, the childless, the widowed women.

    Yes this is so true. I am a childless widow who converted from Catholic to Lutheran after my husband died. I felt very marginalized, but I tried hard to make it work. Last week I finally threw in the towel and concluded there will never be a place for me in Protestant denominations. In a culture where “familness” is next to Godliness, not only am I a childless widow, but I am also a family-less widow because my family has disowned me. To add even more to my shame, I am an atmospheric scientist who believes the world is more than 6000 years old and that climate change is real.

    Now I have switched back to Catholicism, which is actually more friendly to women even though women are not allowed to become priests. I am so done with the Protestant religion and culture wars. The celebrity pastors who make such a fuss about gender roles are like people who shift chairs on the Titanic, because they are losing the culture wars. The attrition rate among people who go to church is about 70%, and a huge 1/3 of adults under 30 do not attend church.

  147. @ Moxie:

    I have seen some very impassioned pleas by Christian women on blogs, or who made their own sites, who are now divorced from their Non Christian husbands, where they plead with Christian women not to marry non believers because they say it will end in heartache and disaster.

    However. I’ve seen many Christian women with similar stories tell of being in abusive marriage with Christian men.

    I read a book by a domestic abuse expert who counsels abusive husbands, and he says some of his clients are Christian men!

    Obviously, being a Christian does not necessarily make a guy more loving towards his wife, and don’t even get me started on the dozens of news reports and Christian shows that frequently mention the explosion of porn addiction among Christian husbands.

    It also seems like every fifth “700 Club” (Christian show) episode or “Praise the Lord” show, interviews some Christian husband (usually a preacher, or famous Christian contemporary singer) who admits to having had many affairs or a porn problem.

    Some of these married men have even said they used escort services and prostitutes! Some of these same men went to church every week with their wives, believe in Jesus, etc.

  148. Daisy wrote:

    It’s so bad that a woman recently did an experiment where she borrowed a model friend’s photo (with said friend’s permission), used that as her profile picture on a dating site, and made herself out to sound horrible in her profile.
    She still got hit on by bazillions of men in moments of signing up on the dating site.
    This experiment of hers was reported on several well known sites.
    These men either did not read her profile (where she admitted to using men for money and other bad things), or they did not care she (her fictional persona) was horrible. They only saw the photo and cared about the photo.

    Slight tangent here, but I read those reports too. I have to say that the conclusions therein – that the men didn’t read the profiles or didn’t care – aren’t the only possibilities. Another is that the respondents did read the profile, decided she was just Poe-ing, and didn’t take it seriously. I certainly wouldn’t have done.

  149. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    @ JeffT:
    In fairness, men who believe in comp are prevented from those really fun roles of wiping poop, cleaning toilets, washing dishes, and folding clothes

    Well, that puts me out…..
    I was with our children every summer during vacation. I changed diapers, warmed bottles, washed clothes….
    Now that I am retired from the classroom, I cook supper every evening. Wash all the clothes( actually have done that for years before I retired, I actually like doing laundry.) clean commodes, wash dishes, etc….
    The only thing I have a hard time doing is vacuuming due to my back. For some reason it eats my back up. ( I can push a mean broom and mop however. 🙂 )
    My wife has always made more money than me. ( she is in a health care field, not a nurse) I’ve never had a problem with it. She’s never told me not to spend money. ( could be she knows I am as tight as she is with a nickel.)
    I wonder what the “comps” would think of me?

  150. Teri Anne wrote:

    Now I have switched back to Catholicism, which is actually more friendly to women even though women are not allowed to become priests.

    This is really interesting (and not in a bad way!). Do you think it’s because the Roman priestly vocation is not the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual life, as it is (to a good approximation) in protestant circles?

  151. @ Daisy:

    Hang in there. I will also be praying for you. I have so appreciated your comments.

    Evie,

    Thanks for reaching out to Daisy. You have such a kind and caring heart.

  152. @ Teri Anne:

    I do relate. ((hugs to you)).

    I’m sorry for what you’ve been through, and then, on top of that, to be slighted as you were by other Christians. 🙁

    I have been there too, though my experiences were not 100% identical.

  153. Teri Anne wrote:

    To add even more to my shame, I am an atmospheric scientist who believes the world is more than 6000 years old and that climate change is real.

    😀 I like you already!!! I’m a molecular geneticist! My former Bible study leader and pastor’s wife (the same one who gave me the unsolicited book “Lady in Waiting”) was talking about another Christian lady we knew and told me, “Well she calls herself a Christian but I heard she ‘believes’ in evolution, so form your own conclusions…” Bahahaha. Oh dear. Being a member of most protestant churches is like dodging through a field full of land mines. I’m a single female PhD whose hobbies include weight lifting and hunting. It’s actually funny to me now how naive I was to think I could be accepted into any fundy evangelical church full of SAHMs, Etsy shop owners, etc. I suspect they hardly knew what to do with me.

  154. @ NIck Bulbeck:

    There are definitely men who do only look at the photo and do not read a woman’s profile.

    On my profile, if I said my fave movie is “Casablanca”, guys who would approach me would ask, “So, what’s your fave movie?” – obviously giving away they had not read my profile.

    I had that happen with other things. They would ask me, “do you like X?,” when I had already said on the profile page, “I hate X,” or, “I Love X.”

    Most men really do care about a woman’s looks, they don’t care about her brains, values, hobbies, goals, beliefs, etc. I’ve had that borne out not just in online dating but in high school, college, jobs, etc.

    Another woman did a similar experiment I read about with a dating site profile.

    She put the answer to a riddle in her profile, and most men who contacted her did not know the answer when she wrote them back with the riddle. If they had read her profile, they would have known the answer.

  155. @ Deb:

    Thank you. 🙂 I may be getting off here soon.

    I did not mean to monopolize the thread.

    I don’t have much living family, and what family I do have, I can’t talk to them much, so I find talking to people online helps. I don’t mean to dominate threads.

  156. @ NIck Bulbeck:

    Because there are so few priests, women are allowed to do a lot more. Women can do Bible readings, serve communion, vote in the congregation, and serve as parish administrators. Women who are nuns have worked tirelessly for social justice for the poor and marginalized (although the Pope recently clamped down on nuns.)

    The Catholic church is also a much bigger tent for people who disagree. My cousin does tarot cards and reads New Age books, but she is still Catholic. I do not agree with her views, but she is still a Christian because she believes in Jesus.

  157. @ Moxie:
    I am tired of dodging landmines, when all I ever wanted to do was attend church. One pastor told me that being a scientist made me different from the other women in the church. Another pastor told me he was trying to figure out what to do with me.

  158. Daisy wrote:

    Thank you. I may be getting off here soon.
    I did not mean to monopolize the thread.
    I don’t have much living family, and what family I do have, I can’t talk to them much, so I find talking to people online helps. I don’t mean to dominate threads.

    Ohh I really enjoyed chatting with you back and forth on here. Thanks for sharing everything. I don’t feel like you monopolized anything.

  159. Teri Anne wrote:

    One pastor told me that being a scientist made me different from the other women in the church. Another pastor told me he was trying to figure out what to do with me.

    Ha! Well, at least they were upfront about it. I’m sorry for your bad experiences too. I became Christian in the Catholic church and really liked it. I had a hard time agreeing with a lot of Catholic specific teachings, but I agree that I felt more accepted there as a single woman. Tomorrow I plan to finally (just worked up the courage) try out an Episcopal church in the hopes it will be the right mesh of Catholic and protestant traits.

  160. @ Moxie:

    You may like the Episcopal church, but the Episcopal church in my community is linked to the Anglican church in England, which is much more conservative. And the photographs of church activities showed almost exclusively elderly people, so I decided not to try there.

  161. @ Teri Anne:
    Ohh hmm. I’m hoping to find something fairly liberal… I don’t know what the various sects of Episcopal are. I just knew they allowed women priests so I figured they couldn’t be too bad. At the church I’m looking at the two priests are male. I was considering emailing to ask them their position on the matter, but I was afraid of that being the “first” thing I asked. I guess I’m worried about being judged by them. I get so unreasonably freaked out by church people now.

  162. @ Moxie:
    Our presiding Bishop is a woman, so theres less opposition these days. Look at there website to see who’s on vestry and what priests they’ve had in the past. Also see what speakers and educational programs they have. If words like “traditional” and “Anglican” pop up a lot, its probably a more conservative. If words like “open” and “affirming” pop up a lot in key places (descriptions of the congregation, mission statement, etc.), they’re probably more liberal.

  163. TRUE STORY; I’m in the local supermarket and an elderly lady is wanting her husband to look at a loaf of bread she says they need to buy. I interrupt and tell the gentleman, “Sir this is no time to give into your wife’s demands.” He looks at me and say, “It’s too late for that.” At this point the wife looks at me and says, “Shoo, just go away.” I left but chuckled all the way to my car. Even the wife was laughing. TRUE STORY.

  164. @ burntnorton:
    Hmm I’m having a hard time getting a vibe from them. They don’t have a mission statement. Most of the roles that women have in the vestry are for the kid’s ministry, choir director, and administrator. There are other women listed as serving a term? I imagine that’s the Episcopalian equivalent of an elder? They do offer separate men’s and women’s bible studies, but I don’t suppose that necessarily means anything.

  165. @ Moxie:
    Yes, if they’re serving a term, they’re just ordinary congregation members who were elected to the vestry. I think the Catholic equivalent is parish council. You can also check out the makeup and behavior of the diocese. Dioceses have more autonomy from the national church than local churches have from the diocese. If the diocese is conservative, the church is more likely to be. But remember that conservative means something different for Episcopalians. It generally isn’t tied into family worship and complementerianism, but into issues of women priests, gay marriage, and liturgy.

  166. Let me pick and choose a few responses that were addressed to me. It is mostly to Daisy since she kind of unloaded on me here.

    If I’m a married woman, is it okay for me not to love my husband?

    No, the Bible tells us to love all people (which includes wives loving their husbands), and Titus 2:4 specifically says for wives to love their husbands. So it’s not okay for a married woman not to love her husband.

    Are you assuming while asking that the default should be “why the man gets the final say so.”

    No. No assumptions at all in the question.

    No? Then why would you understand the “wives submit” verse to mean only wives submit to husbands, and never, ever vice versa?

    Because that’s what the verse says.

    (Earlier in the Ephesians chapter, it says all are to submit to all. Gender comps ignore that verse, though.)

    Actually, we don’t ignore it. Every complementarian commentary on Ephesians (which is virtually all commentaries in church history) addresses that verse, and in fact, it is addressed several times in RBMW. We don’t ignore it. We explain it. You just don’t like the explanation, which is different than ignoring it.

    A lot of that sounds like a functionally egalitarian marriage.

    It’s complementarian through and through.

    Why not lead God lead in your marriage, if you believe in that?

    I do try to let God lead in my marriage.

    Why not let the wife have the final trump card if it’s so dang fire important for only one spouse to have the final trump card?

    Because I think we should obey the Bible, and the Bible says that the wife is to submit to the husband. The question for you is why do you think that is so evil? Why is it a problem? I understand some men are jerks and idiots, but that’s not complementarian in essence. That’s just sinfulness.

    Where are these many volumes of books or videos and pod casts by gender comps for single, childless women, Gene?

    I wouldn’t expect to see a lot since the whole issue deals with relationships in marriage and church leadership. Teaching on these things are typically the same no matter what.

    What does that even mean?

    If you read what I was responding to, it was suggested that comps spend all their time talking about marriage issues and none talking about divorced women, never married, childless, and widowed women. My point is that it is not “this or that” (one or the other) but we should be talking about both, and the ones I know do.

    You’ve proven my point, Gene. You, as a defender of gender complementarianism, have shown a fixation on a married woman, on wives.

    It’s the topic here, which is why my comments have been directed at that. To discuss divorced, never married, childless, or widowed women would be off topic and I am already in the moderation queue. I am more than willing to discuss that. I think many churches (of all stripes, not just comp) are very poor when it comes to non-traditional families. But currently, there are more single women in the church I pastor then there are married women. Some are childless, some divorced, some never married, and some widowed. We are helping single moms raise boys. These single ladies apparently do not feel left out.

    The Bible no where states that Paul is a complementarian, or hints that held to a comp worldview.

    Yes, if you leave out everything Paul said. Otherwise, everything he said about the topic was complementarian.

    No, no, if we are going to interpret the Bible as gender comps do, you have to ignore passages that don’t fit your premise, such as, gender comps ignore that a woman,

    I am not aware that any of these passages are ignored. Most of us have very cogent explanations of them which you disagree with. But again, disagreement is not the same as ignoring it.

    This is called ESS, Eternal Subordination of the Son. Yes, as I mentioned above, it is orthodox trinitarianism. It is called the functional trinity. It’s not new, and it wasn’t generated by SBTS.

    Daisy, I am really terribly sorry that you were apparently mistreated as a single woman in the church. I wish I could heal that hurt for you. I really do. I wish you the best in your life. I know you disagree with me, and that’s fine with me. You won’t answer to me for it. But I urge you to think that all complementarians are the way you imagine. We aren’t. But I wanted to take a moment and try to respond briefly to you comments to me.

  167. @Victorious

    What I meant is why did Paul not tell husbands to rule or have or exert authority over their wives. Nowhere in scripture is such a verse found.

    Interestingly, you are correct in one sense. Paul told the wife to submit, but he didn’t tell the husband to rule. He tells him to love. Which seems a significant way to go about it. A wife submission is to a loving husband. The husband is not to focus on his right to rule, but on his obligation to love. There’s also that Genesis 3 passage about the husband ruling over the wife.

    BTW, Paul expressly says the wife has authority over the husband in the area of sexual intimacy in 1 Cor. 7.

    That’s a different word than is use in Eph 5. The word in Eph 5 has a specific meaning.

  168. @Arce

    Yes, I do know exactly what complementarianism is and what it isn’t.

    I really don’t want to be rude, but if you are telling me I am not a complementarian, then you don’t know “exactly what” it is and what isn’t. And if you think it’s oppression or based on errors in translation, then you don’t know what it is. I don’t know how to say that any softer, so I will leave it at that. I don’t know your history, but you remind me of someone who has never actually read about a topic; you have only read what other people say about it. You are responding to caricatures of it without interacting with the actual positions held, and the actual scriptural data. Consider your question to me (below). You have a really dogmatic opinion on this, but you are not aware that the Bible says something that is very damaging to your position. I won’t talk a lot about what egalitarians believe because I haven’t read a lot. I have read Scot McKnight and a few others. I have found them very unconvincing. So I stay out of that end of it.

    And where does it say that God is the head of the Son. It says that the Son is the head of the church.

    1 Cor 11:3

  169. @Daisy, the formatting in my last paragraph to you above was messed up. I have tried again here. Sorry about that.

    This is called ESS, Eternal Subordination of the Son.

    Yes, as I mentioned above, it is orthodox trinitarianism. It is called the functional trinity. It’s not new, and it wasn’t generated by SBTS.

    Daisy, I am really terribly sorry that you were apparently mistreated as a single woman in the church. I wish I could heal that hurt for you. I really do. I wish you the best in your life. I know you disagree with me, and that’s fine with me. You won’t answer to me for it. But I urge you to think that all complementarians are the way you imagine. We aren’t. But I wanted to take a moment and try to respond briefly to you comments to me.

  170. Gene wrote:

    Paul told the wife to submit, but he didn’t tell the husband to rule. He tells him to love.

    That’s one issue I have with comps… there’s so much about the man needing to take the lead. It’s spoken of ad nauseum. No wonder there are so many that take these issues and RUN with them… to the point where churches teach that a woman shouldn’t bring up important issues and instead wait for her husband to bring things up. I mean, do you agree with that? And if not, doesn’t it concern you that people in your camp take it to such extremes? What do you think of what Piper has said on how to handle spousal abuse?

    Another example, I remember hearing a sermon by a pastor at Mars Hill Church (not Mark Driscoll) where the pastor was driving in the car with his wife and wanted to listen to a specific radio station. His wife wanted to listen to something else. He initially told her, “well, I’m in charge so I get to decide.” His child in the backseat said something to the effect of, “Jesus is in charge!!!” And he said that caused him to realize he could let his wife listen to her choice, or something to that effect. Even when I was a comp I was pretty horrified by the story. I’m glad the guy finally realized he didn’t need to be a jerk but for goodness sakes, this is how he usually approaches his marriage? Does it bother you that this attitude exists?

  171. I triggered a moderation again… I used a non swear word but I imagine that is what set it off. I’m going to try and rephrase here…

    Gene wrote:
    Paul told the wife to submit, but he didn’t tell the husband to rule. He tells him to love.
    That’s one issue I have with comps… there’s so much about the man needing to take the lead. It’s spoken of ad nauseum. No wonder there are so many that take these issues and RUN with them… to the point where churches teach that a woman shouldn’t bring up important issues and instead wait for her husband to bring things up. I mean, do you agree with that? And if not, doesn’t it concern you that people in your camp take it to such extremes? What do you think of what Piper has said on how to handle spousal abuse?
    Another example, I remember hearing a sermon by a pastor at Mars Hill Church (not Mark Driscoll) where the pastor was driving in the car with his wife and wanted to listen to a specific radio station. His wife wanted to listen to something else. He initially told her, “well, I’m in charge so I get to decide.” His child in the backseat said something to the effect of, “Jesus is in charge!!!” And he said that caused him to realize he could let his wife listen to her choice, or something to that effect. Even when I was a comp I was pretty horrified by the story. I’m glad the guy finally realized he didn’t need to be horrible but for goodness sakes, this is how he usually approaches his marriage? Does it bother you that this attitude exists?

  172. @ Teri Anne: so sorry to hear all of this… But what synod were you in? Lutheranism is very diverse, and I know it has its share of fundies, especially in parts of the upper Midwest. But if this happened in an ELCA church, then something is *very* wrong. (Am a revert to the ELCA, in my mid-50s, never married, no kids, and have very little in the way of family, much like you.)

    It sounds like you must have been in either the LCMS or WELS…

  173. @ Teri Anne: the last pope clamped down *way* too much on nuns, imo. Apart from anything else, way to go in alienating and blaming women who’ve given their lives to Christ and the church! Many of then nuns I used to know were doing the heavy mlifting for the men per pastoral work, and getting zero recognition for it. And now there are no younger women coming in the door… It’s striking and quite sad. But if I were young and Catholic, I’d think twice – women have so many more opportunities to do things that further social justice (etc.) than they did 40-50 years ago. I wouldn’t want to be in a situation where I felt like I was under surveillance and risked severe penalties for disagreeing with the hierarchy.

    So very different than during the immediate post-Vatican II period…?

  174. That’s one issue I have with comps… there’s so much about the man needing to take the lead. It’s spoken of ad nauseum.

    I hardly ever hear anything about it, except from egals complaining about it.

    I mean, do you agree with that?

    No.

    And if not, doesn’t it concern you that people in your camp take it to such extremes?

    I am not sure anyone who says that is in my “camp.” in fact, I am not even sure what my “camp” is. I have never heard anyone say that, to my knowledge. But if people say that, they shouldn’t. So yes, that bothers me.

    What do you think of what Piper has said on how to handle spousal abuse?

    If you mean this (http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/clarifying-words-on-wife-abuse), then I agree. I am not sure what there is to disagree with there, but I read it quickly. If a woman is abused, she needs to leave for a safe place, seek immediate protection, seek help from law enforcement and the church. She does not have to seek help from law enforcement but she may if she desires, and the church should support her if she does, and depending on the circumstance should even recommend her seek help from law enforcement. In the final analysis, the decision is hers, not the church’s. I have told women to do that before and have promised to walk beside them through the process. No church should harbor or protect an abusive husband.

    And he said that caused him to realize he could let his wife listen to her choice, or something to that effect.

    I wonder if we aren’t headed down a bad road when a radio station choice is considered part of this topic.

    this is how he usually approaches his marriage?

    I don’t know if it is or not.

    Does it bother you that this attitude exists?

    Which attitude? It bothers me that a radio station is a big deal. It bothers me that a husband appeals to his authority as a reason to listen to the station he wants to. It bothers me that this anecdote is considered significant. A lot bothers me. But I don’t know enough about the story to have an informed opinion on it.

  175. Gene wrote:

    If a woman is abused, she needs to leave for a safe place, seek immediate protection, seek help from law enforcement and the church. She does not have to seek help from law enforcement but she may if she desires,

    It is vital for you, and everyone else to understand that a crime has been committed if he has hurt his wife. The church must convince the woman to report this to authorities and should do so themselves if she refuses. Abuse is a crime.

  176. @ numo:
    It was the Wisconsin Synod. The Missouri Synod is a little less severe, but my friend who attends one says the culture is pretty similar.

  177. @ Gene:

    Gene, your attitude is similar to the men in the Wisconsin Synod. If you disagree with the patriarchal view, you are contradicting God which of course is a sin. And if a does not like how patriarchs interpret, it is just too bad because her feelings do not count.

  178. Teri Anne wrote:

    @ Moxie:
    One pastor told me that being a scientist made me different from the other women in the church

    Intellectually threatening to his male ego I’m guessing

    @ Moxie:
    Another pastor told me he was trying to figure out what to do with me.

    Ahh, how about welcome you to the house of The Lord? Way too many ministers (and men) are threatened by educated women

  179. Gene wrote:

    It bothers me that this anecdote is considered significant.

    See, that’s exactly it. Most things I can point to are anecdotal stories. Most of them are small things. I could tell you about a pastor I worked with (he was bivocational and this was not ministry related) who made disparaging comments about women in the workplace constantly. I could tell you about sitting through sermons were little belittling remarks were made about women. I could bring up the many things Driscoll has said about women including that the reason they are not allowed to teach scripture is that they are more easily deceived. And then there is Piper. A man who wrote about how a woman is denying her femininity by lifting weights. Or how, if a man asks a woman for driving directions, she has to give them in such a way to show that she is being submissive to him and not telling him what to do. Story after story after story. The sickos who think their wives have to ask permission to use the restroom. They exist, you know.

    See, you do not think these things happen or are said very often. I know that they are, because I’ve heard it and been around it. All I have are anecdotes because I don’t know how else to communicate the problem to you. Don’t you see that if someone is willing to exert his influence when it comes to silly little preferences like a radio station, that they are likely to be unloving and over controlling with much larger issues? Perhaps your church really is the mythical church where women are loved and cherished by their husbands. But all I’ve heard are claims about how great complentarianism is for women, but my experience says otherwise. I do not know how to deny my experiences.

  180. Gene wrote:

    Exactly. But she did not want to do that. She was, however, willing to submit to me.

    I find this comment rather curious. When a woman agrees with her husband, it is submission. What do you call it when a man agrees with his wife?

  181. dee wrote:

    It is vital for you, and everyone else to understand that a crime has been committed if he has hurt his wife. The church must convince the woman to report this to authorities and should do so themselves if she refuses. Abuse is a crime.

    Yes, but remember, no one has to report a crime. They may, and in many cases should. I think they should strongly encourage her to and should walk with her through the process. They must not harbor or defend an abuser. Hopefully you agree with me on that.

  182. dee wrote:

    This is a very important observation. What do they do when a woman is neither?

    Basically ignore her.

  183. Gene wrote:

    It bothers me that this anecdote is considered significant.

    Oooh I thought of another anecdote for you. My uber comp church didn’t allow women to have a women’s ministry. Why? Because women tend to gossip when they are together, apparently.

    There are SO many examples in my own life where men have used their supposed God given authority to treat women poorly. And it often rears its ugly head in the form of things you might consider silly.

  184. Teri Anne wrote:

    If you disagree with the patriarchal view, you are contradicting God which of course is a sin.

    I disagree with patriarchy, so I am not like them at all. But consider how your statement applies across the board. People here think I am in sin because I disagree with their egalitarian views. I am not particularly bothered by that, but I wonder why you don’t bring that up?

    The reality is that thinking someone else is in sin for disagreeing is part and parcel of the discussion. If we can’t handle that, probably better avoid the conversation.

    In the end, the only way we know whether we agree or disagree with God is by comparing what we believe to what he said. And we have to account for all of it, not just the parts we like.

  185. Lori wrote:

    When a woman agrees with her husband, it is submission. What do you call it when a man agrees with his wife?

    When a woman agrees with her husband or a man agrees with his wife, it is called agreement. She did not agree with me at all. She tried hard to talk me into it. She was not happy that I said I didn’t think we should do it.

  186. @ Daisy:
    I am right there with you Daisy. It is my experience as well. I grew up IFB, as an adult I moved to a non-denom church (basically Baptist with cooler music)and it was always the same. I sometimes feel singles are ignored because church leaders hope that singleness is temporary. And quite frankly, I believe singleness makes many in the church uncomfortable. When the family is idolized, singles can be threatening.

  187. Gene wrote:

    The husband is not to focus on his right to rule, but on his obligation to love. There’s also that Genesis 3 passage about the husband ruling over the wife.

    In order for a husband to assume he has the right to rule, we must show scripture that gives him that right. Please post one.

    Genesis 3 is a list of prophetic, adverse, negative conditions that Adam and Eve will experience as a result of having to leave the garden. The garden was a place specially designed for your enjoyment, comfort, and intimate relationship with their Creator. Having to leave that environment would entail complex, adverse, and sorrowful living conditions. They are not commands. If they were, males would still be confined to an agricultural manner of living; they would be required to till the soil and sweat (no air-conditioned offices for them) and do so in sorrow; no mulch or Round-Up allowed on thorns and thistles; and women must bear children in sorrow.

    Those verses are not commands but prophetic words that convey to Eve that her husband would (not “should”) rule over her. No such words are spoken to Adam to conclude he was entitled or responsible for exerting authority or rule or leadership over his wife.

    Toss Genesis 3 out as support for male headship and/or rule.

  188. Moxie wrote:

    There are SO many examples in my own life where men have used their supposed God given authority to treat women poorly.

    It’s sinful of men to treat women poorly. But it happens in egalitarian circles as well as complementarian circles because humans are sinful. It happens with people who don’t even profess Christianity. It’s part of living in a broken world.

    My point about the radio thing is that a husband who thinks he can control the radio station because he is the head is an idiot. It’s silly. It’s stupid. Why is that even a thought that would enter a man’s mind? And why would that be considered data point for a discussion on the exegetical substance of Scripture? As I said earlier, you can find anecdotes all day long and some are good and some are bad. All anecdotes do is tell us what sinful people do. It doesn’t tell us what they should do.

  189. @ Teri Anne: the WELS is *not* representative of Lutheranism in America; it is known for its strong fundamentalist beliefs and overall… How can I put this? Craziness might be a good word – they think that the Boy Scouts are pretty much in league with the devil, and members can find themselves out on their ear if they commit the “sin” (as they esee it) of “scoutism.”

    I can see what you returned to the RCC!

  190. Victorious wrote:

    In order for a husband to assume he has the right to rule, we must show scripture that gives him that right. Please post one.

    I wouldn’t call it a right. I would call it a responsibility. But Eph 5:22-24 is pretty clear on it.

    Genesis 3 is a list of prophetic, adverse, negative conditions that Adam and Eve will experience as a result of having to leave the garden. …They are not commands.

    You are correct they are not commands. They are statements of condition: He will rule over you is one of them. It wasn’t going to change.

    If they were, males would still be confined to an agricultural manner of living; they would be required to till the soil and sweat (no air-conditioned offices for them) and do so in sorrow; no mulch or Round-Up allowed on thorns and thistles; and women must bear children in sorrow.

    Actually, the curse isn’t about agriculture but about working for a living. It became hard after the fall. And women still bear children in sorrow. I know because I was there for three. I still have marks in my hands. Okay, not actual marks. But I still remember the sorrow that went on.

    No such words are spoken to Adam to conclude he was entitled or responsible for exerting authority or rule or leadership over his wife.

    No, they were spoken to Eve to inform Eve of how it was going to be.

    Toss Genesis 3 out as support for male headship and/or rule.

    If all we have to do is toss out verses we don’t like, then what are we left with? I don’t think we can just toss it out. We have to deal with it.

    I think the mistake you may be making is envisioning submission and authority like a first grade classroom or a child parent relationship where the one in authority gets to demand and the one in submission has to respond. That’s not complementarianism.

    So I ask you what I asked Daisy, why is this so evil to you? What is behind your objections?

  191. What all the women commentators have in common is fear. Like me, they are very afraid of being mistreated again by another supposedly Christian man. Like me, they carefully weigh the risks versus the benefit of the proposed action, do as much research as possible, and fearfully try their proposed action. All the while, they are hoping against hope that this time things will be different. Maybe this time their Christian date will treat like they actually have brains. Maybe this time the pastor will not be condescending when they ask a question. Maybe this time, the men in the new church will be polite instead of strutting around and ignoring them.

    But many women decide that the benefits are not worth the risk. They may decide it is preferable to remain single or marry a non-Christian. They may avoid the pastor as much as possible rather than ask a question. They may decide that church is not worth it, and quit attending church. I decided that there is no place among Protestants for me, and went back to being Catholic. As for dating, I have not decided but being an Evangelical Christian may be a deal-breaker like smoking. I am so done with Protestant churches, and although the Catholic church has an equally poor track record, I think I am safe in my new parish.

  192. Gene wrote:

    Arce wrote:
    Gene is living the egalitarian life and calling it comp!
    Or maybe you don’t know what complementarianism actually is?
    And “head” in the NT context does not mean boss or ruler. It means source.
    Um, so the husband is the source of the wife, and God the father is the source of the Son? Please do at least a little exegetical work. You don’t have to be an expert, but we could at least do away with stuff like this, can’t we?

    Well, of course God the Father is the Source of the Son. That’s just basic orthodox Trinitarianism. The Son is the Word spoken by the Father. The Son is the image of the invisible God. As for the husband being the “source” of the wife– for one thing, the Greek didn’t have separate words for “husband” and “wife.” It used “man” and “woman,” and if it was referring to husband and wife, it would say “her man” or “his woman.” The man is the source of the woman because she was taken from his side. But more contextually, just a few verses before the Ephesians 5 passage, in Eph. 4, the “head” is shown to be the source of nourishment for the body. Husbands were certainly the source of food and provision for wives in 1st century Ephesus!

    But there’s another meaning of that word “head,” that is “prominent one, the one on top.” This meaning is, I believe, the meaning in Ephesians 1. Christ is the One at the top, above all principalities and powers. Notice in that passage that Christ takes the church and places her at His side, so that she is seated with him at the top. The church is the one thing that is not under Christ’s feet! But please note that though people in authority are often also “prominent” or “on top” positionally, the word itself is not a word describing power, but position.

  193. Gene wrote:

    Wade, I wonder if you might take a minute and specifically address the image Paul uses of the church submitting to Christ as the model for how the wife submits to her husband. How would you explain how that image supports your view? Where are some examples of where Christ allows the church to make decisions against his will and judgment? When a church disagrees with Christ, how would you counsel that church? And how would that be relevant to your point here?

    But where in passage is Christ commanding the church? This passage is about Christ laying down His power and position in order to raise the church up to be glorious. This passage is not a free pass for husbands to feel justified commanding their wives or imposing their will on their wives in the event of a disagreement, or anything like that.

  194. Gene asked: “… the image Paul uses of the church submitting to Christ as the model for how the wife submits to her husband. How would you explain how that image supports your view?”
    Here is what I think. A Christian who know better could lead me to understand more on what I write here, and Christians should judge the truth in this. The church submits to Christ because he knows best, because Christ loved first, because his actions clearly shows this love – and we are aware of it. They are not submitting because Jesus holds a gun to their head and tell them to, but because they jumped into loving arms.
    But when we are not aware that His way is best, we church people do not submit. For example, a Christian man may not be meek because he do not really believe “the meek shall inherit the earth” or because he misunderstood the meekness Jesus wants.
    “As the church submits to Christ” is following in the ways of wisdom and goodness, because we have been enlightened to find it good.
    A Christian wife can submit as to Christ when the husband is like Christ: When he knows better and his actions show love. The moment he says: “Bring me a beer” she cannot submit as to Christ, because at that moment his request is entirely about himself – he is not being Christ. (Of course, partners have to care about the well-being of their mates and there will be times when she should actually bring him that beer. But it is not covered in submitting as to Christ.)
    Gene asked: “Where are some examples of where Christ allows the church to make decisions against his will and judgment?”
    The crusades, the inquisition, churches supporting slavery – Jesus sure allowed it, because it happened.
    Gene asked: “When a church disagrees with Christ, how would you counsel that church? And how would that be relevant to your point here?”
    A church that disagree with Christ should learn to agree with the anointed one. That cannot happen by force, but by learning that Jesus’s way is right and good. When a husband is not loving or not wise, doing as he say is not submitting as to Christ.
    If a woman is not sure her husband’s way is wisdom and love, and he believes it is:
    * She should be willing to look for evidence that following will indeed be “as to Christ.” If it is not, if he wants her to join him in, say, speaking condemnation against a child of theirs because he is in a bad mood (Christ did not come to condemn) , submitting would be “as to satan” – not as to Christ. Saying: “I know this is wrong, but I will do it anyway” is following as we follow satan into temptation, not as we follow Christ.
    * He should, like Christ, convince her and show her the goodness and wisdom of his idea.

  195. dee wrote:

    It is vital for you, and everyone else to understand that a crime has been committed if he has hurt his wife. The church must convince the woman to report this to authorities and should do so themselves if she refuses. Abuse is a crime.

    Dee, you know that I love and respect you and what you are doing, but I feel like I have to say this.

    The church has to be careful in this sort of situation. I have seen too much of this to always fly to the defense of the female without further information. From what I have seen coming into the ER, and from what I have read, and from what I heard from my son (a career prosecutor) there is a significant proportion of these cases where she was the one who threw the first punch, she was the one who was drunk and combative last night in the ER and she was the one who got hurt simply because he was stronger than she was. In cases like this, chances are that if you strip him down he may have some bruises also. Next day she has sobered up and is crying on the preacher trying to get her husband or boy friend in trouble and make herself look good. I read somewhere some stats on this, but since I do not have the reference I will not talk about stats. Suffice it to say that this scenario is not rare.

    Pastors do not need to fall into traps like this. Didn’t I read somewhere about the need to be “wise as serpents…” All I am saying is, simply being female does not convey or imply that one is in the right, and simply being injured is not proof of any of the surrounding circumstances one way or the other.

  196. In other news, Ana Ivanovic beat Serena last night (as per Greenwich Mean Time). I did not see that one coming – I really thought she might complete the Grand Slam this year.

    I’ll get back on topic when we come home from the churchy gathering we’re off to the noo.

  197. @ Daisy:
    The conventional wisdom is to only date Christians. Certainly to only marry a Christian. And it gets prevented like it’s a rule. As though it’s one of God’s commands.

    I get that it’s good to have common ground, but it seems that can get taken to an extreme. And there is nothing in the Bible that prevents us from dating or marrying non-Christians. It’s not in there. We are free to do so. And that doesn’t mean we abandon our values or compromise them in the process, which I guess is the big fear.

  198. @ Daisy:
    You’re welcome and appreciated your response. I think the problem we share here is how the person of Jesus gets obscured in all this nonsense we see going on.

  199. @ Daisy:

    “I’m telling you, 99% of gender complementarianism is concerned only with marriage and parenthood and using strict gender roles to fight feminism and other things they don’t like.

    It’s not about esteeming all women.”

    ***************************************

    Yes. Worship of the family unit is their idolatry too.

    My daughter is single (divorced 10 years/childless). She would concur with a lot of what you post. Her singleness has opened my eyes to a lot of discrimination in the church.

  200. Evie wrote:

    I think the problem we share here is how the person of Jesus gets obscured in all this nonsense we see going on.

    Yes, yes and yes. And I think that some of this is very clever of the enemy to make some of look foolish and make others of us get so distracted by all this as to forget the “prime directive.”

  201. Moxie wrote:

    Maybe it’s because I’m not married that I can’t understand the Comp position. It’s just that there are so many other types of relationships– siblings, coworkers, friends, etc. where you have to make decisions. In none of these relationships is anyone put “in charge” and yet decisions are made in all scenarios. Sometimes I give in, sometimes another person gives in, sometimes we come up with an alternative solution or sometimes there is a compromise. Surely the same basic principles apply in marriage? Surely agreements can be made where sometimes the final resolution ends up being the wrong or right answer, no matter who proposed it? These are basic social skills I was introduced to in pre-school. No one needs to be the “boss”– those kids were the ones put in time-out, as I recall.

    All true. I am married & this is true: social skills count. As does loving your neighbour as yourself.

    What bothers me about a lot of this patriarchal nonsense is the impression it gives of millions of insecure men just looking for a way to pull the rug out from under uppity women who want nothing more than equality. That scares me…do so many men really feel so small that the only way they can feel confident is by disempowering women?

  202. Nancy wrote:

    …” All I am saying is, simply being female does not convey or imply that one is in the right, and simply being injured is not proof of any of the surrounding circumstances one way or the other.

    There is absolutely no excuse for a man twice her size to inflict physical harm on a woman. None.

    The “she provoked me” excuse still holds the man responsible for how he reacts to bad behavior on the part of his wife.

    Physical assault is still a crime.

  203. Evie wrote:

    @ K.D.:
    The “comps” would focus on your wife. If they judged something to be amiss, it would be her fault.

    It’s the sexist/misogynist creed. It’s always the woman’s (or women’s) fault. Extramarital sex? The women aren’t fulfilling their function of limiting male access to sex and wives aren’t fulfilling their function of being on call sex dolls. Unwed parenthood? See above, plus woman are no longer willing to desperately cling to the first who strikes their fancy and marry them. Boys no longer automatically achieving more academic success than girls? Those women teachers have feminized education (but women choosing not to STEM careers is just plain natural and has nothing to do with the pervasive sexism and frat boy culture). Chris Christie ‘s troubles? The culture has become too feminized to appreciate the masculine virtue of being a bullying loudmouth (but woe beside the woman who says anything authoritatively without hedging her words deferentially).

    It’s always the woman’s fault.

  204. Nancy wrote:

    All I am saying is, simply being female does not convey or imply that one is in the right, and simply being injured is not proof of any of the surrounding circumstances one way or the other.

    Nancy, for some reason my comment is in moderation, but I have expressed my reply to your comment above.

  205. @ Nancy:
    It isn’t the job of the pastor or of a mandated reporter to investigate claims of abuse. The threshold for them to report is low by design because however frequent the circumstances you describe, they is still a much smaller number of them than there are actual instances of abuse. If a victim comes to you claiming he or she has been abused or rape, don’t play amateur detective by examining and interrogating the parties (especially since what usually happens is that you subject the claimed victim to the equivalent of defense counsel’s cross examination), report it to police and let them investigate.

  206. @ Nancy:

    Could you please provide real facts here? Sometimes women do strike back but it is usually after they have been battered for a very long time. Afterall, the Burning Bed was based on a real story. Many abusers convince others that they are the victims and gain allies by doing so. As many as 60% of wife batterers also abuse the children. Do you really want to be responsible for not reporting and have children abused? Another fact, the police are slower to respond to domestic violence calls than to stranger violence calls. Finally, yes, there are women who batter men. The number of male victims is much higher than previously thought, some think as much as 40% of victims are men.

    I am a survivor. I never started the fight and never even fought back. I know no women who did. Abuse wears you down and if you didn’t think you deserved it in the bginning you do after you have been abused for awhile. Always report and let the system decide. The experts know more than untrained pastors.

  207. Gene wrote:

    People here think I am in sin because I disagree with their egalitarian views.

    Let’s not paint too broad a brush here, Gene. I don’t think you’re in sin. However, at the most basic level, an argument consists of two sentences: a sentence making a proposition, and a sentence explaining why the listener should accept that proposition. In my opinion, you haven’t done a very good job with the latter on this thread. I think most readers here are less interested in what you believe, and more interested in the “why”.

  208. @ Gene:
    Dismissing every negative example and every poor experience as not being an example of “true complementarianism” is, at the very least, a logical and rhetorical fallacy. At worst, it is minimizing victim’s pain and gaslighting. The fact is that leaders who are most vocal about complementarianism consistently spout hurtful, belittling, abusive, and false nonsense when they’re talking, teaching, or counseling about marriage, gender, and complementarianism. Their error and the damage they cause is a direct result of and part of their advocacy of complementarianism. And while there are certainly abusive spouses who.hold or claim to hold egalitarian views, I have only ever heard of abusers who hold complementarianism views claim that God has given them the right to rule their wives. These are the negative consequences of complementarianism. Numerous women and men have told the same stories and they come from all over the map, geographically and demonationally. Their common thread is complementarianism. There is no similar narrative that can be told of egalitarianism.

    I understand that your experience (as a male pastor, I’ll note) has been positive. But given the mass of negative experiences with complementarianism and the dearth of negative experiences with egalitarianism, it is worth examining whether your positive experience is a product of complementarianism or of being a mature adult without major untreated psychological problems.

    And for the record, agreeing to do something you’d prefer not to do is not unique to complementarianism and isn’t submission. Sometimes I do it for my husband and sometimes he does it for me. Heck, sometimes my boss does it for me. It’s called compromise and, depending on the situation, deferring to someone else’s expertise or experience.

  209. And again: The English translation of the Ephesians passages has added words not there in the Greek, selectively. In particular, the word translated “submit” (not exactly the best translation of the Greek word, as it means something different in our culture) and the word “love” both get inserted in places where they do not appear in the Greek, selectively. Both words should appear in application to the husband or wife if we are inserting, b/c of parallelism. OR neither word should appear.

    The verse that precedes about all submitting to all is the key. And then the submission of a wife is qualified — to her own husband, not to all the other men in the church.

    And Gene, I have a Ph.D., a J.D., and a 800 plus volume of theological books, with multiple commentaries of each of the NT books and most of the OT books, in my home. I have been an evangelical Christian for more than 55 years, and a Baptist for most of those. As a teenager, I attended the adult bible studies my church held on week nights at least two months a year. I have taught adult classes in church, have served on the diaconate in several churches, and as chairman of major committees such as personnel and finance.

    In addition, I chaired an extensive study of ALL of the verses that anyone raised as potentially relevant to the role of women in the church, including all of those verses that relate to the marital relathionship. We explored all of the verses in Hebrew or Greek as appropriate, in context, and reviewed the work of various Hebrew and Greek scholars.

    And I can tell you that, there is a great deal of what we have in the English NT that is the result of the terrible patriarchy and divine right influences on the KJV translators that carries over into almost all English translations today. It relates to all of the issues around the words “head”, “submit”, etc. And you can choose to disagree with me if you wish. But the teaching of comp and the teaching of patriarchy in the church is not supported by the Greek NT, and it is contributing to the shrinking of the church as women, who have kept the faith alive in many places, are leaving the organized church that teaches what becomes the excuse for abuse and denying the equality of all before God.

  210. @ burntnorton:

    This is cut and paste from web:

    Mandatory Reporting Requirements in North Carolina

    Q: Who has a duty to report?
    A: A private person generally has no obligation to report evidence of a crime. There may be strong practical and moral reasons to report a crime, but that’s not the same as a legal duty. However, there are certain situations in which NC citizens have a legal duty to report:
    Everyone has a duty to report in cases where there is suspected:
    Child abuse and/or neglect by a parent, guardian, custodian or caretaker.1
    Abuse, neglect or exploitation of a disabled or elder adult by their caretaker.2
    Physicians and Hospitals must report to law enforcement certain kinds of wounds, injuries or illnesses.3
    School Principals must report immediately to law enforcement when he or she has personal or actual knowledge that an act has occurred on school property involving certain offenses. 4
    Photo processors or computer technicians who, within the scope of their employment, come across images of a minor (or one who reasonably appears to be a minor) engaging in sexual activity.5

    That’s the law in NC where I live. What I am saying is that a pastor, faced with the specific circumstance which I have described, should think long and hard before he goes beyond the law and calls the cops when the alleged victim is not willing to do so. The victim has the right to do so. The pastor has no legal responsibility to do so. He should be careful. I do not know if either the alleged victim or the alleged accused would have grounds for a civil suit against the pastor for such a call to the cops, but they sure could ruin him with his congregation and with other people who might want to seek his counsel with confidentiality. This is treacherous ground to say that he should call the cops, regardless.
    For those of us who want to say let the secular authorities decide, they have decided. See above cut and paste above.

  211. Gene wrote:
    ESS /Eternal Subordination of the Son):

    Yes, as I mentioned above, it is orthodox trinitarianism.

    No, it definitely isn’t. It’s novel theology, and just like most of the “novel food”, it’s not good for you.

  212. @ Arce:

    Arce, I hope you don’t mind. I cut and pasted your comment on my blog and also linked directly to your comment here.

    I just kind of goes along with my unofficial “Who’s the Boss” series I’ve stumbled into.

  213. @ Nancy:
    You can assume if i am discussing abuse, I mean abuse. 

    Secondly, in regards to domestic violence and pastor response, I feel the same way about it as I do pedophilia. The authorities should be called in to investigate. They are the experts and are trained in assessment. 

    Instead, you get idiots like Paige Patterson encouraging women to return to their abuser and who rejoice when she gets smacked again because she is doing it for Jesus.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/06/16/a-call-for-paige-pattersons-resignation-from-the-ministry/

  214. @ Nancy:

    “There may be strong practical and moral reasons to report a crime,”

    Suspected abuse should be reported. And, in case you think the NC law is so great, let me tell you what the Deebs encountered and wrote about when we started this blog.. The pastors at a church claimed, using this law, that they were not the guardians of kids in the Sunday school and were under no legal obligation to report to the police about a suspected pedophile incident.

    In so doing, they allowed (they didn’t believe the reported incident because, of course, they were smarter than the kid who reported it), a terrible pedophile to run around and horribly, and I mean horribly-the worst I have ever heard, continue to abuse young teen boys for another full year! Thankfully, the police discovered him in the act and he is now in jail for 13 years. And the church is soooooo proud of the fact that they didn’t have to legally report this. In our opinion, they didn’t give a rats patootie about those kids. One day they will face the Almighty who I think may have a problem with the morality of their action.

    So, not reporting an abuser is an amoral act and the people who choose not to do so may be complicit in the future of abuse that can, and will often, take place. 
    PS-We have been working with state legislators to change this because this sort of reaction was not the intent of the law.

  215. gus wrote:

    It’s novel theology, and just like most of the “novel food”, it’s not good for you.

    It came into vogue around the same time that complementarianism was being pushed. It was a way to legitimize the “gospel” nature of the gender role proposal. Sort of like “It was good enough for Jesus and it is good enough for me. Whatzamatta you? You don’t like Jesus?”

  216. @ gus:
    Gene is right. It is orthodox trinitarian theology. If you push the idea too far, however, it becomes Arianism. What is novel is the SBC attempt to use the doctrine to push their view of complementarianism.

  217. @ Arce:

    And so dies the myth that the commenters here are all agenda-led ignoramuses…
    Obvious we know we’re not, maybe Gene didn’t.

  218. Gene wrote:

    Actually, the curse isn’t about agriculture but about working for a living. It became hard after the fall

    It seems, Gene, that you are selectively choosing to read some verses literally and others not so much.

    Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
    Gen 3:18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field

    These words to Adam specifically speak to his work on the cursed ground. He will toil it and it will grow thorns and thistles. He will eat the fruit/produce/plants from the soil. These terms clearly identify an agricultural “career.” An additional “condition” is he will eat this produce by the sweat on his brow/face.

    You have interpreted this rather liberally by concluding that it didn’t really mean what it says but it “just” means men have to work for a living.

    Then you get literal again when it comes to the woman and birth and the man ruling by simply saying that’s the way it will be.

    My point is that it doesn’t have to be that way. In fact, most of those prophecies no longer exist. 1) Men no longer sweat by their work; 2) men are no longer limited to an agricultural field of labor; 3) thorns and thistles are contained by using mulch and Round-Up or similar deterents; 4) (most) women do not bear children in sorrow, but are overjoyed to learn they are pregnant; 5) men no longer eat “plants” but have been allowed (by God) to eat meat. All of those prophetic conditions as an immediate result of having been sent from the garden have been eliminated or improved…except one. That is the desire of men to rule over women. But no worries, it’s getting better as women learn to read, comprehend, and interpret scripture for themselves and recognize false teachings that are designed to continue the negative prophecies of Gen. 3 and refer to it as a “responsibility” to sugar-coat it in an effort to make it more palatable to women.

    In the end, it seems you will continue to believe what you do, and thank God many women will continue to see it as erroneous interpretation of scripture.

  219. @ Teri Anne:

    The Missouri Synod is a little less severe, but my friend who attends one says the culture is pretty similar.

    Not all of the LCMS is like this. It’s pretty variable within itself, a lot like the PCA (which runs the gamut from Tim Keller to the Bayly brothers). I’m not sure where you live, but in the New England at the very least, it’s pretty reasonable and moderate. That being said, I have seen examples from the Upper Midwest that are pretty wacko (Quiverfull Lutherans, no wedding marches allowed in an LCMS college chapel because they’re “pagan,” etc.). So I think it depends on where you are.

  220. Wisdomchaser wrote:

    I am a survivor. I never started the fight and never even fought back. I know no women who did. Abuse wears you down and if you didn’t think you deserved it in the bginning you do after you have been abused for awhile. Always report and let the system decide. The experts know more than untrained pastors.

    I am so sorry for the abuse that you endured. I have met met many women who have been abused (I know men can be abused). The thing that hurts the most is when they are not believed.

    That is especially true in the church when people cannot believe that godly elder and community leader Fred Shmoe could ever do such a thing. I have come to the point in my life that, unless there is a major red flag, I tend to believe the victim and assist them in obtaining help. The experience of watching the lifelong damage of a church which chose not to believe someone will stick with me for a lifetime.

  221. Hester wrote:

    no wedding marches allowed in an LCMS college chapel because they’re “pagan,” etc.).

    But, wasn’t it Luther who said “Why should the devil have all the good music?”

  222. My wife & I have been happily married over 37 years.

    The secret of our success is that we agreed before we got married that I would make all the important decisions.

  223. But nothing important has come up in over 37 years.

    She’s going to let me know when something important needs to be decided.

  224. Former CLC’er wrote:

    @Moxie – I myself feel called to be single, due to a variety of factors. I am definitely a very independent person, as well as introverted, though not antisocial. I have a very full and mostly satisfying life, and feel that I’m happier alone and free to be more of who I truly am.

    Sorry CLC’er, I think I missed this before! I can definitely relate to what you are describing. I am also very introverted (but I still like people). There are many advantages to being single. For example, I am currently looking at jobs. One great thing is that I can move absolutely anywhere without having to worry about my spouse also finding work.

  225. Daisy wrote:

    Obviously, being a Christian does not necessarily make a guy more loving towards his wife, and don’t even get me started on the dozens of news reports and Christian shows that frequently mention the explosion of porn addiction among Christian husbands.
    It also seems like every fifth “700 Club” (Christian show) episode or “Praise the Lord” show, interviews some Christian husband (usually a preacher, or famous Christian contemporary singer) who admits to having had many affairs or a porn problem.
    Some of these married men have even said they used escort services and prostitutes! Some of these same men went to church every week with their wives, believe in Jesus, etc.

    Wow apparently I didn’t read through things very carefully because I missed this comment too. Sorry Daisy!

    I agree with all of these observations. One of the most loyal and loving husbands I’ve ever observed was my own dad. He’s not a Christian. I can’t really reconcile that with the way that Christians portray non-Christians… like a bunch of cannibals or something.

  226. Bentbutnotbroken wrote:

    But nothing important has come up in over 37 years.
    She’s going to let me know when something important needs to be decided.

    Love it! Thanks for the chuckle!

  227. Yes I am submissive to my husband, but there is a caveat, he is submissive to me as well. When a matter of importance comes up the person who is thinking of doing something asks the other one regardless and if there is true disagreement then we talk it out until an agreement is reached. If an agreement can’t be reached the person who has more knowledge in that realm takes trump if it is a crucial decision.

  228. @ Gene:
    @ Victorious:
    Amen Victorious.

    As for ESS. It is not orthodoxy and probably one of the worst heretical(and I never use that word lightly) doctrines I have heard. In fact I was raised Independent Baptist and attended churches for years, am now Southern Baptist and have been for years, and I had never even heard of this doctrine until I read a piece by Bruce Ware on this horrendous doctrine. Can you tell I totally reject with disdain ESS?

  229. @ dee: supposedly the founder of the Salvation Army, I believe, but am sure it’s been attributed to many other people as well…

  230. Nancy wrote:

    dee wrote:
    It is vital for you, and everyone else to understand that a crime has been committed if he has hurt his wife. The church must convince the woman to report this to authorities and should do so themselves if she refuses. Abuse is a crime.
    Dee, you know that I love and respect you and what you are doing, but I feel like I have to say this.
    The church has to be careful in this sort of situation. I have seen too much of this to always fly to the defense of the female without further information. From what I have seen coming into the ER, and from what I have read, and from what I heard from my son (a career prosecutor) there is a significant proportion of these cases where she was the one who threw the first punch, she was the one who was drunk and combative last night in the ER and she was the one who got hurt simply because he was stronger than she was. In cases like this, chances are that if you strip him down he may have some bruises also. Next day she has sobered up and is crying on the preacher trying to get her husband or boy friend in trouble and make herself look good. I read somewhere some stats on this, but since I do not have the reference I will not talk about stats. Suffice it to say that this scenario is not rare.
    Pastors do not need to fall into traps like this. Didn’t I read somewhere about the need to be “wise as serpents…” All I am saying is, simply being female does not convey or imply that one is in the right, and simply being injured is not proof of any of the surrounding circumstances one way or the other.

    Um. . . are you really saying that if a wife throws the first punch, the husband (who is bigger and stronger) should not be prosecuted for punching back? If he’s bigger and stronger, he can restrain her. Or he can leave. He is certainly under no compulsion or necessity to respond to violence with violence.

  231. KR Wordgazer wrote:

    If he’s bigger and stronger, he can restrain her. Or he can leave. He is certainly under no compulsion or necessity to respond to violence with violence

    Amen! We can’t control the actions of others, but we can control how we respond to them.

  232. Angelacfr wrote:

    we talk it out until an agreement is reached. If an agreement can’t be reached the person who has more knowledge in that realm takes trump if it is a crucial decision.

    This makes perfect sense. i am shocked by the number of Christians leaders who think it is impossible to do this. I bet they are a pain to live with.

  233. I like this idea of mutual submission personally. I was reading Grudem’s article on ” the myth of mutual submission” and I dont get it. He actually changed jobs to Phoenix Seminary due to his wife’s health. That is mutual.

  234. gus wrote:

    No, it definitely isn’t. It’s novel theology, and just like most of the “novel food”, it’s not good for you.

    Not only is ESS not orthodox trinitarianism, it is heresy. It is so plainly condemned as heresy by the church, that Stephen Wellum had to write a journal article explaining that what CBMW believes in “not really” heresy. If it were orthodox trinitarianism – or even close – he wouldn’t have had to write that article.

  235. Bentbutnotbroken wrote:

    My wife & I have been happily married over 37 years. The secret of our success is that we agreed before we got married that I would make all the important decisions.

    But nothing important has come up in over 37 years. She’s going to let me know when something important needs to be decided.

    Loved this!

  236. One of the problem with comps is that they don’t draw the line just at senior pastor or pastor, they draw the line far lower — they exclude women speakers, women authors, women radio/TV broadcasters, guest speakers, women with expert knowledge on various topics, and those who don’t claim any “authority.”

    Some comp men go overboard in trying to protect their turf. And that’s exactly what it is: defending turf.

  237. @ Bentbutnotbroken:

    I really love your answers. And you appear to be about as complementarian as Gene really is, given what he has said about their relationship.

    Remember my earlier remark. There are a lot of egalitarian relationships that people say are complementarian, because they really do not understand all of the ramifications of complementarianism as per the people who invented the word (and the idea?).

  238. @ Victorious:
    When I worked as a landfill specialist in the early 1990s, the public works director decided that the trash routes needed to be revised. Some routes were much longer than before due to recent development, leading to late garbage pickup. So he appointed an intern to the task, and she began to redraw the routes using paper maps because this was before geographical information systems were in common use. The garbage men looked at the draft route revisions, and privately told me that the routes were unworkable because the maps were not accurate. But when our boss asked the men for their opinion, no one said anything because they were afraid of his hot temper. Sure enough, when the new routes were implemented the phone rang off the hook in City Hall with complaints that their garbage was not picked up, and the boss blamed the men for not saying anything.

    I am relating this story because a similar situation exists in church. The pastors probably think everything is fine, because no women are coming to them to voice concerns. In reality, many women will never talk to their pastors about their concerns, lest they suffer the fate of my friend who was excommunicated for leaving her abusive husband. Instead many women will live lives of quiet desperation, unhappy with their patriarchal husbands but fearful of talking to the pastor lest they get blamed for not being submissive enough. While many middle aged women will remain in the church, their children are leaving in large numbers.

    I have no doubt that Gene is a pastor who cares for his parishioners. If no women have told him that

  239. @ Rob Smith:

    “an egalitarian husband who fails to consider his wife’s position will also have to deal with the consequences of his sin.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    Hi, Rob. What do you mean “the wife’s position”? What is his sin exactly in this example?

  240. elastigirl wrote:

    Hi, Rob. What do you mean “the wife’s position”? What is his sin exactly in this example?

    His sin is not putting his wife in the proper position, i.e. dirt beneath his feet. Just as we are dirt beneath God’s feet, and skubalon rolls downhill. God stomps on men, men stomp on women, everyone stamp harder.

  241. Moxie wrote:

    I’m a single female PhD whose hobbies include weight lifting and hunting.

    Looks like you chose your handle well, Moxie.

  242. A few more select responses:

    KR Wordgazer wrote:

    But where in passage is Christ commanding the church?

    The whole NT.

    This passage is about Christ laying down His power and position in order to raise the church up to be glorious.

    The passage is actually about marital relationships.

    This passage is not a free pass for husbands to feel justified commanding their wives or imposing their will on their wives in the event of a disagreement, or anything like that.

    I am glad to hear you say that. Sounds like you are on the right track.

  243. Retha wrote:

    The church submits to Christ because he knows best, because Christ loved first, because his actions clearly shows this love – and we are aware of it. They are not submitting because Jesus holds a gun to their head and tell them to, but because they jumped into loving arms.

    An excellent (and complementarian) thought.

    A Christian wife can submit as to Christ when the husband is like Christ: When he knows better and his actions show love.

    Again, an excellent (and complementarian) thought.

    The crusades, the inquisition, churches supporting slavery – Jesus sure allowed it, because it happened.

    Excellent examples. Wouldn’t we agree those are sin?

  244. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    In my opinion, you haven’t done a very good job with the latter on this thread. I think most readers here are less interested in what you believe, and more interested in the “why”.

    I have explained why … because the Bible says so. I have appealed to the meaning of hupatasso, and the egals have no evidence for their meaning. The meaning of it has been defended in many places. I have also appealed to the example Paul uses of the church submitting to Christ. I have no other reasons since those are the reasons Paul gives. If people disagree, then fine. They won’t answer to me. But we don’t have the liberty to reject the meaning of words and the analogies of Scripture simply because we wish to come to a different conclusion, do we? Part of submitting to Christ is acknowledging that he knows more and better than we do. Acknowledging him as king means doing what he says. If you don’t, then he isn’t Lord.

  245. Dismissing every negative example and every poor experience as not being an example of “true complementarianism” is, at the very least, a logical and rhetorical fallacy.

    True, and applying every single anecdote of sinfulness to everyone who espouses a particular view is troublesome. What is important is what the teaching is, not how some people have been sinful. Can we agree on that? Many egalitarians are sinful (and abusive). But you wouldn’t argue that those define egalitarian would you? To say that the common thread running through all this is biblical complementarianism is to ignore that the vast majority of abuse takes places outside of Christianity, much less biblical complementarianism .

    it is worth examining whether your positive experience is a product of complementarianism or of being a mature adult without major untreated psychological problems.Maybe it’s the result of someone who has determined to live in submission to Christ and his word, however inconsistent that might be.

    And again: The English translation of the Ephesians passages has added words not there in the Greek, selectively.

    Well, no. With all your qualifications, you should know that many languages (particularly Greek and Hebrew) have unexpressed verbs, or verbs that are carried over from previous sentences. When you have a verbless clause you have to supply one and that comes from the text.

    And I can tell you that, there is a great deal of what we have in the English NT that is the result of the terrible patriarchy and divine right influences on the KJV translators that carries over into almost all English translations today.

    No one who has done all the study you claim to have done would make a statement like this. It is just plainly wrong. There’s a reason why complementarianism predates the English text of the KJV by more than 1500 years.

    are leaving the organized church that teaches what becomes the excuse for abuse and denying the equality of all before God.

    Complementarianism doesn’t deny the equality of all before God. Again, if you have studied as you say you have, then you know that already.

  246. Last two paragraphs messed up in my response to Aarce above.

    it is worth examining whether your positive experience is a product of complementarianism or of being a mature adult without major untreated psychological problems.

    Maybe it’s the result of someone who has determined to live in submission to Christ and his word, however inconsistent that might be.

    And again: The English translation of the Ephesians passages has added words not there in the Greek, selectively.

    Well, no. With all your qualifications, you should know that many languages (particularly Greek and Hebrew) have unexpressed verbs, or verbs that are carried over from previous sentences. When you have a verbless clause you have to supply one and that comes from the text.

    And I can tell you that, there is a great deal of what we have in the English NT that is the result of the terrible patriarchy and divine right influences on the KJV translators that carries over into almost all English translations today.

    No one who has done all the study you claim to have done would make a statement like this. It is just plainly wrong. There’s a reason why complementarianism predates the English text of the KJV by more than 1500 years.

    are leaving the organized church that teaches what becomes the excuse for abuse and denying the equality of all before God.

    Complementarianism doesn’t deny the equality of all before God. Again, if you have studied as you say you have, then you know that already.

  247. Victorious wrote:

    You have interpreted this rather liberally by concluding that it didn’t really mean what it says but it “just” means men have to work for a living.

    Huh? The curse is talking about the work men will do. Adam was a farmer, so it talks about his work. People will different jobs will face the same kind of curse, only in their own fields.

    My point is that it doesn’t have to be that way. In fact, most of those prophecies no longer exist.

    Again, Huh? Men don’t work by sweat? I am a pastor and I do. And the curse was never limited to agriculture. Thorns and thistles still exist, as anyone who has a rose bush, or a field, or a yard, or a garden knows. The sorrow of childbirth is not sadness but pain, and having watched three of them, I know that still exists. People still eat plants, at least for a healthy diet they do.

    All of those prophetic conditions as an immediate result of having been sent from the garden have been eliminated or improvedAs you can see, that turns out not the be the case.

    In the end, it seems you will continue to believe what you do, and thank God many women will continue to see it as erroneous interpretation of scripture.

    So why doesn’t this apply to you? Notice all the lengths you have gone to do explain why Scripture doesn’t say what it says, and to explain why 1900 years of church history and biblical scholarship that God used to build the church were wrong. That is telling to me.

    What is going on here is that there is an attempt to understand what God said by parsing culture rather than listening and explaining what God said. In other words, we look around us to interpret God’s word, rather than looking at God’s word to interpret what’s around us.

    The issue is determined by Scripture and what it says. If you notice, every single egalitarian explanation is filled with explanation of why it doesn’t mean what it says, and why it actually says something else, as if had God known all that we know, he would have said it like we say it. Too bad God wasn’t enlightened by modern sensibilities, eh?

  248. @ Arce:
    I think I’ve said as much about this as I want to for the time being.

    However, I first found this forum in the wake of J MacArthur’s Stange Fire conference and enjoyed the various views expressed on it here minus any party line. Now just as JM uses the word ‘ charismatic’ as a broad brush approach to what in practice is a diverse movement, the same can be said of the word ‘complementarian’.

    Neither ‘equality’ nor ‘complementarian’ are biblical words, and the jargon has become a hindrance to actual communication, especially in the misapplication of stereotypes.

  249. Gene wrote:

    Complementarianism doesn’t deny the equality of all before God. Again, if you have studied as you say you have, then you know that already.

    Sometimes I think that you are baiting people. And if i think it, others do as well. You make simplistic statements and then imply everyone else is just plain biblically illiterate. Then you will deny that you are doing so. This is your particular style and that is why I moderate all of your comments. As you see, they all get through but I am distinctly displeased by your “style” and wonder if this is how you exert your authority in your church.

    I know what complementarianism “says” and I also know what complementarianism “does.” Sometimes the words do not match up with the actions. And if you had read all the comments carefully, “you would know that already.”

  250. Gene wrote:

    A Christian wife can submit as to Christ when the husband is like Christ: When he knows better and his actions show love.
    Again, an excellent (and complementarian) thought.

    If you affirm that: You also have to affirm the corollary: When he does not know better or his actions does not show love, she cannot submit as to Christ. And since I also believe a Christian husband can (and should!) submit as to Christ when the wife is like Christ: When she knows better and her actions show love, it is an egalitarian thought.

    Following wisdom and love regardless of the gender of the giver, and resisting foolishness and cruelty or selfishness regardless of the gender of him who leads that way is egalitarian.

    In fact, the majority of so called complementarian thoughts are that way: They are half of an egal thought. For example, male leadership – if the man is gifted by God, is good, as comps and egals will agree. Egals would add: so is female leadership that is gifted by God.

  251. A few last comments on ESS.

    No, it definitely isn’t. It’s novel theology, and just like most of the “novel food”, it’s not good for you.

    Most people don’t consider something at least 1 1/2 millenia old to be novel, but perhaps you are older than you sound, or have a different perspective on time.

    It came into vogue around the same time that complementarianism was being pushed. It was a way to legitimize the “gospel” nature of the gender role proposal. Sort of like “It was good enough for Jesus and it is good enough for me. Whatzamatta you? You don’t like Jesus?”

    In an ironic way, you are correct. Both are very old. There is nothing new here. Complementarianism is as new as the OT is, not to mention the NT. But even in more recent times, it was espoused by Charles Hodge in the middle 1800s, by Augustus Strong around the turn of the century, and others. So it isn’t new, even by those terms. And it wasn’t created to defend complementarianism. Both of those men were writing before there was even any serious challenge to complementarianism. And we could cite more.

    If it were orthodox trinitarianism – or even close – he wouldn’t have had to write that article.

    Actually, if you look at historical theology, you will see that it has a long history. Writing an article to defend it means only that it is under attack.

    This is one of those issues that just defies belief. For someone to say that ESS is new/novel or heretical belies an ignorance of doctrine and history that is astounding, particularly given the vehemence with which the position is espoused. If you are that dogmatic about something, then you should have studied it enough to know. And anyone who has done even a little reading on ESS (whether they believe it or not), knows that the theological and historical foundations of it are extensive and solid. That doesn’t mean it’s right; but it means it isn’t new, and it isn’t heretical. It’s been accepted by orthodox theologians and churchmen for centuries.

  252. dee wrote:

    You harbor an abuser by not reporting the abuse.

    In most states, adult victims have to press charges. We should encourage her to and walk with her through it, but you can’t force it. And by calling and reporting without her permission, you can actually make it worse. A husband who finds out that his wife who was not ready to report confided in someone so that the police show up or some investigator shows up, can turn on his wife even worse. Here’s a place where good common sense and a little training in counseling and abuse is helpful. We need to think through the ramifications of what we are saying.

    Again, I beg you all, if you have some involvement in these cases, please know what you are doing. If you don’t, refer them to someone who does.

    I am going to bow out here, hopefully for good so as not to be blamed for dominating the conversation. I have tried to respect each response to me, and respond respectfully to you. Thanks for the conversation.

  253. Gene wrote:

    Again, Huh? Men don’t work by sweat? I am a pastor and I do. And the curse was never limited to agriculture. Thorns and thistles still exist, as anyone who has a rose bush, or a field, or a yard, or a garden knows. The sorrow of childbirth is not sadness but pain, and having watched three of them, I know that still exists. People still eat plants, at least for a healthy diet they do.

    OK, one last effort to make you see your twisting…

    The “sweat” on the brow of Adam is literally perspiration. That doesn’t normally happen from desk jobs, but does from manual labor.

    The thorns and thistles scripture speaks of come from the cursed ground, not from a particular species of plants; i.e. a rose bush. The soil itself will produce thorns and thistles.

    If you are interpreting (as do many commentaries) Eve’s “sorrow” as literal, physical “pain” then you must apply literal, physical “pain” to Adam’s toil as well because the same word is used for both.

    H6093

    its-tsaw-bone’
    From H6087; worrisomeness, that is, labor or pain: – sorrow, toil.

    It’s evident to me (and many others) the great lengths some will go to in an effort to support an erroneous interpretation in order to further their agenda in maintaining power.

    Tragic….

  254. Gene wrote:

    What is important is what the teaching is, not how some people have been sinful. Can we agree on that? Many egalitarians are sinful (and abusive). But you wouldn’t argue that those define egalitarian would you?

    Many egalitarians are abusive? Egalitarians are those who believe you may not Lord it over another. Is there some kinds of abuse that does not lord it over the abused? Or are there people who truly believe it is wrong to Lord it over another (only if they believe that, are they egalitarian) but who nevertheless do it to the point of abuse? The answer to the latter question is probably yes, but those who really know something is wrong and who do it nevertheless will be more likely to stop, and to do it to a smaller degree.

    Complementarianism is a doctrine that could make abuse more likely, as it says God wants a man to do some degree of Lording it over, and women to allow them. To give comps the benefit of the doubt, I think that the abusive husband is not really complementarian (comps do say men should be nice in their leadership). But the abusive man is aided and abetted by complementarians in at least 2 ways:

    a)He hears God gives him a right to be the boss (even though he mishears half the comp message)
    b) His wife hears she has to submit. The more she obeys his demands without pushing back, the more entitled he feel to continue in his sin and get worse.

    As such, complementarianism indeed matters in cases of abuse.

  255. Dee, you posted a couple of things since my last response that I was bowing out, so I will briefly respond to your direct comments to me.

    dee wrote:

    You mean “In my opinion the Bible says so.”

    No, not really. It says wives submit to your husbands as the church does to Christ. You don’t deny that do you? If you differ, then would you mind quoting for me what your Bible says in Ephesians 5:22-24. I am not aware of any translation that says anything different.

    To my knowledge, our difference is about what “submit” (hupatasso) means, and whether or not it also applies to the man, right?

    dee wrote:

    You make simplistic statements and then imply everyone else is just plain biblically illiterate. Then you will deny that you are doing so.

    I make simplistic statements so as not to have overly long posts. I am glad to defend what I say, but you have in the past accused me of dominating the conversation for responding to people and interacting with arguments. I am trying not to do that.

    I know what complementarianism “says” and I also know what complementarianism “does.” Sometimes the words do not match up with the actions. And if you had read all the comments carefully, “you would know that already.”

    Yes, I know that well. Remember how many times I have talked about sinful complementarians? Sometimes words do not match up with actions. It’s sin when men (whether egal or comp) abuse or mistreat women. I detest and abhor it.

    But to the particular point, complementarianism does not deny the equality of men and women before God. We are all created in his image, and in Christ, we are all equal. Period. No qualifications. No justifications. I will be glad to interact more so as not to appear to bait people or make simplistic statements. It’s up to you. Thanks, Dee.

  256. Gene wrote:

    complementarianism predates the English text of the KJV by more than 1500 years.

    Interesting, can you point to any major Christian writings of the two or three centuries after Jesus that are complementarian? The Christians of the era wrote much Bible commentary, quote a complementarian passage, one which give both genders equal, complementary roles.

  257. Gene wrote:

    What is going on here is that there is an attempt to understand what God said by parsing culture rather than listening and explaining what God said. In other words, we look around us to interpret God’s word, rather than looking at God’s word to interpret what’s around us.

    When you point to what the church traditionally did, you are parsing sexist culture, rather than listening and explaining what God said.

    The issue is determined by Scripture and what it says. If you notice, every single egalitarian explanation is filled with explanation of why it doesn’t mean what it says, and why it actually says something else, as if had God known all that we know, he would have said it like we say it. Too bad God wasn’t enlightened by modern sensibilities, eh?

    Complementarians, on the other hand, hardly ever explain why they contradict scripture. And they do: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/the-plain-meaning-of-the-text/
    Even “equal, but men must lead” contradicts the plain meaning of equality.

  258. Gene –

    In the end, it seems you will continue to believe what you do, and thank God many women will continue to see it as erroneous interpretation of scripture.

    Thank God . . . why? Do men and women who look at original language and text and come to a different conclusion about scripture love God less? Do they love their husbands/wives less? Their children? It sounds like you are demeaning women and men who come to a different conclusion than you?

    The words spoken to Adam and Eve in the garden after eating the fruit of the tree were a curse. Are we to continue under that curse . . . even after Christ has redeemed us from the curse? Is the brokenness to be our hallmark, or are we now new creations in Christ Jesus?

    Everyone has not broad brushed. But still, I don’t know how your “thank God” comment helps either. You seem to have as much a certain view of egals/mutualists as you think egals/mutualists have of comps. I’d just like to worship with people where it doesn’t matter which camp you are in and teaching to the Church isn’t saturated with either perspective.

  259. Gene wrote:
    True, and applying every single anecdote of sinfulness to everyone who espouses a particular view is troublesome. What is important is what the teaching is, not how some people have been sinful. Can we agree on that? Many egalitarians are sinful (and abusive). But you wouldn’t argue that those define egalitarian would you? To say that the common thread running through all this is biblical complementarianism is to ignore that the vast majority of abuse takes places outside of Christianity, much less complementarianism.

    No, we cannot agree on that. I don’t believe in separating the teaching from it’s fruits. Moreover, you completelyignore the fact that I specifically cited problems with the way leading proponents of complementarianism talk about women, gender, marriage, and sex while they’re speaking and teaching about complementarianism. And I think I addressed your backhanded charge of hypocrisy in my post. Egalitarians may abuse, but they don’t claim divine imprimatur for the abuse. And egalitarian teaching actually has splutions for abuse of all sorts and mistreatment that falls short of abuse – the victim is not exhorted to pray harder or sit patiently while her husband’s financial fecklessness destroys the family.

  260. So, Gene, please explain what you perceive to be the benefits of complementarianism that are unique to complementarianism. Corpllary – describe the bad effects of egalitarianism that are unique to egalitarianism.

  261. @ Retha:
    I doubt Gene actually wants to claim the way the Church taught about and treated women during the middle ages and up to the middle part of the twentieth century as complementarian. Or else he’ll cherry pick, claim the rsst was just individual instances od sin, and fail to address the logical problem with claiming complementarianism as orthodox when the rest of it was so wrong.

  262. Guys, it’s really quite simple: Of course Christians should submit to each other, but women are supposed submit twice as hard, since there is one extra verse about it. And men get to be in charge, but as long as they don’t have to *say* so, they’re not lording it over anyone! Shame on you women for expecting them to spell it out for you!

    ^ This is the complementarian argument, from what I see them saying.

  263. Gene wrote:

    In other words, we look around us to interpret God’s word, rather than looking at God’s word to interpret what’s around us.

    I do both.

    Now I can’t speak for Victorious (or for anyone else here, for that matter), but I am convinced as a Christian that it is not enough for me to interpret my experiences — and others’ — in light of the Bible. I also have to interpret the Bible in light of human experience. That’s how I try to avoid the error of Job’s friends, who thought their (limited) knowledge of God gave them the wisdom to tell Job why he was suffering. It’s also one lesson I’ve learned from the mistakes of Christendom in the past, like the persecution of Galileo and Copernicus.

    Experience (mine and others’) has shown me that human beings are too different in talents, temperaments and personalities for simple, formulaic solutions to be helpful for them. To demand the “headship” of the husband in every home is more than every home can bear, I think. More than that, the “traditional” interpretation of Paul’s writings that you cite have never felt right to me. It flies too much in the face of what I know to be true of men and women, and seems too much at odds with Jesus’ attitude towards women. So I don’t ignore those passages of scripture, Gene. I try to make sense of them in another way. What I reject is the tradition which I find faulty — and I don’t care if it’s 1900 years old, or less than a century old. I still reject what I perceive to be wrong.

    You also wrote:

    If you notice, every single egalitarian explanation is filled with explanation of why it doesn’t mean what it says, and why it actually says something else, as if had God known all that we know, he would have said it like we say it. Too bad God wasn’t enlightened by modern sensibilities, eh?

    I’m sure that God knows everything that we know, and much, much more. To me, the problem is the limitations of Paul’s knowledge, and the situations of his audience, and the limitations of human language. More than anything, we should remember that Paul didn’t write his letters with us in mind, but in response to specific, contemporary situations. I think it’s our responsibility to read his writings with a spirit of not only obedience, but also wisdom.

  264. Gene wrote:

    No one who has done all the study you claim to have done would make a statement like this. It is just plainly wrong. There’s a reason why complementarianism predates the English text of the KJV by more than 1500 years.

    Complementarianism was invented by the founders of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in the 1980s. The prior expression was only submission of women, aka patriarchy, which has existed in the world for centuries prior to Christ or the NT and was an influence on Paul’s writings, which softened it by mutuality in submission and a command to men to love sacrificially. Complementarianism is a more comely wrapper around what is actually patriarchy in practice.

    Yes I know about the need to add a verb or verbs, the issue is which verb or verbs are added, and the ones added are influenced in this case by two things, one is patriarchy and the other is a tradition of following that path because of misplaced loyalty to the KJV due to the number of people like you who cannot see how destructive of the message of love the KJV choices are. The verb for love could have as easily been added there. As well, the phrase translated as “wife to her own husband” could have been translated into English as “spouses to their own spouse” given the actual Greek.

  265. And Gene, it is not plainly wrong, and you are plainly under the influence of the patriarchists of the CBMW, and cannot see plain truth. What you are arguing will be the death of evangelical Christianity unless it is corrected to the standard of mutuality and love reflected in the first century church as it actually existed and functioned, per the model and instruction of Jesus.

  266. burntnorton wrote:

    So, Gene, please explain what you perceive to be the benefits of complementarianism that are unique to complementarianism

    This is an important point. I am looking for specifics about complementarianism that make it unique. I believe this has not been accomplished by anyone in any significant way.

  267. Arce wrote:

    And Gene, it is not plainly wrong,

    This is the difficulty that I have had with Gene’s style, both now and in the past. He is right and everyone else is “plainly” wrong.

  268. @ Arce:
    Could you rewrite KJV of Ephesians 5:22-24 to correct for translation errors and the influence of patriarchy? I certainly would find such a comparison helpful in attempting to understand this controversial passage of scripture. Thanks.

  269. Patriarchs (complementarians) say that men and women are both equal in God’s eyes because they are both made in the image of God. But men and women are given different roles. Men are supposed to lead (be in charge) because in Genesis they were created first, and because it is Eve’s fault for tempting Adam in the Garden of Eden. The main role of women is to obey their husbands, serve him in every way possible, bear children, and be their husband’s own private porn star lest he cheat. While fulfilling her “Biblical” goal of having as many children as the husband wants, wives must never gain weight or grow older because if he cheats it is her fault.

    Partriarchs like RC Sproul or Douglas Wilson will protest that I am exaggerating, and that their rule over their wives is benevolent. Besides, if a husband really is abusive she can always appeal to the church. My friend tried to appeal to the church when her husband refused to pay taxes, but the church excommunicated her when she filed separation papers to protect herself from the IRS.

    Rock star complementarian preachers like Douglass Wilson, Mark Driscoll and John Piper are still getting rich and wielding a lot of influence through their books and conferences. But they are losing the culture war, because 60% of young people attending church leave for an extended period of time or permanently.

    According to a recent Barma poll, there are six major reasons why young people leave. This list is fromthe Winter, 2012 issue of Christianity Today. Note that one fifth of young people say that God is absent from their church. This has been my experience as well. As a much older (30 years) graduate student, I struggled to reconcile the rigid, harsh, old world culture of the church and the kind, nonjudgemental culture of the college campus. Most of my much younger classmates thought church was irrelevant to their lives, and called themselves “spiritual but not religious”. I stayed in my church because it was located near campus, and I needed a parking permit. But once I graduated, I left and I am now experiencing my freedom from the strutting men in church who ignored me, and the women who snubbed me.

    Here are the six reasons.

    Isolationism. One-fourth of 18- to 29-year-olds say church demonizes everything outside church, including the music, movies, culture, and technology that define their generation.

    Shallowness. One-third call church boring, about one-fourth say faith is irrelevant and Bible teaching is unclear. One-fifth say God is absent from their church experience.

    Anti-science. Up to one-third say the church is out of step on scientific developments and debate.

    Sex. The church is perceived as simplistic and judgmental. For a fifth or more, a “just say no” philosophy is insufficient in a techno-porno world. Young Christian singles are as sexually active as their non-churched friends, and many say they feel judged.

    Exclusivity. Three in 10 young people feel the church is too exclusive in this pluralistic and multi-cultural age. And the same number feel forced to choose between their faith and their friends.

    Doubters. The church is not a safe place to express doubts say over one-third of young people, and one-fourth have serious doubts they’d like to discuss.

  270. Gene, I personally believe that the word “hypotasso” is a word of placement and not a word of subjection. The reason why I believe this is because I noticed that one time when Paul used the word “hypotasso” he was quoting from the Old Testament. And when I turned to that prophecy in the Old Testament, I saw that a word of placement was used. So because I do not believe that Paul would misquote Old Testament Scripture, I believe that the word “hypotasso” is a word of placement and not a word of subjection. If you would like to see more on this you can visit my website at http://www.womanthegloryofman.com

    Furthermore, Arce is right. The English translations add words that are not in the original greek, which changes the meaning of the passage. The 1 Corinthians 11 passage is a prime example.

  271. burntnorton wrote:

    @ Retha:
    I doubt Gene actually wants to claim the way the Church taught about and treated women during the middle ages and up to the middle part of the twentieth century as complementarian. Or else he’ll cherry pick, claim the rsst was just individual instances od sin, and fail to address the logical problem with claiming complementarianism as orthodox when the rest of it was so wrong.

    But, he actually did claim that . . .

  272. Bentbutnotbroken wrote:

    But nothing important has come up in over 37 years.

    She’s going to let me know when something important needs to be decided.

    Love this.

    BTW: if anyone thinks that marriage is about power, about playing the trump card, they shouldn’t even get married. Actually, they shouldn’t even be allowed to get married. 😉

  273. @ Joe:

    A lot has been and has to be inferred in translation from the Greek.

    The idea is not submission (aka kowtowing) as we think of it, but more of being non-confrontational or non-argumentative, or seeking to be cooperative and to get along with each other.

    There are missing verbs that must be assumed in making a translation into English, as well as missing identifiers. The word for wife does not exist nor does the word husband.

    So there is a huge amount of inference by the translator, figuring out the intent of the long ago writer. And the intent one prescribes results in the translation.

    So I will not provide you a translation myself, but suggest that you look up the passage. And understand that the dictionaries used in translation typically show the Greek word and the typically assumed meaning that has been applied to it by previous translators!!! And of course, those uses are dependent upon the presumptions of those translators trying to make sense of a passage.

    The spirit of the text is clearly in the idea of mutuality of “submission” and of love.

    PERHAPS because the society placed women in an inferior position, such that her “submission” to other men could be misunderstood or have untoward consequences, Paul made it clear that a married woman’s “submission” should be to one man, her husband, and not to every man!

    OR PERHAPS Paul was really saying that spouses should be “submissive” to each other (actually possible given the Greek), and should love each other as Christ did in dying for the church. So much has to be presumed to get to a sentence in English that it is almost impossible to decide among the alternatives.

    So one has to start with one’s theological imperatives, consider the society of the time of writing, and the time of the initial translations, and then think about the principle being explicated in the scripture, to come to an application to today. To take any passage as a command to today to oppress women, to prevent them from participate in decision-making, to give man the last word in a relationship, assumes a lot of a text that is less strong than the translators seem to make it. Kind of like building a tower on sand.

  274. dee wrote:

    This is the difficulty that I have had with Gene’s style, both now and in the past. He is right and everyone else is “plainly” wrong.

    Dee, you have drawn me out once again. Can you please identify someone here on your side who does not believe they are “plainly” right? Who arguing your side has given any credence to the idea that complementarianism is anything other than plainly wrong? Who has treated me or my position with anything but disdain and disgust?

    I am not bothered by any of that, but it seems to me that I am hardly unique here. But you and others are convinced that complementarianism is wrong, and you have you problem stating it clearly and in no uncertain terms. Why is it a problem when I take the other side, albeit in a much more respectful and gracious way that some here writing against me?

    Isn’t it true that you and virtually all (there may be an exception I don’t recall) of the commenters on your side say that they are plainly right and I am plainly wrong?

  275. @ Joe:

    Beside what Arce says here

    @ Arce

    Please don’t read those three scriptures alone, in isolation from the entire letter and especially not isolated from the chapter before and after. Those three scriptures are not written as part of a list of commandments. Please also throw out the section and chapter divisions and titles. They are man’s additions to the text and can very much add to and/or take away the intention of the text.

  276. Gene wrote:

    If all we have to do is toss out verses we don’t like, then what are we left with? I don’t think we can just toss it out. We have to deal with it.

    I don’t think any of us want to ‘toss out’ various verses which appear in Scripture, and I’m certain Victorious used the expression as a figure of speech. I believe the Scriptures to be inspired and I have a nuanced view of ‘inerrancy’ which may or may not agree in whole or in part with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

    For me it boils down to how much weight I’m going to assign the various verses in their various contexts, what they say and what they do not say, and that is not the same thing as ‘tossing out’ something because I may or may not ‘like it’. I think that when we insist that all the jots & tittles must have the same size and same shape, the soaring spires and the beautifully curved archways that is the Bible are not possible, and we wind up with a Lego monstrosity instead.

  277. Muff Potter wrote:

    and I’m certain Victorious used the expression as a figure of speech.

    Thank you Muff! I specifically said “Toss Genesis 3 out as support for male headship and/or rule.” In other words, it could be eliminated as support for the headship/rule Gene was trying to make using Gen. 3.

  278. @ Bridget:
    and the verse divisions as well. They were inserted by a monk riding a donkey while reading and inserting the divisions!!!!

  279. @ dee:
    Comes across like a rewording of the familiar “clearly biblical” that complementarians like to use when expressing their view, doesn’t it?

  280. Beautiful!

    Another helpful hint about mutual decision-making; sometimes, the person who gets the “final say” is the person for whom the decision has greater impact. There have definitely been times where we were in an argument and I realized that he felt a lot more strongly about the topic than I did, so I would defer. At other times, he’s had the same realization and backed down in pursuit of serving me.

  281. @ Arce:

    Too bad that particular donkey didn’t talk!

    I wonder if more breaks were inserted for the purpose of creating those fancy first letters in the illuminated manuscripts — not that I have anything against the beautiful artwork on its own 🙂

  282. @ Joe:
    I’m glad you asked the question and to have received…

    @ Arce:
    …such a helpful response. 🙂

    Its refreshing to see a guy interested in getting clarity regarding a hard-to-understand verse, a verse that (as Kirsten Dugas puts it) lacks “continuity with the rest of Scripture.” And nice to read a response from a well-educated egalitarian who can so deftly address the difficult questions.

    Complementarianism is equally damaging to men and women, so in that sense its very egalitarian.

  283. Gene said [quote feature isn’t working for me]: “Um, so the husband is the source of the wife, and God the father is the source of the Son? Please do at least a little exegetical work. You don’t have to be an expert, but we could at least do away with stuff like this, can’t we?”

    Here’s a good article on the subject: http://www.hccentral.com/magazine/ephesians5.html

    And an excerpt from it:
    Another difficulty that the “Submission of Wives” passage presents to us is the “head” metaphor in Eph. 5:21. We use that as a metaphor in our own language and culture to mean “authority,” but it would be a serious mistake to jump to the conclusion that the first century culture used it the same way. Hebrew thinking people like Paul understood “head” in several contexts as is evidenced by the Hebrew word for head, which can mean “beginning” (see Gen. 1:1), as well as it can mean “leader.” The same meanings appear in the Greek word Paul used here, where “head” tends to mean the starting point from which something radiates outward through the trunk and into the limbs. This idea is expressed again and again in Eph. 3, 4, and 5. God’s grace begins in Christ and then moves through Paul and to the church (Eph. 3:7-10). See also Eph. 4:7-16, where the “head” metaphor appears again to indicate Christ as the source of spiritual gifts. So, with this motive developed so strongly in prior chapters, we should not expect to find the “head” metaphor changed to mean “authority” in Chapter 5. It is better to see the “headship” of man over woman in Eph. 5:23 as “source” (remember? the man was the source of woman in Gen. 2:19-23) as Christ is the “source” of the church (See also the separate essay, “Authority in the Church).”

  284. Shannon H. wrote:

    the man was the source of woman in Gen. 2:19-23) as Christ is the “source” of the church

    Yes… the same idea is found here:

    For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 1Cor. 11:12

  285. Always a fascinating topic. I am in the minority (at this site, anyways) in that I greatly appreciate the work of Piper and Grudem on this topic.

    However, I think Wade is exactly right that mutual submission between Christians has to inform the husband and wife relationship first, before we quibble about the rest of Ephesians 5. Our identity is first and foremost related to who we are in Christ (brothers and sisters) than who we are in marriage (husband and wife.) Paul emphasizes this when he points out that marriage is not eternal, but our identity in Christ is eternal.

    So mutual submission must come first, and from there we figure out what to make of verses 22-33.

  286. @ Joey:
    I agree with what you said about mutual submission and the importance of putting the marriage relationship first. I think oneness requires this. For example in decision making, I think love would dictate that things should be decided on the basis of equality, and that whatever the decision may be, it cannot be to the detriment of the one over the other.

  287. Daisy wrote:

    There is nothing in Christianity for me, because most Christians presuppose you are married with a kid.

    Daisy, please don’t think that. In the midst of Christianity, there is Christ. There is Someone BIG in Christianity. He makes all the difference. If you say you don’t like the churches at the moment, I get it. But the church is not Jesus.

    But Jesus is not like that. He said:”
    18
    “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
    He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
    to set the oppressed free,

    19
    to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

    Jesus don’t ignore those ignored by the church.

    I recently explained, to someone who was (unlike you) aggressively anti-Christian, why I still cling to Jesus, and don’t just say He was a good guy and I try to by good too: http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/why-i-dont-try-to-be-good-without-jesus/

  288. Bridget wrote:

    @ Joe:

    Here is an article you might find helpful.

    http://juniaproject.com/translation-1-timothy-212/

    Thanks, but I didn’t find the article helpful. 1Timothy 2:12 (RSV)states, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” According to the article, that verse most likely means a prohibition against women teaching or instigating ritual violence against men. Good grief – that’s a real stretch!

  289. @ Joe:

    Is it that far of a stretch? I’ve heard some say this reference is in connection to some temple idolatry which contained all sorts of strange, ritualistic stuff we don’t understand these days.

    Perhaps this link might help bring it into perspective. It doesn’t mention ritualistic violence, but it does point out where certain worship in certain temples was not nice to men.
    http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html

  290. I think Paul was inspired to use the personal pronoun. He was talking about his own supervision of a church and not permitting something. It was not about no one should allow!!!!, and it was to a specific church, not a general rule. It that culture, it would have brought disrepute on the church for a woman to be teaching or preaching. However, Paul also had Priscilla teach Apollos!!!

  291. @ Joe:

    Here is an excerpt from the article to whet you whistle.

    “Women in Ephesus were taught to use their voices, their charm, their sexuality and their beauty to dominate, control and subjugate men. It seems that this woman in Ephesus was causing trouble in the church by behavior in the assembly of Christ that was way too similar to the ways of the Artemis cult from whence she came.” ~Wade Burleson

    Perhaps ritual violence is a bit extreme or an exaggeration. But it is based in studying the word used.

    “This phrase ‘usurp authority’ translates one Greek word authentein. This word is used only one time in all of Scripture–let me repeat that again–this word authentein is used only once in the entire Bible, right here in I Timothy 2:12. This word was used, however, in classical Greek literature and it meant ‘to murder someone.’ Paul could have chosen nearly fifty Greek words to speak of the ordinary exercise of authority, but he chose a word that more represents someone ‘dominating, controlling, or subjecting one to harm.’ ”
    ~Wade Burleson

    You see, Joe, it’s not too far of a stretch to conclude that ‘to murder someone’ in a religious context could come across as ritual violence.

    Just sayin’

  292. @ Joe:

    See Arce’s comment above. The article that Mara linked to is good as well. (Thanks, Mara. i had forgotten about that one.)

    Why do you see that article as quite a stretch? (If you don’t mind explaining.)

    Paul was writing to a certain group of people, who lived at a specific time, and they were dealing with actual issues that needed to be addressed to them. If you knew what the customs were of that city you would address those specific issues (especially knowing the details, which we do not know) wouldn’t you? What he said doesn’t necessarily mean it was a commandment to all people for all times.

  293. Arce wrote:

    It was not about no one should allow!!!!, and it was to a specific church, not a general rule. It that culture, it would have brought disrepute on the church for a woman to be teaching or preaching.

    We shouldn’t forget that the whole letter to Timothy was for the purpose of warning Timothy to beware of the false doctrine that was infiltrating that particular church. So it’s possible that the woman Paul mentioned was in need of learning rather than teaching. Hence, “let her learn…”

  294. When I was going to the province of Macedonia, I encouraged you to stay in the city of Ephesus. That way you could order certain people to stop teaching false doctrine. 1Tim. 1:3

  295. Teri Anne–I appreciate your post, but am having a bit of trouble following your logic re the six reasons for leaving church. I don’t doubt your statistics as to what leavers are saying, just having a problem with a bit of the logic.

    When you say it isn’t realistic in a techno-porno world to expect single adults not to have sex, and that those that do feel judged by the church it sounds as though you believe we should just toss that bit of morality out the door.

    If you check the tv and movie listings you could say we also live in a techno-murderous world. I’m sure active murderers would also feel judged by the church. Should we then do away with teaching against murder, and not be so blamed judgmental of murderers?

  296. linda wrote:

    When you say it isn’t realistic in a techno-porno world to expect single adults not to have sex, and that those that do feel judged by the church it sounds as though you believe we should just toss that bit of morality out the door.

    I agree with you that sex outside of marriage is prohibited by Scripture. That being said, let me stand on my soap box a bit. I tire of the word “purity” which has been redefined by evangelicals as strictly the act of sex. In so doing, they forget the words of Jesus about “committing adultery in your heart.” Jesus’ words extended the Law far deeper than the superficial. In so doing, it might appear that He has placed further burden on the people.

    However, Jesus came to set us free by showing us that no matter how hard we try, we cannot live up to the Law. He offered us forgiveness and grace.

    What I am saying is this. Many people struggle with this issue and yet it seems the church puts its stamp of approval on “purity” defined as the act. If we take Jesus in His fullness, it would seem to me that “purity” runs much, much deeper. If it does (and I think it does) I bet 100% of us are not “pure” in this area.

    As we judge the one act, we must also judge all that surrounds it. And then we need to look at Jesus who set us free from this burden. We must attempt to do right but we must never forget that doing right in this area involves a whole lot more And then we must put on the robe of grace which forgives all of us. This is far more complicated than first blush.

  297. There is a strong difference. Sex by mutual consent between adults versus depriving a person of life, which denies them every human right. One of those is legal, the other illegal, for those very reasons. However, I do believe that a church could oppose both and offer forgiveness for either or both, following confession and repentance. But a constant attention on sexual sin when there are other sins extant in the congregation is a problem, and most churches are more infected with greed than anything else, and the Bible speaks more often to social/economic justice and greed than to sexual sin!!!

  298. dee wrote:

    I tire of the word “purity” which has been redefined by evangelicals as strictly the act of sex.

    Funny how they never seem to call for ‘purity’ in any other areas of life.

  299. Arce wrote:

    But a constant attention on sexual sin when there are other sins extant in the congregation is a problem, and most churches are more infected with greed than anything else,

    I agree. And may I point out that the sexual sins that are focused on are “certain” sexual sins.

  300. @ dee: Blame-shifting, really. The people who holler loudest are doing so in order to deflect attention, in all too many cases.

    Humans seem to love to find scapegoats/people to kick around. And it happens as much – or more – in many churches as it does in society at large.

    On this and numerous other topics, I’d FAR rather be with society at large, if only because there’s often a more compassionate response to the problems we encounter while living our lives.

  301. @ dee:
    My previous comment reflects my own experience, though in my case, I was “prideful,” had supposedly lied about something I hadn’t even done, etc. Had nothing whatsoever to do with sex, though a *great* deal to do with a “pastor” who was trying to mete out punishment in lieu of God. (and definitely in lieu of actually listening to my side of things.)

    ah well. It was a while ago now, and is best left on the scrap heap. I have better things to think about and do, and I have found compassion and acceptance in this community (on the blog), as well as in others mostly comprised of people who do not self-identify as Christian.

  302. @ Retha:

    I still respect Jesus and find him appealing, but, I don’t understand some things, like why prayers I had (some for years) have apparently fallen on deaf ears. The Bible is filled with all sorts of promises that if you just believe, God will grant whatever you ask, etc, but that has not been true for me.

    There are different reasons I have soured on the faith, one of the (not the only, but one) revolves around the death of my mother and the reactions (or total inaction) of God and Christians I went to for help after that. Things like that.

    I’m dealing with things like that. I’m not like one of the really angry atheists who run around the internet spewing hatred about God or Christians.

    I’m probably feeling more let down, baffled, and disappointed than hostile regarding the Christian faith. There might be some anger, but mostly disillusionment.

    Thank you for your concern.

  303. @ dee:

    There’s actually a trend bashing virginity now by Christians.

    People like me who have remained literal virgins into our 40s (or anyone who has done so past one’s mid or late 20s) gets told in blogs and magazine articles by liberal and conservative, male and female Christians, that we are judgmental, self righteous, have turned virginity into a fetish – all sorts of put downs.

    There is a movement lately among Christians to diminish the Bible’s teachings on pre-martial sex / virginity / celibacy (to me, those three issues fall under the heading of “purity”).

    Christians from their 20s and on up are writing editorials against virginity / purity / celibacy and have been doing so that past five years, and it seems to have ramped up even more the past two years.

    I’m seeing more and more anti- purity / virginity/ celibacy articles the past couple years.

    (There was even an article about a year ago about a Roman Catholic priest who fathered a baby who was quoted as saying the RC should stop requiring celibacy for priests.)

    And I’m not even Roman Catholic (I was brought up Baptist). But I notice when virginity is under attack by Christians, because I am one.

    Anyway, about this newish anti-virginity trend among Christians.

    I don’t know how to explain it. It’s very offensive to people like me who have truly stayed virgins past the age of 30.

    Here I was, living out what Christians told me as a teen I should do: stay virgin until marriage. Here I was, living out what I thought God wanted, what the Bible said about sex: stay a virgin until marriage.

    Did I want to have sex growing up, and when I was engaged in my 30s with my fiance’? You bet I did.

    But I practiced self control and did not have sex.

    Contrary to wacko views on sex (like Mark Driscoll who recently blogged that God removes the sex drive from adult singles!! – which is not true –), celibate / single adults do in fact have sex drives.

    It’s not by “grace” or supernatural means I have refrained from sex.

    It takes hard work to abstain sexually. It’s not easy.

    It can be done though, so for all the people saying, “Oh gosh, it is so totally unrealistic to expect anyone over 18 in a porn culture to abstain” is not being accurate, either.

    You are told repeatedly by various Christians as a teen and college student that sex is for marriage only.

    It is implied to you as a teen that if you hold off on sex, God will reward you with a great Christian spouse later.

    So here you are, doing what all these adult Christians tell you do to – abstain – but you’re still single at 30. At 35. At 40. Some at 50+, and once you get to 30, churches don’t offer any encouragement for to you to stay celibate.

    People don’t invite singles out for dinner. We are ignored. Married Christian ladies tend to suspect all single ladies want to jump their men (we do not).

    There are no “if you are past 30, and still celibate, we salute you” sermons (all sermons are about how terrific marriage is,, how hard motherhood is we salute you moms, sometimes the marriage sermons come with “married sex is awesome” comments tossed in, which is not fair to the celibate singles to have to listen to).

    It’s either assumed by Christians that adult singles are asexual (that we have no sex drives, like Driscoll and other preachers incorrectly assumes), or that adult singles are already having sex all over the place (even though some of us are not).

    Preachers are too reluctant to speak out against sexual sins now (some have admitted to this in interviews), so they do not give sermons reminding folk that pre marital sex is a sin, because they know it’s going on among their congregants.

    Then, we get Christian articles shaming us virgins for being virgins, while lots of ‘bleeding hearts’ editorials are written for people who have fornicated.

    Preachers and bloggers are going so far out into left field to reassure sexual sinners, that they are basically now saying that virginity is insignificant, nobody can expect any adult to refrain from sex, etc., virgins are being vilified in these essays as being “prideful.”

    Everyone from Tim Challies, Rachel Held Evans, to bloggers at Focus on the Faith’s ‘Boundless’, to SBC Al Mohler and Russelll Moore, and average, Christian bloggers have jumped on board the “bash virgins and virginity / celibacy/ purity” train.

    So I, who was waiting ’til marriage for sex, look at all this anti virginity rhetoric going on, and this wide scale Christian acceptance of pre-marital sex (ie, all these Christians are saying it’s inevitable for all adults to have sex, but it’s okay, we understand, only a real He Man can resist sex, virgins are “prideful” jerks), and I give up.

    I am not dating now, but when I do, when I get myself a boyfriend, I’m fine now with having pre- marital sex. There is nunca, nada, zilch support for a woman who is a virgin past her 30s.

    On the contrary, I see editorials telling me if I’ve had sex already, God loves me just fine even so, virginity is not “all that,” and I can think of myself as a “born again virgin,” after I have pre marital sex, don’t listen to Christians who talk about sexual purity / celibacy/ virginity, etc.

    So now, when and if I hear Christian preachers or organizations urge teenagers to refrain from sex, I wonder why, what is the point, because later, when you hit 25 years of age and are still celibate, the church starts backing off on virginity-support and actually insults and scolds people who are true virgins.

    I think Christians need to be honest about what they truly believe, and here it is:

    They only believe in purity / virginity for anyone under age of 25, and not even because they think sex means anything, but they don’t want their teen daughters getting pregnant.

    I now suspect that’s why Christian talking heads and churches are big into telling teen girls about purity, they don’t want them getting pregnant. The boys don’t hit as hard with the sex lectures as the females. Boys don’t get pregnant.

    The pro virginity lectures one hears from Christians when one is a teen is not about what the Bible says about sex, or that sex should mean something, it’s about
    “wow, I don’t want to deal with a pregnant teen daughter. When she’s 25, I know she’ll start having sex prior to marriage, but by then, she can buy and use birth control, so it’s not my problem anymore.”

    I really do suspect that is the thinking among most Christians on the issue.

  304. My long comment above is in moderation.

    A summary: I’m a virgin in my 40s because Christian parents and leaders taught me when I was a teen it was proper to wait til marriage. I thought the Bible teaches it. So fine, I waited. Am still single.

    Virginity has been under attack by Christian culture the last five years and has increased the last two. Purity is NOT being upheld or shoved down anyone’s throat by Christians. It’s the opposite.

    Now I see articles by Christians saying “it’s no big deal.”

    Consequence to me personally: So now I’ve decided to start having pre-marital sex. There’s no reason for me NOT to fool around.

    Preachers like Driscoll who recently blogged that God removes libido from all adults Christian singles is full of it. It’s not true.

    I have a sex drive. I’ve abstained all these years due to self control, not by magic, not by God’s grace or empowering, or lack of sex drive.

    People can abstain into their 30s and older but choose not to.

    And the church makes it harder to abstain by ignoring celibate adults and their needs, and by running around saying, “nobody can abstain pats 30, it’s too hard” and by writing articles that attack virginity and purity.

    Yes, it is a trend now on the internet for famous Christians to write blog pages mocking virginity and purity and to defend pre marital acts and those who engage in such acts.

    I hope this post does not end up in moderation too.

  305. I wonder if what we hear is always what has been said?

    I too was always taught to wait for sex until marriage, but never once was I taught doing so guaranteed God would give me a husband. I too was taught God answers prayer, but was always taught “No” was a valid answer.

    This winter I have “visited” many churches by watching services online. I’ve randomly sampled churches all across the country. Some mainline, some evangelical, some fundamentalist.

    I’m not seeing or hearing a great focus on sexuality and gender issues. I do hear a lot of preaching about gluttony, about greed, about failure to show hospitality, and about just pretty near all those nonsexual sins mentioned in the Bible.

    But when I visit various websites and blogs, the commentary is generally that preachers need to hush about sexual matters and preach on the other sins.

    Has me wondering seriously if the issue is not what is preached, but the sore toes of the hearers.

  306. numo wrote:

    Humans seem to love to find scapegoats/people to kick around.

    And they always choose the ones who have problems that they don’t have.

  307. Daisy wrote:

    ’m probably feeling more let down, baffled, and disappointed than hostile regarding the Christian faith. There might be some anger, but mostly disillusionment.

    I am glad that you come here, Daisy.

  308. linda wrote:

    Has me wondering seriously if the issue is not what is preached, but the sore toes of the hearers.

    Actually, I was a virgin when I married and that is what I taught my children. One tends to see these so called "purity" talks in youth groups, Christian schools, youth conferences, etc. This was my observation in both Raleigh and Dallas.

    It is interesting. My kids seemed to know bunches about "purity" -a deceptive word in my opinion since it gives false assurances that so long as you "don't do it" you are pure. In the meantime, all these kids running around with their "purity rings" (and due to peer pressure for my girls, I got the each one but they weren't the typical ones) were into bullying, greed, self centeredness, materialism, etc. Yep, just like their parents and I am not exempt from the finger pointing. (Their rings were hearts and i urged them to love all they would meet.)

    The subliminal message was: "Dont' have sex but go ahead and make fun of the short skinny kid whose parents don't have much money. You are pure, anyway." I saw so many brats, especially in Dallas, that I came to the conclusions that the purity culture was a cover-up for far deeper problems.

    Let me give you an example. I have two daughters. One grew up sophisticated. pretty and popular.She was the one who suffered with a brain tumor. The other struggled a bit in the popularity area. She was a bit awkward but kind. She is the one getting married to a great guy this weekend and she is beautiful, kind and still a bit different. In fact, they are not allowing wedding gifts. They want donations to Heifer International-they are adamant about this.

    Now, a small group of well off and snotty mothers decided to start a "by invitation only volunteer group" for young teen girls who would then go on to become debutantes in Dallas. This was at a well-known Christian school in Dallas. I sure hope some of those women read this. Well, guess what? They decided to invite my one "popular" daughter to join and not invite the other. I knew we would be moving and my response would have still been the same but this put a bit of a fire into my gut.

    So, I called Ms Organizer and asked why only one of my daughters was invited. She was quite uncomfortable. She told me "I don't think your other daughter would be comfortable with this sort of group." I then asked her about all the other girls who were not being asked. She said this was an exclusive situation. I asked her if they were going to be volunteering with groups such as the homeless and crisis pregnancies. She said that they wouldn't want "the girls in those sorts of environments."

    So, Dee lit up and launched into a smack down. I said that this was not how Jesus chose His followers. He chose the letdown, the different, the hurting. Then I said I was going to call each and every family in the school who had girls who were not invited and tell them exactly what was going on. And I was quite sure that this "exclusiveness"would not be well received. And I told her to stick it up her nose because I would allow neither of my girls to affiliate with such a group.

    She was so shocked and scared that her friends started calling all the girls in the class and inviting them to be members of the group. At least no one was left out although the basic premise of the group was stupid.

    Interesting follow-up 2 years later: The woman who was the object of my wrath was diagnosed with a serious cancer. I reached out long distance to her and her husband. Because my one daughter suffered with a malignant brain tumor, I feel deeply for those who suffer with cancer. I sent them some devotionals that meant a lot to me and continued to follow-up. She died very quickly.

    Just before she died, she sent a message through a mutual friend. She said that "I now understand Dee and understand why she cared for those who were left out. It sometimes takes a trial like this to begin to understand. Tell her thank you."

    The lesson: all the "chosen girls" wore purity rings but they stunk inside-snotty, to the manor born entitled, unkind, mean etc. True purity is found in the overall character of a person. We all sin. What do I want? For no one to sin. But I would rather have a child who went too far with her boyfriend once or twice and felt bad about it than a mean, snotty entitled child.

    Rant finished. I think I will write a post about this sometime.

  309. Bridget wrote:

    Why do you see that article as quite a stretch? (If you don’t mind explaining.)

    The article suggests an interpretation, but doesn’t provide a reason how the suggested interpretation satisfies some need Paul has attempted to address in the letter. Remember, the suggested interpretation mentions one very specific practice (ritualistic violence)and then reminds Timothy that such teaching is not permitted. Why is there a need to include this in the letter? The only reason I can think of is that Timothy may have dropped the ball and allowed such teaching, but if that were true Paul would have rebuked Timothy and called him on his error (which would be in accord with Paul’s character and treatment of error) and not just simply reminded him. Therefore, the article presents an interpretation of 1Timothy2:12 which basically is a non-sequitor. It doesn’t follow logically from Paul’s statements in earlier verses and doesn’t provide a logical reason for its inclusion in the letter.

  310. Is it ever okay to not submit to Jesus?

    * Whenever Jesus wills something that is against the will of God, it would be okay not to submit.
    * Whenever Jesus gives a request/command that shows he cares only about himself , it would be okay not to submit.
    * Whenever Jesus has an unwise plan, it would be okay not to submit.

    These things never happens with Jesus, but will happen with a man. So:

    * Whenever a husband wills something that is against the will of God, it would be okay not to submit.
    * Whenever a husband gives a request/command that shows he only cares about himself, it would be okay not to submit.
    * Whenever a husband has an unwise plan, it would be okay not to submit.

    “The husband should picture Christ, his wife the church.”

    There is actually one story in the Bible of a married couple that pictured the gospel: Hosea and Gomer – Hosea chose a prostitute to marry, she sleeps around again after marriage, but it seems even though he is angry, he wants her back again and will love her again. To those who want a gospel-portraying marriage, I could pray for a Hosea and Gomer relationship.

  311. (I have not had the opportunity to read through any and all posts since I was last here or on other threads. I may at a later time, I don’t know)

    linda wrote:

    I too was always taught to wait for sex until marriage, but never once was I taught doing so guaranteed God would give me a husband. I too was taught God answers prayer, but was always taught “No” was a valid answer.

    All of that is implied in some Christian dating lectures / books.

    I don’t see why God would not honor his own word: pray and have faith and you shall have whatever you ask.

    At this stage, as a watered down Christian who is agnostic, I’m fine with using dating sites only and dating/marrying a Non Christian. If God ain’t gonna send me a Christian man, I’m going to take over and make my own choices.

    Interestingly, as author Duin recounts in her book, when a church in the U.S. did a collective prayer in the church for a few weeks/months, that their adult single get married off, sure enough, within a year, a bunch of their adult singles got Christian partners and married.

    Your other comment – yes, that is more the norm now, about pastors feeling reluctant to admonish sexual sin from the pulpit.

    A Christian news site, about a month ago, even had an interview with a preacher who flat out admitted he is reluctant to say anything negative about sexual sin because it might cause hurt or offense to the pew sitters.

  312. dee wrote:

    I am glad that you come here, Daisy.

    Thank you.

    I don’t mean to post here too much. I don’t mean to annoy anyone.

    I don’t think I can ever be like the real angry atheists one sees on the internet.

    I understand some of the real angry atheists have been deeply hurt by Christians, and I understand a little bit, but at the same time it bothers me they hate all Christians.

    While I’m having problems with the Christian faith and certain Christians, I’ve known other Christians who tried their best to live the faith out, such as my mother. She was a Christian, and a very loving person.

    So I can’t ever see myself (if I leave the faith totally) irrationally hating every single last Christian because “X” percentage of them hurt me in the past.

    I recognize that some Christians are good people and are not total hypocrites.

    Anyway, the purity talk is kind of big in some branches of Christianity, I don’t deny that (especially the quivering groups, maybe with some independent fundamentalists Baptists)..

    However, there is a definite shift these days (and it’s been around the last few years) towards more and more Christians speaking out against sexual purity and virginity.

    Those of us who are adults now who have waited to have sex, and we are past our mid 30s and are still abstaining, are astonished by the backlash. (I sometime hear from these other people on other sites.) We’re being put down by Christians for being virgins into our 30s and older in some Christian magazines, blogs, and articles.

    I don’t go around bashing people for having sexual sin. I don’t agree with Christians having pre-marital sex, but I don’t club them for it, either, or advocate that the church clubs them for it.

    So I’m not quite getting why Christian people who are literally virgins (and virginity) are being dressed down in Christian articles these days.

    The rhetoric against virginity, or the downplaying of it, that is all the rage in some Christian blogs and magazines now, is hurtful and confusing to people who have waited and are still celibate.

    When it comes to Christians on ‘sexual purity’ talk, I don’t completely support the “modesty” portion of it, the “modest apparel” aspect of it, just to be clear.

    I think some Christians take that too far, where they write articles telling Christian girls or women to not wear blouses with spaghetti straps, for example.

    (Really. I saw an article years ago with a list of clothing items the Christian author felt were inappropriate for females to wear, and spaghetti straps was on there).

    That is just nit picking and legalistic, IMO, dictating every last article of clothing they think women should wear or not.

  313. Daisy wrote:

    I recognize that some Christians are good people and are not total hypocrites.

    P.S.

    I meant to say that includes Deb and Dee here of this blog, and many of the regular commentators, too. I do think you all are sincere. 🙂

    I don’t expect any Christian to be perfect, but I would at least hope someone who professes Jesus would make a sincere attempt to live by the faith and try to help people if/when they can.

    Some of the stories I see on here and elsewhere, of people (such as preachers) who say they are Christians but who really only seem to care about money, or who abuse congregants, or cover up child sexual abuse in their midst (and to protect their church), makes me ill, and angry. It does make me doubt the faith (in addition to other things).

    I try to remember that Jesus (and Paul) warned that fakes and wolves would sneak in to the church, but it can be so hard, when you see so many people claim to follow Christ be abusive towards people, to bear that in mind, or to separate the bad seeds from the faith itself.

    But then, I do remember also that there are Christians here exposing this stuff (like Deb, Dee, the regular posters here, and Julie Anne), and that helps. It helps to see other people who profess Christ not sweep all the wrong doing under the rug and pretend as though it’s not going on.

  314. I agree, Daisy. I heard an analogy of evil vs Christ as something to this effect.. if one lived in a small town and knew how everyone dressed, a thief could steal someone’s clothes and go rob the bank. Most people would think John Doe did it, because they recognized John Doe’s hat and coat, and not stop to think that someone else might have. I’m also thankful there are folks here and other bloggers who think outside the box. The evil gives Christ a bad name, but critical thinkers will dig deeper.

  315. RB, I saw your post, just letting you know. 🙂

    Seeing this made me think (this guy is a Baptist):
    GOP Congressman: Wives Should ‘Voluntarily Submit’ To Their Husbands

    (I’m GOP myself, so I hope nobody takes me posting this as a political thing or as GOP-bashing.)

    What I’m wondering about it his quote (which I’ve heard other Christians say, or variations of it):

    He (Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.),) says the wife’s role, according to the Bible, is to be obedient to her husband.

    “The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice,” he writes. “The husband’s part is to show up during the times of deep stress, take the leadership role and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no one else.”

    Pearce goes on to write that the wife should have a say in important family decisions and that her submission does mean the husband should have “authoritarian control” or be considered superior.

    First of all, I wonder if the word “not” was supposed to be in that last sentence but was accidentally omitted by the typist?

    (That it should read, “… and that her submission does [not]mean the husband …” ??

    Anyway. Here’s my question or thought.

    Supposing that a wife says no, she does NOT volunteer to submit – (maybe she even insists on being through a total equal to the husband).

    What then?

    What do gender complementarians propose should that happen in that case?

    Would they say the wife who does not voluntarily / graciously submits gets her salvation card revoked?

    The husband gets to make her sleep in the dog house for a week? Do they believe God should strike such a wife with lightening, or that He will do so?

    I’m not quite seeing why a Christian wife would want to submit to her spouse (outside of the general concept of all believers are to submit all other believers)?

    Why should a woman “graciously submit?”

    I mean, I take it that your average gender comp will say because (in their interpretation) the Bible teaches it or commands it… but still, I don’t see the incentive for the spouse.

    A wife submitting to a husband does not make a marriage perfect, easier, or more godly.

    In some marriages, where their is abuse, it usually does not stop abuse, but perpetuates it.

    I’m also at a stage in my life where I don’t think I really believe in obedience just for obedience’s sake, even if it’s for God.

    Also, if the gender comp says that Jesus or the Bible “commands” or “requires” that a woman voluntarily submits (to honor God, to obey God, or whatever the reason they cite), her submission is not voluntary.

    What if a wife does submit but it’s with deep resentment, and it’s not “gracious?”

  316. @ Daisy:

    Where I said,
    “(maybe she even insists on being through a total equal to the husband).”

    That should be,
    (maybe she even insists on being thought a total equal to the husband).

  317. @ Daisy:

    Post Script. There is a comment at the end of the link from above where they say that the original report (by Washington Post) misrepresented the politician’s (Pearce’s) views.

    Even if they did misrepresent his views, I still have seen many other gender complementarians make the comment about they think wives should “graciously submit” to their husbands, and the Southern Baptists released an official statement along those lines years ago.

    I’m not sure what the guy’s book actually says.

    If you search for his name on Google News, you will find about 10-15 more articles about this controversy.

    This is from NewsMax, which is a right wing site:

    “Congressman’s New Book: Wife Should Submit, Husband Should Lead”
    By Cynthia Fagen

    Pearce spokesman accused the Post of “falsely and inaccurately” mischaracterizing Pearce’s book.

  318. @ Daisy:

    I read stories with longer excerpts. It’s the standard mind-bending stuff about how the wife is equal even though she should submit to her husband and he shouldn’t be a jerk even though she’s supposed to submit. Bottom line, if one person is supposed to submit and the other lead, the two cannot be and are not equals in the context of that relationship. I like my boss. I like her boss and her boss’s boss. I am comfortable voicing and have voiced my opinion with all of them when discussing important work issues. They treat me with respect. But at the end of the day, they get to tell me what to do at work and I submit even if I think it’s not the best choice because they’re my bosses and in the context of work, I am not their equal. Marriage is different. It’s a 24-7 relationship and there are no clear boundaries walking off the marriage part of your life from the other part. If I am supposed to voluntarily submit to my husband’s leadership in my marriage, then I am at all times and in all places subordinate to him. All the attempts to handwave that away are just so many attempts to put lipstick on a pig.

  319. Daisy wrote:

    I still have seen many other gender complementarians make the comment about they think wives should “graciously submit” to their husbands

    Translation: Submit and do it with a smile on your face.

  320. Victorious wrote:

    Translation: Submit and do it with a smile on your face.

    One of my questions/thoughts above, though, is what if a wife flatly says, “No, I refuse to “submit” to my spouse” as comps teach submission?

    What penalty do they ascribe, if any, to a wife’s refusal to submit?

    I also find it funny and stupid that males in SBC ask women to “voluntarily submit (to their spouses).” If you have to ask/ direct/ command it, it’s not truly ‘voluntary,’ IMO.

  321. Daisy wrote:

    One of my questions/thoughts above, though, is what if a wife flatly says, “No, I refuse to “submit” to my spouse” as comps teach submission?
    What penalty do they ascribe, if any, to a wife’s refusal to submit?

    Well, does scripture state that a penalty must be administered in the event of a refusal? Of course not.

    To answer your hypothetical question though, it would depend on the circumstances wouldn’t it? And if the wife’s conscience dictates she refuse (for whatever the reason), she could refer scripture that says “we must obey God rather than man.”

    Women are responsible to God first.

  322. Gene wrote:

    Arce wrote:

    Gene is living the egalitarian life and calling it comp!

    Or maybe you don’t know what complementarianism actually is?

    And “head” in the NT context does not mean boss or ruler. It means source.

    Um, so the husband is the source of the wife, and God the father is the source of the Son? Please do at least a little exegetical work. You don’t have to be an expert, but we could at least do away with stuff like this, can’t we?

    Gene wrote:

    Arce wrote:

    Gene is living the egalitarian life and calling it comp!

    Or maybe you don’t know what complementarianism actually is?

    And “head” in the NT context does not mean boss or ruler. It means source.

    Um, so the husband is the source of the wife, and God the father is the source of the Son? Please do at least a little exegetical work. You don’t have to be an expert, but we could at least do away with stuff like this, can’t we?

  323. Respectfully, sir;
    Your comment to this poster show arrogance and pride. complimentinarism is to pride. walking in love is letting Jesus be Lord of people and boards, and wives. Controlling people is not walking in Love as Jesus commanded us to do. As wade said it is trusting the Holy Spirit to have the Lords will be done instead of our own. it is found at the cross where the Lord of all humbled Himself and layed down His life for us who are sinners and not righteous without His atonement. God gives you grace because of the blood of Jesus not because you, or i suddenly are perfect.

  324. My laast comment disapeared while i was typing sorry.
    paul and Jesus wouldnt be allowed to speak at mars hill or actss 29 churches because they were single. anna the prophetess wouldnt have been allowed to evangelize the Savior in their temple, philips daughters who were prophetesses would have been forbidden to speak, and my favorite is that just as He did to the disciples, Jesus would have had to personally rebuke them for not believingg the clear instructions He sent them via the formerly demon posseed now born again mary magdeline. can you imagine someone walking up to a comp like that and saying, i know I am a woman but Jesus said you are to go to gallillee and He will meet you there.

  325. One other thing to gene. genessis 3 refers to the curse. Jesus sets people free from the curse. i have seen women have totally pain free non medicated child labor and birth. when the dr was amazed it gave one a total platformm to testify of His power.
    one more thing. i do not think you are in sin because we disagree with comp/eg im not even sure what those mean. i think you are in sin because of your view of women and that you teach people it from a pulpit.

  326. I dont think comp/eg is a theological disagreement i believe it is the demons trying to stop the preaching of the gospel.
    when men use the scriptures to get sex from their wives because it says they have that “authority” They are making Jesus as a pimp. Do you serve a lord that bought some women so you could use them? This all goes back to wades origonal view of the Love of God and mutual submission. that is love. only something of the devil turns it into the man ruling, the man having authority, because that haas always been his desire, to be God, not to submit to God and have to do things His way.