Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” ― E.F. Schumacher link
This afternoon, an incredible document was released by Dustin Kensrue who has resigned from Mars Hill. I am planning on doing a post on this fascinating document on Friday. Good night! Things are declining rapidly and Mark DeMoss' PR firm appears to making some serious missteps. Could I be wrong?
In my opinion, complementarianism has an Achilles' heel. It is the same weakness that is inherent in the term "church discipline." That weakness: a lack of a standard, commonly accepted definition. As our readers know, I do not believe that church discipline should be applied until the rules of the game are spelled out a priori. In one church, discipline may be imposed only for adultery. In another, it could be applied for "sinfully craving answers" or asking uncomfortable questions about the pastor's salary.
The Complementarian Conundrum
That same problem is inherent in complementarianism. Some churches let women read the Scriptures out loud; others do not. What does it look like when a pastor claims than men should be head of the family and women helpmeets to their husband? Pastors like Owen Strachan have said that men who allow women to work are man fails while others have no problem with wives who work. Dorothy Patterson and Mary Kassian, two self proclaimed leaders of the complementarian movement, claim that women can work outside the home, have babysitters for the kids along with house cleaners and cooks and still be complementarian. I know some pastors who claim they are leaders of their family when it is evident that the wives are running the show and paying lip service to this undefinable concept.
The Wayne Grudem Fail
Therein lies the problem and, deep down inside, many theologians know it. Wayne Grudem caused a brouhaha when he attempted, and in my opinion, failed to adequately define why he thought some roles were allowed for women and why some were not. Frankly, his paradigm made absolutely no sense to me. But, perhaps that is me. We wrote about that here. Here is one excerpt.
I find these rankings unbelievably insulting to women and missionaries.
Writing a commentary on a book of the Bible for men and woman (14) is a greater responsibility than writing a study Bible for women alone (16).
Bible teaching to college students (10) ranks higher than Bible teaching to women (17)!
Working as a missionary in another culture (22) ranks far lower than teaching a home Bible study (9) or teaching a junior high school class (19). Yeah, tell that to the martyrs!
Mark Driscoll's Gender Rhetoric
Mark Driscoll has become well known for his disturbing comments addressed to men and women about their roles. We have written extensively about this. Here is one post. Driscoll, who is known for his Mickey Mouse T shirts and necklaces reminiscent of pukka shells, blames the wife for "letting herself go.
…"It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness," Driscoll wrote. "A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either.’”
He also believes that God has designed "roles" for women that will save them. In that same post
“Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them. Ladies, if the hair on the back of your neck stands up it is because you are fighting your role in the scripture.
He has also made fun of men who he deems to be effeminate, meaning they do not fit his ideal of manhood.
Serious gender disagreements are now seen within evangelicalism.
Today, the Washington Post posted an article about the growing gender battle within evangelicalism called U.S. evangelicals headed for showdown over gender roles. It makes my point.
Mark Driscoll, a Seattle mega-pastor and author known for his raw, macho take — “Sixty percent of Christians are chicks, and the 40 percent that are dudes are still sort of chicks,” is among his well-known quotes — said on Aug. 24 that he would step down temporarily from his multi-state 14,000-member ministry amid charges of abusive behavior toward subordinates and inappropriate use of money, among other things. And last week,conservative Christian figure Mike Farris wrote that it is time to push back on an “un-Biblical view” of gender roles. “Subservience,” wrote the Virginia-based leader of the national home-school movement, “can never be justified by Scripture.”
Mike Farris, well known in conservative homeschool circles claims he has changed his mind about supporting patriarchy after watching the scandal develop in the ministries of Bill Gothard and Doug Phillips, both strict complementarians. Although this following statement will seem modest to most of our readers, it represents a shift in thinking by a hardcore patriarchy supporter.
In an interview Tuesday, Farris said dramatic social change has left more Americans pushing for explicit answers to the questions: How do I run my marriage? How do I raise my children so they turn out well? The more conservative part of evangelicalism has pushed to the right, he said.
“The patriarchal view has moved dramatically such that men in general should be dominant over women in general,” he said. “That’s neither Biblical nor wise. What the Bible says about gender roles is more modest.”
It would seem wise for outspoken complementarians to remember that they are following on the heels of Driscoll, Gothard, Phillips and others. They are losing in the court of evangelical opinion. This is evident in the amount of money being donated to Christians for Biblical Equality(CBE) versus The Council of Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) which we wrote about here.
Alastair Roberts and the "violent" priesthood introduces even more confusion into the matter.
Recently, Alastair Roberts wrote a eyebrow raising article on the type of men that God calls to be pastors. This garnered some controversy since he appeared to be channeling the gender controversies of Mark Driscoll. To be fair to Roberts, I am sure he did not mean to evoke this comparison. At the same time, he needs to be aware that Driscoll, for better or worse (much, much worse), has irrevocably affected the conversation. Therefore, he should not be surprised about he pushback that he received.
Here is my working assumption. Since complementarianism is as much of a human construct as any other view of gender, some of its expressions will be based in American cultural expectations as opposed to actual Biblical mandates. Just like the fatal flaws found in Grudem's 83 rules for gender roles, those flaws are seen here. The reason is clear. It is very difficult to define specific rules for gender roles. The moment we have to say "I don't know what it looks like for you but I know what it looks like for me," the battle is lost.
The following quotes and arguments are from Roberts' Why a Masculine Priesthood Is Essential unless otherwise specified. Here and here are two more links to other articles on this subject by Roberts.
1. Only men can be pastors since women pastors jeopardize the faith.
I believe that support for women in priesthood is contrary to scripturally-informed reason and reflection upon reality and society, not just detached Bible verses. I believe that male dominance in power and authority in society isn’t just something biblically authorized or mandated—it isn’t just that women lack permission—but is an inescapablefact that God has established through his creation. Even when egalitarians seek to avoid it, it continues to reassert itself in their midst. I believe that the very tenor of the Christian faith is jeopardized by women priests.
2. Women should not be marginalized.
While I hold certain things in common with such as Piper and Grudem and my position is definitely complementarian in principle, I have some fairly far-reaching criticisms of complementarianism as most understand it. I believe that it unjustly marginalizes women within the life of the Church and society in many and various ways and tends to devalue them. I believe that women need to exercise far more prominent roles in the life and teaching of the Church, not just as a matter of permission, but as a matter of necessity. I disagree with the typical complementarian emphasis upon hierarchical frameworks for our understanding. I don’t share the understanding of the Trinity that often comes along with it.
3. Our culture has defined what the church perceives as "leadership."
Consequently, the skills that we look for from our ‘leaders’ are principally academic, management, and counselling skills. Of course, if this is what we are looking for, we will easily find them among women, often to a much greater degree than among men. Women can be incredibly gifted theologians, exegetes, teachers, guides, counsellors, managers, and directors. These skills are incredibly valuable in the life of the Church and should be recognized and affirmed and exercised in the life of it.
4. Leadership in the Bible has a military perspective.
Practically every one of the major figures in Scripture wielded a weapon and shed blood, or took life in other ways. While many want to argue that Jesus is some exception to this, in terms of which the whole pattern is redrawn, this is not the case. Alongside the images of Christ as the one led silent like a lamb to the slaughter, the New Testament presents us with the prominent image of conquering Lamb, who crushes his enemies.
5. The Bible is "written by warriors about warriors."
The Bible is largely written by warriors and about warriors. These were men who made life and death decisions, who knew that the pull of pity could be very dangerous.
…The shepherd who loves his sheep and tenderly carries them in his bosom must be prepared and equipped mercilessly to fight the wolves, the bandits, the thieves, the bears, and the lions. He must be prepared to lay down his life in their defence.
6. Shepherding involves violence.
In another post, Andrew Wilson focused on Roberts' thinking on this matter.
The true leader in Scripture needs to have the nerve to hurt people and is often called to do just that. Practically every biblical leader was called to take life as part of their vocation and most were marked out as men of violence when God called them. People like the Levites or Phinehas were set apart for special service precisely on account of their willingness to perform radical acts of violence in God’s service.
…The biblical shepherd is, like our conception of the shepherd, a figure who is gentle, nurturing, and protective of the flock. However, a large proportion of the biblical images of the shepherd focus upon the shepherd as a figure of conflict and violence, someone who protects the sheep by killing wolves, bears, and lions, who fights off thieves, bandits, and rival shepherds, who lays down his life for the flock.
7. However, priests are no better than others in the church.
In a strange inversion of values, some Christians seem to have the notion that being a priest somehow means that you are greater than others.
8. Men fight and women don't-generally
…men are generally more powerful, physically stronger, more combative, and that they naturally possess a greater drive and aptitude for the exercise of dominance and mastery
…Although women can and have fought and killed in exceptional, extreme, or fortuitous circumstances—a few such incidents are recorded in the Old Testament (e.g. Judges 4:21; 9:53)—the normalization of women fighting and killing is quite contrary to biblical and Christian values.
9. God has been reduced to a maternal figure.
We have reduced God, displacing images of God as Judge, Sovereign, Ruler, King, Avenger, Father, and Lord. Instead of a fatherly authority that stands more over against us, we want a more cosy, maternal figure, still ‘authoritative’, but in a considerably weakened sense.
10. Maternal identity means that all women must be protected…by men.
Women are associated with the most intimate bonds and communion of society. Every woman, by virtue of her sex—irrespective of whether she is married or has children—is the bearer of a maternal form of identity.
11. Discipleship must be viewed from a soldier's perspective.
We have reduced discipleship from the uncompromising and costly loyalty expected of the soldier to a looser appreciation of Jesus as a moral guide.
12. Guardian men empower women
The empowerment and valuing of women—an imperative for any Christian church—will best be served, not by putting women in the office of guardians of the Church, but when we appoint strong guardians for the Church who are committed to empower and value women, to hear their voices and to recognize their gifts.
13. The Christian message is attenuated without a male priesthood.
With the loss of a male priesthood—or, more particularly, with the loss of a masculine priesthood—we have attenuated the reality of the Christian message. We have no effective symbolization of the authority of God within our churches. When that goes, all else is enervated.
14. If CS Lewis said it, it must be right, right?
I doubt there is a bigger CS Lewis fan than me. On our @bidgod Twitter account, I send out either Bible verses and CS Lewis quotes. I have read most of his works and reread a number of his books on a regular basis.
However, we must remember that Lewis was not only a Christian but he was a man of his time and culture. Women wearing shorts, women running corporations and women fighting in the military would have been shocking in the early 1900s. During Lewis' time, biracial marriages would have been taboo. Segregation was acceptable, not only between races but between social classes. Just a century before, slavery was acceptable, even amongst Christians. In spite of my admiration of Lewis, I'm afraid that the Bible does not back up the following quote. Battles are ugly because humans are killing one another, regardless of gender.
as C.S. Lewis once sagely observed, battles are ugly when women are involved—suddenly, everything becomes much more personal, because men hate seeing women hurt)
Summation:
Complementariansim is ill defined and this leaves a vacuum that will be filled by theologians and pundits trying to come up with reasons that men must be in charge. This can lead to Biblical interpretation by desperation.
Take the violence argument proposed by Roberts. Violence was a part of a culture in which people lived and died by the sword. Could it be that God called men out of violence to show them a new way? Remember, Jesus told Peter to put away the sword when he was on his way to the Cross.
Instead, Roberts comes out sounding like an echo of Driscoll who once said
“In Revelation, Jesus is a pride-fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is the guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.” –
The reason complementariansim doesn't sell (besides its cumbersome name which most people misspell) is because it doesn't make much sense to the evangelical culture at large. In other words, anyone can do it anyway they darn well please and then claim they are being complementarian.
In the coming year, we will continue to look at the flaws in complementarian theology. The fatal flaw, stated once again, is this.
Except for limiting the role of pastor to men, complentarianism is not definable in any practical sense.
To say "What it looks like for you might not be what it looks like for me" is a cop out. Complementarianism is a role without an understandable job description.
Lydia's Corner: Zechariah 4:1-5:11 Revelation 14:1-20 Psalm 142:1-7 Proverbs 30:21-23
It is only fitting that someone with the xx chromosomes should be first…
:-p And as a man I dominate and practice my God given authority! And if you have problems with my Patriarchy all I can say is “bottoms up!” :-p
Well, I took a look at Alastair’s site, and his blogroll is an honor roll of Federal Vision/Recon luminaries. Leithart, for example, is the theologian for Doug Wilson. They are stuck in the OT paradigm and law-obsessed. Dabney is their theological drug of choice.
If you keep in mind that the “priesthood” is the last all-male domain, then this whole “complementarian” mindset makes sense. They had to come up with something because WW2 had demonstrated that women could do just about any job that men could do except those that rely upon brute strength.
The old in-grained patriarchical assumptions just did not work in the Post-war West, and new attention was focused on women in ministry, too. Somebody had to come up with a rationale for keeping women out.
The reason that “complementarianism” seems so ad hoc is because that is precisely what it is. It is patriarchy re-worked to have a “biblical” face. It is dishonestly marketed as “complementarianism” even though there is nothing hierarchical inherent in complementarity. But if they were honest about their misogyny, no one would listen to them.
These recon guys go back to Dabney and his justification for slavery and also for misogyny. Dabney’s archive is available online, and anyone can discover that Dabney’s views are reflected in CBMW and also in the Federal Vision/Reconstructionists.
Google George Knight, III and how he just made the idea of “roles” up in order to keep women out of the PCA and OPC ministry. He came up with the idea of the Eternal Subordination of the Son to justify their irrational idea of being equal in value and worth but not in role.
Excuse my stupidity but who the bleep is Alastair Roberts? Never heard of him before this article.
Here’s a link to some of Knight’s work:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/knight1.html
And here’s Knight’s ETS paper from the JETS archive:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/18/18-2/18-2-pp081-091_JETS.pdf
Bridget wrote:
Me, neither. But, judging by his website, he’s a young fanboy of Leithart’s. He has lots of them, including a bunch at Covenant Theological Seminary, as in PCA.
Leithart is deep, you understand. Deeeeeeeeeeep. If you think he writes nonsense, then that’s because you are not d
@ Gram3:
continuing where my keyboard left off:
…not deeeeeeeeeep like he is. And probably Arminian, too.
Gram3 wrote:
He may be deeeeep but we are Deebs
@ Bridget:
Oh, you will be hearing more from him. He has been “discovered” by The Gospel Coalition who is having difficulty understanding why they are not making inroads into the wider culture on the gender issue. Talk about male fails…
dee wrote:
You mean Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeebs?!?
@ Haitch:
xx doesn’t cut it anymore. You must be Alpha and willing to be violent with wolves whilst protecting the Deebs from meanies.
dee wrote:
Oh, joy! 🙄
“#9 God has been reduced to a maternal figure” When this author pushes a kid out from between his legs and feeds that child for a year from his breasts, then he can talk about God being “reduced” to a “maternal” figure. As if a mother is less than a father! God’s maternal characteristics are as important as his paternal characteristics. We need both. And I could write a book – completely scattered and unreadable, at the moment – refuting all of his other points. Suffice it to say that I’m not impressed with his view of complementarianism (or, to be more blunt, patriarchialism).
dee wrote:
Well… what if I told you it’s my fantasy to be like Khalinda on “The Good Wife”. She is not only an expert investigator, she carries and uses a baseball bat when required. Job application in the offing, and I really need to rethink my wardrobe asap.
dee wrote:
Well, considering how Jared Wilson of The Guy Coalition fawned all over Doug Wilson’s misogynist “penetrate, conquer, colonize” rape view of gender relations, is it really surprising? The supportive comments on his posts were a disgrace to the true gospel.
Michael Farris is backpedaling because Phillips and Gothard have made plain what all this is really about. He’s not convincing at this point. Really, it is difficult to imagine that a man with a legal degree has such trouble with reading comprehension that he only just discovered what these rascals have been peddling.
Gram3 wrote:
If you believe that then I’m the Queen of Sheba and you may all come and feast at my castle!!
dee wrote:
Yes, inDeeby. 😉
I read an article today about how about half of the Viking warrior skeletons found (buried with artifacts, etc) have turned out to be women. But then I guess they were heathens and that was before women were the weaker sex in the complementarian world… ugh. At least I know I come from hardy nordic stock! LOL!
These people have a serious problem in that their basic belief (singular) is letting them down. They have chosen sola scriptura as a non-negotiable and then they have tried to stretch that concept from here to absurdity. The bible does not tell anybody “what car to drive” for instance, so they try to develop some way to get from the silence of scripture on the matter of “automobiles” to somehow being able to say they drive a “biblical” car and that is not working for them. They take scripture and stretch meaning, some times, beyond all recognition.
How can anything work if people have to have a bible quote for everything while ignoring common sense, non-biblical sources of information, any and all “tradition” and any hint of reason? Thus they arrive at ideas which are confusing, incomplete, and sometimes downright irrational. People then say, well it does not make any sense, and it does not work when put into practice, but it must be true because somebody quoted chapter and verse in the Greek, so there you go. They then have “the bible says and what that means is and so what you must do is…” (all in one sentence and all as one idea) and do not seem to see the glaring places of weakness in such an approach.
And, no, they do not seem to be really hard core trinitarians. A little lip service here and there, but that is not good enough. I think I see a progression here. Back in the day some folks, in how they did christianity, seemed to think the trinity was God, Jesus and the Bible. Such was the tradition in which I grew up. Now some to seem to think that the trinity is God, the bible (you can read about Jesus in the bible is you insist) and the pastor as the third person of the trinity. I know they don’t think that they think that, but some of their behavior sure looks like it.
So, it is not working out too well, it seems. Good. It is a false system in certain aspects, and if they do not address certain basic problems, then it needs to disintegrate. Sadly, they are in some aspects making not only themselves, not only christianity in general, but also even the bible itself look foolish by some of what they teach. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.
Love how this guy essentially minimizes all women by declaring them to be a danger to the Christian faith…and then warns that women should not be marginalized.
Good grief….
doubtful wrote:
Essentially – women are bad for Christianity but be nice to them anyway. To which I could say a lot of unkind things but won’t.
But really, do the people who read his stuff not see this?
Gram3 wrote:
Robert L. Dabney, the Confederate chaplain and biographer of Stonewall Jackson? He had some things to say about race and slavery which are abhorrent today, although I believe his modern followers have found a way to thread the needle to avoid having to deal with the racism inherent in this man’s thought.
People like the apostles who totally slew everyone they came across. Kicking the dust from your sandals is euphemism y’all
srs wrote:
He must only read the OT.
Oh, and thank you for letting me know I don’t need to read any Alastair Roberts. I’ll be going back to reading sci-fi author Alastair Reynolds, thank you.
__
“What do you do with a senior pastor who is rebellious, hard-hearted, stiff necked and stupid?”
(sound familiar?)
You break away, and start a brand new ‘Christian’ fellowship with all you have learned.
—> The people know the real thing when they see ‘it’.
*
If you love me more than these, then feed My sheep. ~ Jesus
Da fields are white with harvest!
bible up!
(grin)
All come on you twenty – one Mars Hill pastors, put up or shut up! Put your faith where your mouth is!
The time is now.
Jesus has done everything but thread the proverbial ‘needle’…
What say Ye?
ATB
Sopy
__
Intermission: Todd Terje – “Oh, Joy”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLkx2Vg8RZo
🙂
—
This will all likely go the way of the old alcohol debate in my youth. That is, I heard many pathetic arguments about why wine was really grape juice in the Bible, etc. etc.
It didn’t fool anyone my age, and you rarely hear such craziness anymore.
Same deal with complementarianism (what a word!). The arguments are lame. The current youngish generation is not dumb, and they see through it.
Add to that the fact that women are participating more and more in the workforce and that men are taking more responsibility for childcare and housework, and you have a recipe for a quickly declining flawed ideology.
mirele wrote:
The trick is to only talk about his Systematic Theology and ignore his Defense of Virginia and other delights regarding the place of women.
Gram3 wrote:
I have read Grudem’s Systematic Theology and I think it is highly overrated. I would recommend almost any other author’s Systematic Theology books over Grudem’s. Charles Finney’s Systematic Theology is the only one I would rate lower.
Mark Dever and his disciples require all their interns to read Grudem’s ST. Sovereign Grace Ministries/C.J. Mahaney also love it. Need I say more?
Nancy wrote:
Great title for a “Complementarian” movie. Starring the usual Cast of Characters. But who will play the uber-male hero? I nominate Owen (not John) since he is the kephale of CBMW. Screenplay by Wayne Grudem, directed by John Piper, produced by Al Mohler, makeup by Carolyn Mahaney.
Nancy, I think they talk about sola scriptura and the authority of scripture, but they clearly have put their own teachings above the text. Just about everything they say about gender is made up ex nihilo and holds up under the harsh light of logic and the actual text about like a snow cone in the Sahara.
Insert italics as needed. I’m too lazy and don’t have an HTML editor.
TW wrote:
But Grudem’s is priced right and is one volume, necessitating a book design that makes it very nearly unreadable for more than a few minutes. Columns and decent margins would be such nice amenities.
@ Gram3:
Forgot that it is used at Southern. Millard Erickson’s was also used at Southern, at least in was some years ago. My first copy came second-hand from a TEDS grad.
Basically, I think that Grudem is considered the Authority, and is neither questioned nor questionable in fashionable “conservative” theological circles.
Haitch wrote:
Love this! 🙂
JadedOne wrote:
That makes two of us!
Okay, yeah, seems like a contradiction that Roberts doesn’t like hierarchy between the genders but then says male dominance and power is an inescapable fact of creation?
However, I’m not really that interested in Roberts. It’s the Mike Farris/patriocentricity affair that’s interesting.
First of all, I have heard that Doug Phillips said at some point he was against comp because it was too liberal. I’ve never been able to find a reference for this, and I’m sure that even if there was one, it’s now fallen into the same black hole that ate every other Vision Forum Ministries link on the internet. So in the patriocentrists’ own minds, they are not comps, they are something even further to the right. This is why “patriocentrist” is such a useful term. VF theology promotes essentially a near-deification of the father, which is why the Botkin sisters can say that he is God’s representative on earth and his daughters can “take his name in vain.” However much I may disagree with comp, is does NOT teach that, so I won’t call Phillips and company comps because they’re not.
As for the idea that Farris has somehow shifted left – maybe a little, but it’s far more complicated than that. Even if he has, he’s being much less than transparent about his own past at the moment. He also apparently misunderstood/misrepresented several patriocentric beliefs in that white paper, and several anti-patriocentrist blogs have explained how. He appears to have acted on those misunderstandings/misrepresentations in the past by keynoting alongside Voddie Baucham. HSLDA also gave Bill Gothard a Lifetime Achievement Award at their leadership conference in 2010. That’s awfully recent in light of Farris’ claim that he’s been uncomfortable with patriocentricity for “several years.” Keep in mind also that Patrick Henry College (which I believe Farris founded) is currently under fire for how it handled rape allegations.
Farris’ actions still smack of CYA to many; either that or he is trying to do the right thing but truly does not understand the theology he is trying to come against.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/the-gothard-sized-skeleton-in-hsldas-closet.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/why-it-matters-that-farris-strawmanned-patriarchy.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/04/you-dont-say-mr-farris-on-making-exemptions.html
What’s perhaps most interesting is that Beall Phillips got p***ed at Farris on FB and said that she has voted in elections for 18 years. That includes many, many years in which Doug went around preaching that women’s suffrage was a bad thing. Many are saying that this was pragmatic, i.e. conservative women like Beall have to vote because all the liberal women are voting. Pragmatism my foot – I thought Doug was into “Biblical principles” (and I’ve heard him use that phrase a nauseatingly large number of times)?
Phrasing mistake – in the patriocentrists’ mind that may not be comps.
These guys – Roberts especially – need an emergency transfusion of Lutheranism. Yes, the Bible describes Christ as a conquering bloody King – in His role as the Judge at the Last Day. But that’s His role, NOT ours. We are to emulate Christ in His humility and suffering.
And kudos to Gram3 for getting to the root of a lot of the complementarian angst of late – there is a lot of “last stand” desperation in all of this…
@ Nancy:
You should hear the gasps of horror when I tell others I don't subscribe to sola scriptura. It is a thunder bolt. I TRY to explain tradition, historical context and commentary…but, they are literally aghast.
Gram3 wrote:
This the Dabney who was an aide to Stonewall Jackson and considered a rabid racist even by 19th Century Confederate standards?
Gram3 wrote:
Separate But Equal(TM)?
http://lh6.ggpht.com/-47IRLgZTOrA/SP-1lcAp5cI/AAAAAAAAAMw/LPAqBIoMap8/SeparateButEqual.jpg
__
“Step Into Da Light?”
hmmm…
—> Do not ‘lord’ over those ‘entrusted’ to you, but rather, be ‘examples’ to the kind folk in your flock…Not being Greedy, Not Lording over them, Not Being served. But in Service, being an Example to others. ~ Apostle Peter
Skreeeeeeeeeeeeetch!
First and formost, if your church leadership is NOT [1] practicing Peter’s admonition directly above, you owe it to yourself ta find one that does.
REALLY.
🙂
Run for da light!
Blessings!
Sopy
__
[1] These ‘leaders’ are apparently playing Jesus ‘false’ and tend, and trend towards the demonstration of ‘woofieness’. Run. least you wind up ‘inside’…
(sadface)
*
Inspirational relief: “Do Something?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAsy6A9N0Ps
;~)
—
Lisa wrote:
As in “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”?
Eeyore wrote:
That’s the TurboJesus of Left Behind — killing and destroying all except His Speshul Pets. (Guess who?)
Not the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World, who comes back, confronts the Dragon (Devil), Beast (corrupt political system), and False Prophet (corrupt religious system), only has to speak Words of Truth (the sword coming from His mouth), and the Dragon, Beast, and False Prophet just melt away into pools of blood.
“The wildest fantasy fiction ever written appears in the news media of a wartime county the day before that country loses the war.” — James Dunnigan
With all the emphasis on Warrior Warrior War War War, I think he’s channeling Warhammer 40K:
“IN THE GRIMDARK FUTURE, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE WAR!
WAAAAAAUGH! DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!!!!!
And that radio preacher I heard once in the Seventies:
“EVERY CULT IN HISTORY WAS STARTED BY A WOMAN!!!!!”
Nancy, I love your comment about how some believers act as if the Trinity is God, Jesus, Bible! I actually have a few relatives who seem to think God, Bible, Pastor is the way to go. However Jesus and the Holy Spirit get trotted out once in a while when convenient! Maybe it is a revolving Trinity where at any particular time two of the five get a sabbatical! If you left your Bible at home-the H.S. can step in and give your Bible a rest. Or when Jesus is performing miracles for the heathens on Venus, you can turn to your Bible. It seems only God doesn’t get a break. The combinations are endless. The only requirement to be part of this group is, wait for it, drum roll——a God given original penis. No wonder silly women like me can’t understand such complicated manipulations of church doctrine. Logic gets in my way!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It also seems to reflect the unfortunate fact that we’ve been at war for the past 13 years. Lots and lots of militarism in popular culture goes back to this month, 2001. (Meaning its current iteration, that is.)
Oh goodness!
My favourite Driscoll quote of all time is:
“In Revelation, Jesus is a pride-fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is the guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.” –
Why? because Driscoll also brags to his congregation he doesn’t study Greek and those who use Greek are trying to wiggle out of the Bible’s true meaning (he will ignore the fact most of the NT was written in Greek).
So why is this verse my favourite? because this verse has never been honestly translated into English. From the earliest translators back when it was still mostly illegal to translate this verse out of Latin, the men have all stumbled all over this verse. Remember, Jesus has died, risen and been in heaven for quite some earth-time here. John is the last living apostle and he is old. He get a visit from Jesus after all these years. He is given a revelation of Jesus like none other. But at first, John cannot even recognized Jesus. Now, if someone like what is described in Greek walked up to Driscoll and all complementarians, I am sure they would scream “Demon” and here is why:
There is no sash girdled ’round his chest. The greek word is Mastori with one of those little inflection thingys making the Mastori nursing breasts. Yep, Jesus in all his glory returns to the apostle John with bronzed looking feet, fire in his eyes a sword out of his mouth, and large breasts. Now, if you read this literally, (most Greeks would have read symbolism into this appearance, but don’t let that get in the way of a “plain and clear Bible reading”), then you have to also be literal about his “chest”, which is not a male chest in Greek, but female breasts. Suddenly, Driscoll’s macho fighter is a hermaphrodite with a sword for a tongue, etc. You can’t take part of John’s vision of Jesus literally and then part of it as symbolism. Given that Revelations is a highly symbolic book, you’d be hard pressed to take much of any of it literally, but Driscoll does. I don’t know if he even knows what the Greek says, I doubt it given his stance on Biblical languages, but if he did, he wouldn’t be able to process it. Nursing breasts are a symbol of nurturing and Christ returns emphasizing his nurturing side, something else complementarians struggle with.
See, to the comp. crew, masculinity and fighting is deeply intertwined, but to the ancient Greeks, high philosophy and deep thought were considered masculine traits. Fighting was foreign to most upper class men and non-lower-class Roman men in the ancient world. Rome was a powerful empire and many had never seen external war. Civil unrest happened, but the Roman legion style war Rome is famous for was fought far from the men’s homes and the exploits weren’t heard or reported on until years and years later. Legionaries lived on the far reaches of the Roman Empire and didn’t return until the battle was one, sometimes over a decade later. The Barbarians fought and that was a a spectacle to many Romans – they packed the colosseums to be entertained by this foreign art or method, but they didn’t have a strong personal connection to war. Those Gladiators weren’t men they personally identified with, they couldn’t care less if those men lay slowly dying at the end, they were nobodies to the Greeks. There are many male gods in the Greek Pantheon, some dedicated to fighting, most not.
For Jesus to show up as a fighter would have been confusing, it would have made him foreign, exotic, non-Jews-under-Roman-occupation looking (yes, Galileans fought the Romans, but not dressed in combat, they were too poor). That would have been well noted by John. But John doesn’t see a foreign fighter in his vision. Jesus is very, very symbolic here. He would have looked terrifying, yes, but definitely not like a gladiator.
Anyways, this is why this crew isn’t worth my time. They aren’t worth reading or listening to. They don’t read the Bible to learn about God, they read it to force-fit God into their preconceived image. Many people do this with their personal views of God. It is sad. I don’t know why so many follow this particular method of force-fitting the bible to say what they want to hear, I suspect it is because Driscoll talks about sex a lot and sex sells – his ideas of “submission” are largely sexual, making him popular with the not-yet-married-but-imagining-it-is-always-about-sex crowd.
Quick question for those more in the know than I, as I move ever more quickly toward a more “radical reformation” understanding of the scriptures:
If the cultural overlay of the traditional “men’s roles” were to be really removed, meaning they were not seen as more prestigious or powerful or better roles, would women really be fighting for those roles?
Which brings a second question: when we women fight and fume and fuss for our “right” to be “equal in every way”, assuming those traditionally men’s roles, are we not just as guilty as wanting the “power” as the power holding men are?
I do ponder what would happen if ALL roles–at home, the church, the wider society–were held in equal esteem? Maybe that is because I’ve never seen anyone, male or female, fight for the right to clean the toilets down at the church, or at home, but I’ve watched males fight for holding on to the most prestigious roles and women fight to be allowed into them. All of which is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, who said the greatest among us would be the servants (slaves!) of all.
As to alpha males in leadership, my Anabaptist leanings tell me maybe we don’t need anyone, male or female, in that role. And my personal history tells me alpha males can cause a lot of havoc in a church, but then again the soft and loving female preachers I have known were the one’s bringing in the rankest heresy.
Ah me, back to the priesthood of believers I guess!
I find it funny that Roberts comments on the maternal aspect of God because that is the very quality that my husband identifies with the most. My husband has functioned as both mother and father to his son from the day his son was born – he was the one getting up in the middle of the night for feedings, the one finding the special formula and making sure the store didn’t run out, the one nursing him through ear infections. The image of a God who wakes up in the middle of the night when His children are crying is the one that provides the most comfort to my family, not that of a warrior God. He will also tell you with great pride that the most respected and loved person at his store is the receptionist, a lady referred to as “Mama K”, not the male gm.
Rather than read Alistair Roberts, I’d rather just listen to Alistair Cooke. I always melt into that man’s voice.
And when it comes to prohibiting women to even read the Bible out loud in church, remember Tony Miano’s recent criticism of Beth Moore on stage with three men taking turns reading Scripture? patriarchy is immediately recognizable by it’s nonsensical results.
Ann wrote:
Add to that the disturbing attitude of God that he seems to think He is God and I am not. That can be hard to deal with, I would think, for some folks. Shoot, it is hard for me to deal with and I don’t even actually think I want to be god, though I do wish He would do things my way. The bible can be twisted and manipulated. I have never had much success with that in relation to God.
@ linda:
You do realize that gender roles in most of the Anabaptist churches in the US are very strictly proscribes, yes?
I know a man who left the Church of the Brethren (in which he was raised) due to its mistreatment of women. Most of the local Mennonites where I live are very old-school this way as well.
It’s one thing to admire Anabaptist ideals; quite another to see how they’ve actually played out in reality.
I think these men need to be locked in a room and forced to listen to women preachers preach.
I hope these guys never underestimate these women:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces
Proof that CS Lewis was wrong.
@ doubtful:
That notwithstanding, apparently a lot of women in the IDF are relegated to pretty trivial noncombatant jobs. There’s been a fair number of articles (etc.) about this over the past 3 years or so, iirc.
linda wrote:
In the world, throughout history until fairly recently, status or social power for males has been measured by birth position or by physical strength and what that physical strength can produce. For women, who as a class do not possess the same physical strength as men as a class do, it was proximity to a man that provided the woman’s social status.
Technology has changed that structure, and now brute strength is not necessary, at least in the West, to produce what used to require a man’s strength. Millennia of the physical strength paradigm have left us with an embedded male-normative view of gender. IOW, contrary to the picture in Genesis 1, our view of females has been constructed relative to males rather than our view of both males and females being constructed relative to God.
For females, being physically weaker made them less valuable as either fighters or economic producers. Since they were less valuable in those respects, then other scarce resources such as education were denied to females, and this perpetuated their lower status. Their only economic value was as producers of more male children, and this view of the relative value of women is most plainly seen in traditional cultures.
The point is not the actual circumstances of women in any given culture, but the root of the problem is a male-normative view of humanity. Complementarity has to be considered only vertical and never horizontal.
Bruce Ware, professor at Southern Seminary and father-in-law of Owen (not John) is the most outspoken proponent of this mindset. He goes so far as to say that women bear the image of God only in a derivative sense because woman was created out of man while man was directly created by God and so bears the direct image of God. Owen (not John), who is the kephale of CBMW, also teaches that. Ware’s wife, Jodi, teaches this view to women.
Yet, in an epic feat of dyslogic, they say that women are equal in value, dignity, worth, etc. These are mere words to them and a smokescreen to cover what is really going on. The question for me is why so many young women go for this? My working hypothesis is that the hierarchicalists have been successful at spiritually blackmailing the younger folks by telling them this is God’s beautiful plan and he expects us to be obedient to it. Shall a woman question God?
@ Gram3:
Part 2:
With that background, Christians should not be about fighting for status. That is what the world seeks–including worldly religions that elevate markers of spiritual status like headcoverings, homeschooling, SAHM, etc.
Christians should be trying to get back to Genesis 1-2 where we serve, and love, and honor, and respect one another more than ourselves. Where we cooperate with one another rather than jockeying for position or demeaning or excluding the other. So, for me, it is not a matter of what “roles” any person chooses but rather one of honoring everyone according to character, regardless of their “role” in society or the church. I think this was the point of a lot of Paul’s instructions to the church in his letters.
The male ego of these bozos has become so threatened that they have made the oppression of women a hill to die on in order to make them feel better about themselves.
numo wrote:
Well, I have to say that seeing a young woman who could not be more than 20 with an automatic weapon slung over her shoulder in Jerusalem was a little startling at first.
I don’t know how the IDF is configured, but it seems reasonable to assign tasks in such a way that the mission is not compromised and not according to gender. ISTM that making assignment decisions based on a combination of practicality and principle rather than ideology in either direction is the way of wisdom.
@ Gram3:
Err, “physically weaker” how, exactly? Less overall upper body strength (in general) than men, but women have historically done a *lot* of heavy work check out the process of laundry pre-washing machines – and that’s only one example).
And then there’s the matter of pregnancy and Chi!dbirth, which calls for both strength and stamina.
And so on.
There’s a very good book, titled Never Done, re. women’s work immediately before and after the advent of “labor-saving devices” that you might find interesting. Plus any good history of the industrial revolution will show how much heavy and exhausting factory work was dine by women and children, in incredibly gruelling conditions, for insane amounts of time daily and weekly. I think they more than held their own w/male employees of same.
Farming is also a trade where women did a lot if backbreaking work, and on small farms today, that’s still true (I.e., in most of the world).
@ Lisa:It all depends on what you mean by sola scriptura: is the Bible the ultimate authority in determining doctrine or does tradition, reason, etc, ADD extra material that has to be blended with the Bible for a doctrine to be correct. Sure, there is a history of interpretation that one must consider and reason must be used to fiqure out how things fall together…but, but nothing but the Bible is BINDING, ultimately. Or, do you look at it differently?
linda wrote:
Made me laugh. Years ago on a family vacation, my sister and sister in law started arguing about who was going to do the dishes. I grabbed a beer and went outside with my dad. Told him: I never fight over housework!.
@ numo:
I wasn’t clear, and I think I agree with what you have said. I am saying that *as a class* males are physically stronger than women *as a class.* I recognize that the distribution of strength overlaps. That is not the same thing as saying that women have not done work that requires great strength and endurance. I’m getting at how things are valued and perceived.
IMO it is not coincidental that women’s civil rights in the US were granted first in the western states where it simply was impossible to maintain the usual structure of society as seen in the East or South. Everyone had to work, and work hard, and roles didn’t matter nearly so much. Rather everyone had to contribute what they could. Survival mandated that the old ways of thinking had to be set aside.
All of my kids were born naturally, so I totally get the childbirth part of strength.
🙂
@ Haitch:
……………
These men should remember the first person to know the savior was Mary his mother, a woman. And that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by some sinful man.
At the resurrection it was another Mary, a woman, who first saw the risen savior. Two women, two Marys who were honored to see God in the flesh, first at birth and then at resurrection.
These men can huff and puff all they want about it being a man’s world. They are fighting against God almighty.
Sigh. Roberts is one thing British we should not import. (Do keep the lemon curd coming, though – yum yum!) The difficulty is, he is well educated and well spoken; he is not mean in tone, but he does not back down. Years ago I had a bit of frustrating Internet conversation with him. I finally figured out that the reason it was so frustrating for me was that he talks in circles, but it took me time wading through his prodigious vocabulary to finally figure that out.
The Federal Vision thing seems so logical, so rational – and is so wrong.
Jesus came into his Kingdom by voluntarily going to the cross and suffering death. ***That’s*** the way he fights and wins, and humility – which is neither “masculine” nor “feminine” – is both the goal and the path.
The whole issue, like so many others, is driven by hermeneutics. Underlying much of the complementarian hermeneutic, in the words of Miroslav Volf: “The ‘guy trouble’ stems from the decline of patriarchy… and the consequent uncertainty of men about their roles as spouses and fathers.” (“Exclusion and Embrace,” p. 185) As Gram3 wrote above, this decline of patriarchy has been accelerating in industrialized countries since WW II. In a changing society, people in general are driven to seek certainty; complementarianism is one way this drive has played out.
So Alastair Roberts is another one of the macho warrior dudes who just seems to think that the role of a Christian ‘minister’ needs to be machofied in order for them to feel good about themselves in that role – anything less would make them a girly-man.
Uh, dudes, all that murder and mayhem in the Old Testament is NOT an instruction manual on how to act. You’ve got the warrior thing all wrong. You want to be a Christian warrior? Here’s how you do it: Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. Take up the whole armor of God, put on the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit.
Now THAT is Biblical (see Ephesians 6), not the testosterone-laden BS being troweled out by your ilk.
Since Phillips keeps coming up in this thread I am reminded of an interesting story related to what gender roles looks like among the patriarchy crowd.
At Phillips prior church before he left in shame, and deservedly so, the little women were given the task of organizing meals. However, the women could never commit to anything becasue all decisions, even those of utmost mundane or insignificant, must be run by the Priest/King/Chief/Boss of the house with the xy chromosomes. So, basically the men had to take it over becasue the women weren’t in a position to make decisions. Oh the irony of the manly man deciding who could take a casserole to Sister Josephine is just too hilarious to ponder. Bwahahahaha
Gram3 wrote:
You might enjoy reading Stephanie Coontz’s The Way We Never Were. In it she documents the freedom and self determination that women had for the first time ever in our Nation when they ‘manned’ the defense industries of WW2. My Mom was your archetypical ‘Rosie the Riveter’ during the war. She built the superchargers which enabled our B-17 engines to operate at high altitudes (high for those days anyway), but I digress. One of the main take-aways of Coontz’s book in a larger picture is that once all humans (regardless of gender) get a taste of freedom and self determination, there’s no going back. The guys who want to take us back under the rubric of ‘Biblical’ mandates are on a fool’s errand. The toothpaste Genie is out of the tube and she’s not about to be squeezed back in.
Val wrote:
…or the already-married-and-looking-for-any-justification-to-force-the-“little lady”-into-perverse-sexual-practices-crowd. Don’t forget that key Driscoll constituency.
Gram3 wrote:
Kind of like “It’s all about Jesus.”
The problem with any assigning of “roles” is the misapplication of Biblical teaching by moving from personal responsibility to “demanded” response. Where patriarchy is most damaging is in the way men will acquire a “title” (husband, father, pastor, etc) and use that to DEMAND that they are given carte blanche respect/honor. The concept of leadership, as exhibited by Christ, is not one of getting to be in “charge”, but by leading in love regardless of other peoples response to your “leadership”.
My favorite picture of this is in Philemon where Paul states, “Well, I could totally tell you what to do and make you do it, but, that is not how we do things”. Paul reminds Phil that he could probably get away with playing the “I’m the boss” trump card, but we see his heart in that leading in such a way is wrong and not part of God’s design.
When people move a concept like “Complmentarianism” from a general concept of personal responsibility, to a listing of “do’s and don’ts” the entire point is missed. That is why it is struggling in the public eye currently. The minute you begin to try to define in your own personal way what you mean by saying “complementary” and putting parameters on just HOW it looks(ie, husband works, wife crochets quietly at home) you have effectively corrupted the whole concept at its heart.
Much of this listing of complementary roles that is currently attempted reminds me of the many “additional” rules the Jewish religious leaders had established by the time Jesus arrives. In their attempt to not break the law, they added a bunch of ridiculous unnecessary rules to give the outward appearance of righteousness without every addressing the heart issues.
My approach to complementary theology in practice is that it is a personal conviction to me to lead by example with no expectation that anyone SHOULD be following me(at least as far as what I can “demand” of them). My “role” is not dependent upon my wifes “submission” to me leading. What she does is up to her. But what is up to me, before God, is to pursue God with abandon, to love my wife and children sacrificially, and to put them in front of myself always.
In a simple form, I think a wife’s spiritual “ceiling” should be the “floor” a husband sets for himself. To paint a silly picture to illustrate that….if my wife reads the bible 30 minutes a day, I should read it at least 31. I want to be a husband that my wife would like to “brag” about. IE, ..”I just love the way he loves us, puts God first, and prays for our family and shares Christ daily with me and the kids!” Not because she needs me to of she will fall apart, but I want her to be proud of me and glad to be married to me.
This doesn’t of course discount my imperfection and that there will be seasons where I will end up leaning heavily on her spiritual strength.
I would contend that the idea of leadership in marriage from scripture has more to do with these ideas than–“Me do this, you do that”. When we begin to preach and practice the idea that because of my “role” you better just listen and follow to fulfill YOUR role we have turned the Bible into a tool of oppression and control.
@ Gram3: I hear you. Military stuff – wars and standing armies – seems to have a lot to do w/this. But I love Dorothy L. Sayers’ very pointed mention of the many occupations that were run by women (or mainly by women) prior to the Renaissance. The title is great, too – “Are Women Human”?
There’s this holdover from the 19th c., too, in something known at the time as ” separate spheres,” where middle-class men were supposed to engage with the world at large, while middle-class women were supposed to be some species of domestic goddess. Working-class women had no such luxury, and there’s innate bias in this kind of “benevolent patriarchy” view that should be glaringly obvious… But mostly isn’t, to its current proponents, anyway.
Along the line of my previous post, these patriarchy females truly aren’t playing their cards right. How bout “Honey, there’s no food in the house because you didn’t tell me what to buy or how much I could spend.” I wouldn’t want to inadvertently step out from under your authority. After their husband becomes exhausted approving everything maybe the absurdity would become more obvious.
@ numo: should be “the title of Sayers’ essay is great.”
Ah well.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I can’t adequately explain for you the reason why, so please forgive my fumbling attempt, but this illustration really bothers me. As a woman, though not yet a wife, I would want my husband to read the Bible as much as me. But more? Unnecessary. I don’t want a husband who needs to be MORE spiritual than me in order to lead. I want a husband who wants to be spiritual, who seeks Jesus alongside me and I alongside him. Full stop. When one spouse seeks to or believes he or she surpasses the other in spiritual matters, a power differential is created that can lead to an unhealthy power dynamic. So read your Bible, yes. Seek Jesus, yes. Serve your family, yes. But not as some sort of spiritual pole vault exercise. Because the truth is, we all fall short of that bar and always will.
JeffT wrote:
Agreed. Just the opposite of the image they hope to achieve.
And just to add to that, when we seek Jesus with all we are, that is enough. God knows we’re human and that we fall short of his glory. Maybe our spiritual life is more like a race than a pole vault. We’re the ones frantically setting the bar when all God wants us to do is run hard toward Him. And if we try to run faster than our spouses, this only leaves them behind. Just thinking out loud here.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Scripture, please. Where are husbands told to lead their wives?
numo wrote:
Please don’t forget the viking warriors I noted above! 🙂 http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/09/female-viking-warriors-proof-swords I thought I’d post the article, I found it interesting.
“Run by Alpha Males” only lasts until the Alpha Males start going at each other’s throats. And the Game of Thrones begins, for only One can sit on the Iron Throne.
“There Can Be Only One” — Highlander
numo wrote:
I can’t remember the reference exactly, but there’s a historical treatise (“Women in the Age of Cathedrals”?) whose thesis was that the status of women rose during the Middle Ages, only to take a nosedive when the Renaissance started a worship and imitation of all things Greco-Roman — including Slavery (The Romans Did It!), Absolute Monarchy/World Empires (“Ave, Caesar!”), Judicial Torture (“The Romans Did It!”), as well as subjugation of women (“The Greeks Did It!”).
I wonder if one of the factors in this was Veneration of St Mary, whose role as Mother of God put a female in an exalted position and acted as a counter to the fish-don’t-know-they’re-wet male supremacy of the Greco-Roman cosmos. In this case, the Reformation (“Christian Hateth Mary Whom God Kissed in Galilee”) pulled out a major damper rod holding back Male Supremacy and Subjugation of Women (by Alpha Males) and it’s Meltdown Time.
@ Sara:
Thanks for the helpful critique. I re-read how I put it and I agree with you.
To give a helpful illustration from my marriage…
For years I thought I was a really helpful husband. My wife on the other hand was getting annoyed with me. The problem; I was always asking what I could do around the house. I thought this was helpful because I wanted to make sure anything she wanted done I didn’t miss. She was annoyed because she just wanted me to take care of stuff(ie, throwing the laundry in the washer if I saw the hamper was full) instead of always relying on her to “tell” me what to do. Today, I don’t necessarily do “more” than I used to do, but she is happier because I take initiative to get stuff done that needs getting done.
I am a pretty stereotypical guy…I don’t naturally notice, or, care about messes. My wife comes from a family of neat freaks. Not that I am making the case that the “home” is the wife’s domain…but in the context of our relationship she is the pace setter when it comes to our house. She doesn’t want a dynamic where she is “lording” over me what I should be doing….and to be honest, life is a lot easier now that I am no longer waiting on instructions. Happier home!
We are always going to drive ourselves crazy trying to “manage” other peoples lives…even if it is for good reasons…like doing laundry. When I think about leadership I tried to give a silly example(31 minutes vs 30) and I agree that it is a poor choice. I think the husband should should strive hard after being a pacesetter. But not with the anxiety of “what if I fail?”. The wife shouldn’t “slow” down so her husband can lead. There should be a mutual process of spurring onward.
I hadn’t heard of Alastair Roberts either until now. At first I thought, ‘ oh good, he might be a Scotsman’,but quickly learned that he was the next best thing – an Englishman who had studied at St Andrews!
I’ve spent the last couple of hours reading through his blogs and I have to say that he does not appear to me to be the macho Driscoll like clone that some think. He makes very clear that, although he is complementarian in principle, he disagrees with that viewpoint on a number of issues, not least the way in which the complementarians distort the meaning of Scripture to support some of their claims. He gave this answer to one of the occasional contributors to TWW (Tim):-
“More particularly, your comment seems to presume that, in opposing women in the priesthood, I am opposing them having a prominent role or voice in all other aspects of the Church’s life. That isn’t actually the case.
My point is that the priestly/pastoral office has a very specific character and is consequently male-only. I believe that this office has been neglected in most contemporary Protestant contexts and the priestly/pastoral role redefined around academic teaching (as distinct from authoritative instruction in the faith), management, and therapeutic guidance. Where this notion of ‘leadership’ prevails, it is entirely natural that people should think of ordaining women to the priesthood. Such gifts can and should be used in the Church, but they are not sufficient to mark someone out as suitable for the priesthood.”
I found that to be quite a helpful distinction although I don’t know enough to comment on his view about ‘contemporary Protestant contexts and the priestly/pastoral role redefined around academic teaching (as distinct from authoritative instruction in the faith), management, and therapeutic guidance.’
He also entered into a lengthy debate about Douglas Wilson’s view on the subject back in 2012, I think it was. He also disputed the same man’s views on slavery. And he did it all with a measure of grace.
So I don’t think he’s the bogeyman leading the assault on egalitarianism.
I believe men who want a female slave are attracted to Christianity. My father informed me when I was eight years old that he is the boss of my mother. What kind of loser has to tell an eight year old little girl he is the boss of her mother? Christian man. I find my father and his ilk to be creepy, abusive, losers. I do NOT respect them, and I do NOT want them anywhere around me.
@ Adam Borsay:
Adam, thank you for sharing this. I’m not sold on comp theology but I really appreciate this additional illustration and I also appreciate the spirit in which it was written. Thank you.
@ JadedOne:
Well, yes – but we don’t know *why* the swords were buried with some women as yet. Marks of rank/social status/class? The artifacts don’t tell for sure, and absent other documentation, it’s not possible to solve the riddle.
What I think it’s *not*: a blank check to imagine hordes of women warriors. The historians who are talking about the find (re. bone analysis) are saying exactly that.
Part of the bias was the assumption that swords = mens’ grave goods. Nobody took a second look at the actual skeletons until very recently.
@ Guest:
Most any religion you care to name has people who think that way.
Haven’t read all comments so maybe this has been said…but my husband works with done terrific military personnel fully capable of fighting alongside him who are-gasp- women. Some are even-gasp-mothers! Shaking my head at this stuff. I don’t think we understand the cultural context in which the Bible was written.
@ Guest:
@ Adam Borsay:
Excuse my densenss, but how exactly are you a complementarian then?
*some. Not done.
(Auto”correct”!)
dainca wrote:
And in Islamic society, this reaction to future shock is playing out in the likes of Boko Haram and ISIS/ISIL. Go back to an idealized version of the past (the Way It Was In The Day of the Prophet), force Reality into that mythic mold, and Be More So Than Anyone Else.
There are only three possible reactions to the changes of Future Shock:
1) Adapt to the change, without sacrificing too much of your identity and tradition.
2) Die out, unable to adapt to the changes.
3) Kill off all the change and return everything to The Way It Was.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
You’ve mentioned this before, and I think you can corroborate some of it w/a peak of Marian devotion in the high Middle Ages, but even so… Jaroslav Pelikan’s book Mary Through the Centuries is very interesting in this respect. He cites devotionals and such from the period in which Christ and Mary were referred to as “the Lord and Lady of Heaven” – which really is an assumption that heaven has a feudal structure. ((Not unlike traditional Chinese beliefs about the afterlife, where there are heavenly emperors who employ deceased humans in a Confucian bureaucracy. If you weren’t so good in this life, you get put in charge of one of the many “earth prisons” – i.e. hells – or you work for administrators of said places. But I digress!)
Nothing against Guest, but that was meant for Adam. Not sure how Guest was included, although she is certainly welcome to respond.
the word is “denseness” (fingers and phones are a challenge)
Mae wrote:
Remember my above conjecture that Veneration of St Mary acted as a counter to “the way we’ve always done things” Male Supremacist society? And when Mary got thrown under the bus and replaced by Sola Scriptura that removed that counter and let Male Supremacy reassert itself?
And, again, having only skimmed article and some comments, further to the stupidity of thinking only men can fight, I don’t understand why maleness is such an issue when WE wrestle not against flesh and blood and the victory is guaranteed… Oh well. 😉
JeffT wrote:
numo wrote:
A couple of things to tie these together with our friend Alastair. The Federal Vision theology is a theology of radical post-millennialism. That is one of their distinctives along with paedocommunion. I mean distinctive when viewed from the Presbyterian and Reformed wing which is where they claim they belong.
They believe that the worship service is at least in part a call to war to bring in the Kingdom. You will hear warlike imagery throughout their writings. Like Augustine they are a little confused about the “totus Christus” and keep getting themselves confused with Christ. You’ve probably heard about imprecations brought down on their enemies who are viewed as the enemies of Christ.
This is, of course, in total contrast to the Great Commission view of the church as ambassadors of a Kingdom which has not yet come, at least in its fullness. Ambassadors do not make good warriors and vice versa.
Another thing is that they look to Rushdoony who re-worked Kuyper’s ideas of spheres. I don’t think that is exactly what Kuyper had in mind, but Rushdoony took it and ran with it. My impression is that he took Dabney’s idea of ranked spheres and mashed it up with Kuyper. This was, I think, a huge reason for the rise of the Religious Right during the 80’s. Hopefully, someone reading has more info on this, since my info comes from outside this circle (or sphere) and this is how I have made some sense of it.
Perhaps Owen Strachan is out of touch with demographics.
According to the U.S. Census, 60% of married women work. That’s not a new development. It’s been that way for more than 20 years. Add to that: Only 20% of evangelical Christians have 4-year college degrees or higher, so the chance of making a high income in a professional career is reduced. (Source – Pew: U.S. Religious Landscape)
And yet we see Strachan shaming families who depend on working wives. Since when do we equate high income with godliness? I used to attend a church that subtly gave the same message. That message has no place in the church.
University of Virginia and Johns Hopkins did research on this attitude and determined that is part of the reason so many Christians are exiting the church. (See paper: “No Money, No Honey, No Church.”)
Mandy wrote:
God is not R Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket.
JeffT wrote:
Paraphrasing a trailer-trash Ku Kluxer of the Fifties, if they can’t be better than a WOMAN(TM), who they got they can be better than?
Bridget wrote:
While I appreciate Adam’s efforts to define himself as a leader/pace-setter, and still be a “helper” to his wife, he does vacillate between egal and comp which proves Dee’s post today about the ambiguous terms and conditions around the comp views. All without scriptural support… sigh
Guest wrote:
I am so sorry that your view of Christian men has been so damaged by your earthly father. Certainly, what he said is not what Jesus would have said. I don’t blame you for not trusting Christian men, especially when you take your experience and then hear what some Christian men are saying today.
I want to encourage you that not all Christian men are like these. I have tried to understand why they view women the way they do, and I don’t understand it. My dad and my husband look like Jesus–they are/were always looking for ways to serve others and placing themselves at the last place in line.
Please don’t lose hope because of your dad and these guys. They are not Jesus, and they don’t speak for him.
Thank you Gram3, LOVE you;) Sounds like your Daddy and husband are sweeties.
Mandy wrote:
More like Princess Celestia from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic than R Lee Ermey from Full Metal Jacket?
Eeyore wrote:
Christians are also called to emulate all of Jesus’ actions, attitudes, and life, including Christ’s tough side.
There’s too much codependency in Christianity, especially among women, and especially in gender complementarian views, which encourages women to only emulate the gentle, soft side.
In much of Christianity, Women are encouraged and taught to be meek, mild, passive – never be assertive. So, they are taught to only emulate Jesus’ “nice side,” not his assertive side.
I was spoon fed the attitude from childhood that the only appropriate role for godly women was to be meek, sweet, gentle, and agreeable. I had to suppress my true opinions, never allowed to have boundaries, and my anger was suppressed for years.
Telling people to only mimic the serving, sweet, tender side of Jesus is just as unhealthy and lop-sided as is the manly man, he-men Christians who depict Jesus as only being a tough guy.
I agree with those above who said Roberts contradicts himself in a few places.
Roberts said,
“10. Maternal identity means that all women must be protected…by men.
“…Every woman, by virtue of her sex—irrespective of whether she is married or has children—is the bearer of a maternal form of identity.”
Kudos to this guy for at least recognizing that single women exist, we’re not all married, which is more than most gender complementarians usually do, but my initial reaction to this point was:
What? I’m over 40, never married, never had a baby, never had sex.
Just because I have the requisite baby making organs needed to make one does not mean I am “maternal.” I don’t consider myself all too maternal.
Why must gender comps always work motherhood into all topics? Women are more than potential mothers. I don’t like being reduced to “potential wife and mother.”
I don’t define myself that way, why is this guy defining me that way, or reducing my personhood in that manner, to only motherhood?
He said,
“1. Only men can be pastors since women pastors jeopardize the faith.”
So do some men. Paul had to correct Peter to his face for supporting or teaching false doctrine. The Benny Hinns of Christianity are men who teach false doctrine.
He said, “2. Women should not be marginalized.”
But much of the rest of his other points consists of him defending how and why women should be marginalized.
He said, “4. Leadership in the Bible has a military perspective.”
It does? I don’t pick that up. It talks about the one wanting to be first placing himself last, not wanting to lord authority over others, and so on.
He said, “5. The Bible is “written by warriors about warriors.”
The Bible contains such a variety of personalities and careers of the various people it discusses, I don’t see how this guy can make this claim.
Even before he became a “warrior,” David was a sheep herder, and even after, he was a musician (he played the harp).
The Bible is also chock full of small business owners, cloth dyers, tent makers, tax collectors, farmers, artisans, doctors, etc.
He said, “8. Men fight and women don’t-generally.”
I’m not sure if he means real life, or the Bible only.
There are women in the Bible, both the godly and the pagans, who not only killed people, but who commanded armies who killed people, and some murdered (or had murdered by others) the prophets of God.
Every other day in the news, I see reports of grown women who murder or abuse their spouses or children.
He said, “the normalization of women fighting and killing is quite contrary to biblical and Christian values.”
I don’t think men killing was supposed to be the norm, that it was in God’s plan.
He said, “9. God has been reduced to a maternal figure.”
God describes himself using maternal language in the Old Testament, as does Jesus in the New. If God is fine with God using maternal language about himself, why is this guy not?
He said, “112. Guardian men empower women” – and all he said under that, sounds like benevolent sexism to me.
Point 13, a male priesthood. This guy is a Protestant or Baptist? If so, why is he so concerned about a priesthood at all?
I thought one complaint of many against Roman Catholicism by Protestants was the whole priesthood thing, and that Protestants are into the priesthood of the believer?
He talked about “authority,” too. I thought God was the #1 authority of the church, with the Bible (remember sola scriptura) being the final spiritual authority for all believers?
Ann wrote:
That was the title in a chapter in a book by I believe Dan Wallace, or the same title was used on one of their web pages about the book. It was mentioned on the bible .org site. I saw it mentioned somewhere on their site awhile back.
This page has links to sample chapters:
Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today
https://bible.org/series/whos-afraid-holy-spirit-investigation-ministry-spirit-god-today
@ linda:
So, you’re basically arguing for the status quo, that women should be limited to only scrubbing the toilets, while the men get what most would consider more lofty or easier roles, that nobody should question this, and women should just sit there and not say a peep?
Women who are objecting to these sorts of things aren’t asking to be in authority over men. They’re asking for an equal, fair shot at things.
If a woman is good and gifted at, I don’t know, preaching, for example, why not allow her equal shot at being a preacher?
I personally harbor about zero interest in being a preacher, so I would not apply for the position.
But, if I had the talent and interest, why should I not be permitted to do so? The same could apply to other areas – police officer, dentist, whatever. Why shouldn’t women be allowed to use their talents and gifts and apply them to areas they are interested in?
@ doubtful:
I’ve also posted a link to this before:
Onna-bugeisha (Japanese women warriors)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onna-bugeisha
Depending on what culture you live in, it’s totally normal for women to be warriors.
Melody wrote:
I thought the same thing as I read through his points, Melody.
dainca wrote:
I don’t see what’s wrong with it. As far as I imagine, Federer’s vision at the moment involves his finding a way past Gael Monfils in their quarter-final match (which, at the time of writing, they obviously haven’t yet played). The Monfilsian vision, presumably, is much the same but in reverse.
@ dainca:
Those are interesting points. I think some of gender complementarianism is driven by insecurity of some of the males who promote it (as well as a few other things).
John Piper, for one, strikes me as being very insecure about his manhood, with the way he frames his arguments.
I’ve read where Piper has instructed women, that if a lost man in a car pulls over to ask her for directions, that she should relay directions in such a way to the man that she doesn’t seem to be stepping on his manhood or embarrassing him.
Piper also commented about how he’d feel ill at ease if a woman were to read aloud from a Bible to him. He said he would have to get up and leave the room, where he could only hear the woman reading and not see her.
Some of these gender role rules some of these men come up with seem driven from their own insecurity, or a fear of women, rather than an honest interest in following God or understanding the Bible on these topics.
JeffT wrote:
If we go by what guys like him prefer, maybe we should start telling churches that all men who apply for preaching positions should have a black belt in karate? I like that idea. All preachers are required to have a black belt in karate. It’s a job requirement. 🙂
Gram3, if you authored a book critiquing complementarianism (maybe co-authored by Dee) – I’d buy it. Some fascinating insight you guys have bottled up.
Bunsen Honeydew wrote:
Gender complementarian teachings do become self fulfilling prophecies. When you keep telling women from the time they are girls that they are incapable of making decisions on their own, and never give them opportunities to do so, that is what happens – they become incapable of making decisions.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t know what happened in that area and when, but indeed she got thrown under the bus. This is one example of my next sermon entitled “Don’t Be Fooled: They don’t really believe about scripture what they say they do.” In this case there is plenty of evidence in the NT alone for some sort of respect at least to continue to be shown to several women especially Mary. But they don’t do it. Isn’t there some word to describe the state of saying one thing and doing another? If only I could remember what it was.
@ dee:
“Oh, you will be hearing more from him. He has been “discovered” by The Gospel Coalition who is having difficulty understanding why they are not making inroads into the wider culture on the gender issue.”
++++++++++++++++++++
can you elaborate on this?
@ JeffT:
Good words, Jeff!
@ Adam Borsay:
One thing about gender complementarianism that doesn’t work is that the men who run the show demand that women submit to their spouses. But they start out saying the submission should be voluntary.
Okay then, should I remain a Christian and marry a Christian guy I do not voluntary submit. I choose not to. There’s really nothing they can do or say about it. If one is forced to submitted, it stops being voluntary.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Do you have a favorite?
If complementarianism were personified in the shape of a man, I would be kind.
I would.
I would offer him hospitality and invite him in for a nice, glass of milk.
I might even serve it to him in a lordly cup.
I would make him comfortable so he could sleep.
Then I would drive a tent peg through his temple with such force that it would leave his head pinned to the ground.
And there are plenty of others who feel the same way as I do.
Problem is, there are individuals like Alistair Roberts you who don’t know a real enemy, nor a real battle when they see one.
Courage and bravery are most certainly not the exclusive domain of men. I find this suggestion deeply offensive. It is offensive!
Alistair Roberts is but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
@ Gram3:
“Great title for a “Complementarian” movie. Starring the usual Cast of Characters. But who will play the uber-male hero? I nominate Owen (not John) since he is the kephale of CBMW. Screenplay by Wayne Grudem, directed by John Piper, produced by Al Mohler, makeup by Carolyn Mahaney.”
++++++++++++++++++++
or…
Bob Balaban as Owen Strachan
screenplay by Eugene Levy and Chrisopher Guest
Directed by Christopher Guest
Eugene Levy as Paige Patterson
Christopher Guest as __________
Michael McKean as __________
Harry Shearer as Jon Piper
John Michael Higgins as CJ Mahaney
Jennifer Coolidge as Mary Kassian
Catherine Ohara as __________
Deborah Theaker as __________
Parker Posey as ___________
Ed Begley Jr. as __________
@ Adam Borsay:
You seem like a “safe” comp (i.e., you won’t blow up on me or accuse me of wrecking Christianity, being rebellious, etc. 🙂 ), so let me ask you a question.
There’s an idea out there called “domain-based hierarchies,” which I first learned about from a soft egalitarian blogger who was trying to engage in dialogue with complementarians. The whole concept is that hierarchy itself is not necessarily bad, and that both complementarian and egalitarian marriages have it – i.e., in certain areas (“domains”), one party will “lead” and the other will not, regardless of theology. In other words, if, say, the wife likes to garden and the husband kills everything, the husband will defer to his wife’s gardening decisions, or if the husband is a mechanic and is good at fixing cars, the wife will defer to him about car topics.
So my question is, given that complementarianism on the popular level is taught as “all submission/deference is done by the wife and any and all submission/deference by the husband destroys the picture of Christ and the church,” how does this square with this very natural and mutual dynamic that exists in all healthy marriages? This is an esp. valid question given that a lot of comps glorify domain-based hierarchies in their writings all the time. In fact the whole “wife’s sphere is the home” idea that is promoted by many, IS a domain-based hierarchy, esp. considering that Paul uses the phrase “mistress of the house” which shares a common root with “despot.” This becomes esp. problematic when we realize that, historically, a husband who tried to interfere with certain matters of home economy, would probably have been considered a meddling fool. Say, for instance, that a 17th century husband who had never been taught to spin, tried to make his wife “submit” to his opinions about spinning because he is the “head of the household” and she needs to “submit to him in all things.” His wife would probably have been the first person to laugh at him!
In summary, in case any of the above was unclear: it seems to me that for “all submission on the husband’s part is wrong” to work, comps would have to call the natural dynamic between husband and wife, in which expertise is recognized, a bad thing that destroys the Christ/church metaphor, because any deference to the wife on anything would be disallowed. Except if they allow the husband to defer to the wife, then it seems that the entire model has basically lost its real-world meaning, and is really functional egalitarianism still wearing comp clothes.
Your thoughts?
Daisy wrote:
In many corners of UK Christianity, and in many Christian books I’ve come across here, all Christians are encouraged and taught to be meek, mild and passive. Nobody must ever be made in any way uncomfortable; no difficult decisions must be taken; disagreements must be swept under the carpet and made no-go areas rather than resolved; and the highest Christian ideal is to bask in the loving arms of mummy/daddy God, who just wants to gently breast-feed us.
It has nothing to do with being “feminine”. Sometimes I think it has everything to do with being infantile. But there’s a subtler possibility, too. I think a very passive Christianity appeals to people who never learned to stand up for themselves, or to persevere in the face of adversity or criticism, when they were young. So gentle Jesus, geek and child, is a way of legitimising – and even ennobling – what they know deep down to be a weakness that they should, really, address. I’m not really shying away from necessary conflict, you see; I’m turning the other cheek. I’m not really refusing to stand up for the people being bullied or oppressed; it’s just that I don’t want to judge. And so on.
Bridget wrote:
I kind of like Federer, though Monfils is certainly good entertainment value.
Across the US Open more generally, I’m supporting Caroline Wozniacki. Mainly because she supports Liverpool, but also because her name, on its own, is actually a sentence in Scots.
Ah’m tellin ye – Hamish was built like an ark so he was!
Aye so he was… wha’aboot Caroline though?
Awa wi’yeez! Caroline wasnae arky!
ken wrote:
Pretty sure I would dilute the Deebs’ brand by being a co-author. But if I did write a book, the first one would be “Recovering the Faith from Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.”
The second one would be “Evangelical Complementarianism: A New Path to Galatianism.”
The third would be an explication of the second and would be titled: “Evangelical Complementarianism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Made-up Illogical Assertions.”
I can’t think of anything original I’ve written, so I’m curious what it is that you find interesting.
No Daisy, I am definitely not arguing for the status quo.
I’m arguing that NO ONE, male or female, should be in those roles of top of the heap in the hierarchy.
I’m saying that I don’t see a lot of egalitarian men or women fighting for the LOWEST positions. And I don’t see a lot of complementarian men and women focusing on serving others.
I’m saying BOTH sides have totally missed what Christ taught us.
I’m saying BOTH sides need to start following and obeying Christ rather than arguing and fussing for the highest seats.
I’m saying if a woman has the ability to preach, which is nothing more or less than speaking the truth of God’s Word, she will preach. It may or may not be in a “church” and she may or may not get paid for it. That will depend on what denomination she chooses and the route she chooses. No women in this country are barred from being pastors. They are only barred from it in SOME churches. If you support women preachers and are in a church that doesn’t, MOVE ON. Some of the most effective disciplers and evangelists I’ve known were in churches that don’t ordain women. They did their work one on one and didn’t care who got the glory.
And sometimes their male preachers were incensed because they did indeed care who gets the glory. Which just shows they have a heart problem.
I’m suggesting not the status quo AT ALL but a radical retooling of the system. I’m suggesting NO ONE be a paid preacher or ordained or top of the heap. I’m suggesting EVERYONE shoulder the load, find a place to serve, and get busy being slaves of God.
I’m suggesting everyone stop looking for a church that serves them, that strokes their ego, and that makes them feel good about themselves or grants them status and so called authority. I’m suggesting instead they find where they are needed and get dirty. If my church has a capable preacher and I am called to preach, I can volunteer to teach a SS class or start a Bible study. I can teach my grandkids about Jesus and lead them to Him. Same job. Only difference is the status.
I’m suggesting it takes a heck of a lot more courage to follow the clear teachings of Christ than it does to make excuses for disobeying them.
And I’m saying the followers and supporters of churches done the way Christ forbids are every bit as guilty as the folks at the top.
Most Godly man I ever knew was a preacher. Oh he wasn’t ordained, and he drove a “honey truck” cleaning septic tanks to support himself. But he was called to take the gospel to a specific group and he faithfully preached to them. No status, no money, just their slave.
Male or female, I’d support that sort of ministry any day.
linda wrote:
Beautiful comment, Linda. The problem comes when someone tells that septic cleaner that septic cleaners aren’t allowed to preach to that specific group. See, while that sounds absurd, its the very position many women find themselves in. No mention of status, money, etc. Just the same privilege of serving in the gift of preaching or teaching.
@ linda:
Dinnae ken whether I’m more in the know than you are, but I’ll answer anyway…
It is interesting, isn’t it, that the jobs from which women are most often banned under a complementarian aegis are precisely those jobs which are cool, sexy and sought-after. I’ll never forget a comment I heard second hand but that was attributed to a baptist minister down in Manchester: If I said one Sunday morning, look, everyone, I’m going to be away next week and I need a volunteer to preach – I’d have a queue of men standing outside the vestry. But if I asked instead for a volunteer to help with the children, it’d be a different story.
On the other hand, there’s strong evidence here in the UK that men who work in certain female-dominated professions (e.g. pre-school teaching) typically find themselves patronised, marginalised and generally presumed incompetent in much the same way as women do in male-dominated professions, or in golf clubs. In general, as far as I can see, women are neither better nor worse than men when given authority.
@ Hester:
Good question…..but…my wife is convinced tonight will be the night she goes into labor….which apparently means I have to clean the whole house in preperation…..see..deferring to her “leadership”… Joyfully…..but if it doesn’t happen I will try to give a thought out response later
__
“Think Before You Pink?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ7UJiraJlY
Echoes reverberate from da MarzHil corridors: “Exit stage left would be just fine.”
MerkyD: “One Little, Two Little, Three Little, Four Little Missive Pastors……………………………….hmmm…Can I Use My Toes?”
🙂
—
@ Adam Borsay:
Hey, totally understand. Good luck to you both. 🙂
linda wrote:
I read this with the rich, dulcet tones of Martin Luther King Jr in the background – “I have a dream…” Taking your idea on a secular tangent, what if all those high skill, but low status jobs mainly occupied by women and new immigrants really did get paid what they were worth? Child care and aged care spring to mind in the first instance. Why are our children and our aged valued so poorly? BTW, I really shouldn’t argue with someone who has a PhD in physics, as they’re generally on the smart side of things, but I put forward the view to this person that driving a forklift required skills and had a level of difficulty. I could not convince my friend otherwise. “A monkey could do it,” he said. I think the whole way in which we view and value jobs and the skills required is skewed. And I posit that the lack of worth given to some jobs (meaning the people in those roles) is as prevalent in the church, as it is outside of it.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick, you make me laugh! If I ever were to follow any sport, it would probably be tennis; those folks are supremely fit and skilled. But I’m pretty clueless except for what I catch incidentally on the news.
Gram3 wrote:
Maybe we have a different view of what status is, but I see it as having equal regard for each other, and also what you said about a serving attitude and cooperation and respect and showing love and, “honoring everyone according to character, regardless of their “role” in society or the church”. That’s true status to me (and oh dear, all the anti-communists/anti-socialists will come out of the woodwork now).
@ numo:
Yeah, I agree it seems a little early to be calling them female warriors just yet. Thus, as you pointed out, why that’s not what the historians were saying in the articles.
Gram3 wrote:
I’ve certainly not read abroad on the topic by any stretch, only a bit here and there, but knew nothing different than patriarchy for 40 years. Refreshing to see the perspective here.
@ Haitch:
In the Kingdom, really all have the same status, I think. Namely, servants of the King. I suspect that the economy of the Kingdom recognizes a different currency than we do, and we have to be vigilant, ISTM, to keep the world’s counterfeits from crowding out the King’s currency in the Kingdom, which for our purposes is the visible church.
That’s why I think the celebrity culture, gender roles, and the clergy/laity divide are all so toxic to real Kingdom living which should have no spiritual divisions.
This may not make any sense, so my apologies. Having a bit of brain fog today.
@ Gram3:
It makes a lot of sense thanks Gram3. It hit me while I was reading your words that’s why there’s the cognitive dissonance with the megachurches – it’s trying to mix oil and water. I don’t believe you can mix corporate values with the ‘King’s currency’. For example, some language in the Mars Hill documents is profusely servanty-flowery, but the intent, actions and outcome is nothing like being a servant. It’s why I have a deep suspicion of those labelled “Christian businesses”.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I wanted to re-post this as I thought it really important. I was raised in this regime and it never appealed to me, ever, but alternatives weren’t on offer. Finding one’s own identity as an adult has not been smooth, and in the past I was envious of those who grew up without this extra ‘layer’ put on them. However, to use that awful smiley-face phrase, am ‘moving forward’. Nick, you’re well on the way to Scottish Scott Peckianism, thank you. Now dinnae get your calvaria all swelled up over the wee compliment, nae.
@ Adam Borsay:
“I would contend that the idea of leadership in marriage from scripture has more to do with these ideas”
+++++++++++++++
I would contend that the idea of leadership in marriage is nonexistent in scripture. it is conjectured, just like my theology of ladybugs.
Well for starters, I will never ever take anyone seriously who conflates priesthood with pastoring. But putting that aside, this guy is just basically writing what he wants the world to be like, rather than any kind of responsible exegesis of Scripture. Boring. Everyone from Benny Hinn to the Dhali Llama does that.
Really?
Which warriors?
Matthew?
Peter?
Mark?
Luke?
John?
James?
@ adam borsay:
“my wife is convinced tonight will be the night she goes into labor….which apparently means I have to clean the whole house in preperation…..see..deferring to her “leadership”… Joyfully”
+++++++++++++
very sweet of you to do that. but really — none of this is “leadership”, whether it’s done by you or by her.
this word “leadership”, “lead” — christian culture has been hung up on this for some years now. my theory is that it was injected into the discourse of christian culture as an appeal to men. to try to make church & the christian program (as dreamed up & dished out by famous name powerbrokers & the industries that feed off them) attractive to men by propping up their ego, and enticing them with power words and power hats to wear.
and this is what it has come to: a husband does the dishes, it is called leadership. He leads his wife through doing the dishes. a wife does the dishes (same sink, same corningware, same dishsoap, same dish towel), it is called submitting. She submits to him by doing the dishes.
….someone please uncurl my toes for me.
Anon wrote:
Just pretend this is Alistair Cookie’s exegesis instead of Alastair Roberts’. That helps me cope with such nonsense.
Three comments deleted. Duplication issue. 😉
I bought a book on Bible Doctrine by Wayne Grudem as I was requested to do so. Biggest waste of $20 I ever spend.
Nowhere in anything pontification is anything about being a servant. Jesus said the greatest in the kingdom is the servant of all. He said nothing about the greatest in the kingdom being able to beat you up.
The difference is being a thug or being godly.
@ Gram3:
exegesis = exposition. Because Alistair Cookie knows the difference…
Deb wrote:
mea culpa, I’m sure.
elastigirl wrote:
Sister, your rebellious spirit deeply grieves John Piper’s spirit. Please repent for committing logic while female so that Pastor John can recover his joy. Grace and Peace.
Linda you said:”I’m suggesting everyone stop looking for a church that serves them, that strokes their ego, and that makes them feel good about themselves or grants them status and so called authority. I’m suggesting instead they find where they are needed and get dirty. If my church has a capable preacher and I am called to preach, I can volunteer to teach a SS class or start a Bible study. I can teach my grandkids about Jesus and lead them to Him. Same job. Only difference is the status.
I’m suggesting it takes a heck of a lot more courage to follow the clear teachings of Christ than it does to make excuses for disobeying them.”
Why do I always get the impression you are lecturing us here?
I am glad you have found this easy way for you to live out your Christianity-but I have nor ever expect it to be as simple as you tell us. Just my 1/2 cents worth.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
“Sometimes I think it has everything to do with being infantile. But there’s a subtler possibility, too. I think a very passive Christianity appeals to people who never learned to stand up for themselves, or to persevere in the face of adversity or criticism, when they were young. So gentle Jesus, geek and child, is a way of legitimising – and even ennobling – what they know deep down to be a weakness that they should, really, address. I’m not really shying away from necessary conflict, you see; I’m turning the other cheek. I’m not really refusing to stand up for the people being bullied or oppressed; it’s just that I don’t want to judge. And so on.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
is this ever true!
helped along by que sera sera, all things work out for good, my present and future has all been predetermined so i’ll just float along amorphously so i’m never anything but pleasantly Christ-like and let God work it all out.
my toes are still curled
@ Gram3:
hmph
@ Hester:
No, the archaeologists and historians were specifically trying to find out if the Vikings established permanent settlements in Ireland, or if they only came to carry out raids.
History is part of my academic training, and there’s methodology to it all. Finding artifacts like this in women’s graves is one thing, but there has to be much more evidence to support the warrior idea than swords in some womens’ graves. My first thought is class/status, though I have no doubt that some of the women knew how to use weapons. Still, knowing how isn’t the same as the stereotypical fantasy depiction of women warriors. We are a *long* way off from being able to substantiate any such thing!
linda wrote:
To which “everyone” are you referring?
linda wrote:
And who is disobeying? And who is not exhibiting courage in following Jesus?
In my posts, I try to be specific in my concerns. It would be helpful if you did the same. “Everyone” is a lot of people.
elastigirl wrote:
need a foot massage?
to me it is like nails on blackboards
Spotted this interesting analysis which I think will be up Brad/futurist guy’s alley, and a few others. HUG will get a kick out of the phrase, “mystical utopianism and structural totalitarianism”. On Drucker’s style of leadership, the Leadership Network’s role in the rise of the megachurches, change agents etc. Haitch goes “ahhhh”.
http://standupforthetruth.com/2014/09/abandoned-culture-gave-rise-mark-driscoll/
@numo, on the same website is a current discussion on an old post on NAR/dominionism which might interest you. http://standupforthetruth.com/2011/11/nar-is-another-name-for-dominionism/
@Bridget, I see you’ve posted that link on the previous thread – you’re way ahead of me. #greatminds
@ Haitch:
Thanks. The immortality thing is new to me; I’d like to see proof of it.
As for the rest, I feel better with analysis by people who are writing from a secular perspective, since there aren’t denominational and/or pet doctrinal axes to grind (among other things). Also, they don’t use jargon, and the general public isn’t going to want to read stuff that’s in “christianese.” Which means that the whole movement isn’t getting the kind of coverage it should in mainstream media, or being taken as seriously as I believe it should be. Wagner sounds crazy, but his people got a vice presidential nominee on the 2008 ticket, so…
@ Bridget:
well, I always need a foot massage…. but, yes, the constricting cognitive discopants one has to wear curls the toes back just like nails on a chalkboard and metallic fork friction on a dinner plate.
elastigirl wrote:
Ha! Stealing that.
Dee–our whole church system today is geared to disobeying Christ. He tells us not to have earthly “fathers” or gurus so to speak. We fight tooth and nail to be exactly that.
He tells us the greatest among us will be servant of all. We fight tooth and nail to be top dog. We are systematically taught to seek to have our felt needs met, and to focus on those rather than the gospel. Read Hybels and Warren and Osteen.
He tells us to first confront sin privately, then with two or three witnesses, and then only if no repentance tell the church. We can’t wait to rush to the media and spread gossip as far as we can.
He tells us to turn the other cheek. We call that weak and infantile and uphold the ones that disobey that as heroes and fully adult.
He tells us to serve others, especially the least of these. We complain the church ignores our demographic.
So Dee, the everyone you ask about is me. It is you. It is Deb. Unfortunately it is our whole evangelical system based on division and status seeking. We don’t do what we are told to do by our Lord. We do that which He forbids.
My challenge for all of us–me included–is to try obedience. For ourselves. Rather than point out the failures of other, why don’t we step up to the plate and enter the fray ourselves?
I wonder what would happen if we did? What if trusted Jesus and fought bullying with love and service, not gossip columns? What if we simply walked away en masse when confronted with a bad preacher instead of fighting him? What if instead of complaining about what “the church” is or does we started obeying Jesus ourselves, all of us?
What if, when we are absolutely sure a system is failing or a ministry is awry, after it is torn down we stop talking about how bad it was and build a rock solid good one?
What if we tried obedience instead of all this drivel we are doing?
What if?
linda wrote:
Hmmm….what if, when we saw a bully beating up on someone weaker than him, we simply turned and walked away? What if, when we saw someone being hurt and oppressed, we simply, en masse, turned and walked away, leaving the victims of the ‘bad preacher’ to their fate?
linda wrote:
You see, what if, what you call drivel is what someone else calls obedience?
If you believe that you are being instructed/convicted/led – whatever word you want – to walk away from this blog and ones like it, by all means, obey your heart – your conscience. But do not presume that that is what Himself is telling everyone to do.
What if Dee and Deb are doing exactly what the truly believe they are called to do? What then?
Your comments here have frequently seemed to be scolding to Dee and Deb and downright condescending to the other commenters. I honestly don’t know if that is by intent or not. But I am left wonder, assuming you really feel that way about Dee and Deb and the rest of us, why you keep coming back and commenting? I am not saying you should leave – I am genuinely curious why you are drawn to something that you seem to despise.
@ elastigirl:
““Great title for a “Complementarian” movie.
screenplay by Eugene Levy and Chrisopher Guest
Directed by Christopher Guest
+++++++++++++
got the title: Yin Over My Yang
Storyline: Kate, a frustrated 40-something woman, is trapped in 2 impossible marriages: one to her evangelical husband, Justin, who takes his role as her leader to delusional levels, the other to their evangelical church whose pastor manipulates his parishioners’ self-identity to bolster his own as he seeks to impress a pageant of christian celebrities who will feature at the conference his church is hosting. A farce of Napoleonic proprotions ensues, until clear-headed Kate embarks on her own campaign of innovative extremes to awaken her husband and her faith community, ultimately bringing freedom and redemption.
Kate………
Justin…….Christopher Guest
Pastor Bob…Bob Balaban
????
Gram3 wrote:
Thank you for the new word! Learned something new and esoteric today, nifty! 🙂
@ elastigirl:
Catherine O’Hara, I think.
@ linda:
Is there a reason you feel compelled to come here and excoriate everyone? I honestly don’t want to drive you off, but lately, your comments have just been condescending and attacking and I don’t get it.
Also, quite a few readers/commenters here aren’t evangelical, so…
As for what you think should be posted on a blog, again, I’d suggest you have a go at doing it for yourself.
linda wrote:
May I refer you to George Santayana.
@ Haitch:
Great comment Haitch. Dignity is missing in a lot of work.
elastigirl wrote:
Everyone likes ladybugs, or ladybirds, as they are called in the UK (or ladybird/bug beetles, as they are called by professional entomologists, since in truth they are neither birds nor bugs!). This is useful, because when people express squeamish dismay at my love of beetles, I need only point them to ladybirds.
@ Wayne Boyd:Wayne, I just may look at it differently. I don’t know of you’ve read Eagle’s story on here or not, but let me preface my comments by saying I am having a bit of a spiritual crisis of my own. Except for the past several years, my entire life has been
Lived with fairly extreme fundamentalism. To make a long story short, I have more questions than answers and more frustration than peace at the moment. For your amusement, I will leave you with a couple of points:
a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (cf. Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the OT.
My oldest friend, EXTREME by anyone’s standards, repeatedly says to me “if it’s not in the Bible, you can’t convince me it’s true”. My life has been really, really hard for about seven years and I think I’m dealing with PTSD. I’d like to have the brain functioning to deal with complex issues of doctrine, but i don’t. One of my only comforts is that the New Testament christians had no canon of scripture called the Bible, they simply believed the message of Jesus. Salvation was simple. If you and I die tomorrow never having resolved sola scriptura,or the myriad of other doctrinally divisive issues, we will both be found in heaven based on our belief in the gospel message of Christ.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Conflict avoidance regardless the cost, aka cowardice or even treachery sometimes.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Though as it happens, that conflation is so widespread, and thus so well-hidden in plain sight, that I didn’t spot it until very recently. In fact it’s possible I’ve never really thought about it until I read your comment declining to take me seriously until I did think about it. The crucial point being that, whilst just about every church group places a significant emphasis on its weekly gatherings/meetings/services, and generally has one person as the de facto leader of those gatherings, different denominations put him there for different reasons. Although, in most cases, his is – de facto – the most important human presence, and that’s what attracts the wrong type of person, or for the wrong reasons.
Similar confusion arises over “styles of worship”, especially insofar as that refers to styles of music. Different church groups employ music for different reasons, although I don’t know how widely recognised that fact is.
@ Jeannette Altes:
In the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, Linda did talk about fighting bullying with love and service and nowhere did she say that anyone should be left behind.
Haitch wrote:
Well, for one thing (and I’m sure this point has not escaped you), overall pay differentials would have to be vastly reduced. If we paid all our cleaners a decent living wage, we could not still afford to pay telephone-number salaries to our CEO’s and bankers.
One reason we have such large pay differentials in the UK is that we have bought into the myth that in order to attract the best talent you must pay the most money. What this achieves is a subtle fail. It does attract talented people, but mainly that subset of talented people who are primarily attracted by money. So in order to continue to attract them, you must pay them more, and more, and more, and more, and more, and more money. Talented people who (while making no bones about needing to earn enough to pay their own way) are attracted by other things besides money are steadily and quietly frozen out of the policy-making culture.
@ Nancy:
Precisely. The paradox is that conflict-avoiders can become surprisingly aggressive at pushing back on necessary and healthy conflict.
@ Lisa:
I am sorry that you are in a rough place just now. If I knew what to say I would say it.
Your observations are accurate. It is amazing that someone with a background in protestant fundamentalism recognizes this.
The issue of tradition is complex, but for one observation let me say this: of the people who have rabbinic traditions, orthodox traditions, catholic traditions, or protestant fundamentalist traditions only the protestant fundamentalists are denying that they even have traditions. This need to deny that they have traditions contributes to their need to distort and misapply scripture-to make some traditions look like scripture. It is a disservice to scripture and a trap for people.
I notice that the fundamentalists elevate their traditions to the level of authority of scripture by twisting scripture to make it seem that such and such an idea is not really tradition but is actually scripture “correctly understood.” In this way, they give their traditional understandings of scripture the same authority as scripture itself.
I am thinking that a lot of folks, perhaps everybody, have traditions; the main difference being in the way that they think about those traditions and whether or not they recognize them for what they are. But in my thinking, getting into a disagreement about tradition vs no tradition can also be a dead end, or more likely a road that just meanders on and on without even a merciful dead end. The only conflict worth the time is between the truth and the lie, and that one is extremely hard but extremely rewarding.
linda wrote:
Linda, sounds like a great blog topic! Why don’t you start your own blog and you can share your wisdom’s at your site?
Lisa wrote:
You would recognize the look on the faces of people who demand that I tell them “ONE thing!! Just ONE thing that BIBLE-believing Christians use tradition for”, & I tell them, “The table of contents for the Bible”. I’m probably gonna send someone into conniptial fits one of these days, but I can’t resist. I. Can. Not. Resist.
It has never once crossed their fundagelical minds that there was no such thing until somebody created one for the Bible he was printing on his printing press. (These are the same folks who get all hot & bothered over someone else using a different canon, of course. It has never occurred to them that there couldn’t be a question of canons unless there were a variety of versions of the Bible, not all of which have the same table of contents. But they aren’t chopping them out of their Bibles, no matter what I do to their blood pressure……)
Wayne Boyd wrote:
I am not Lisa, but she was responding to something I said originally so permit me to intrude on this conversation a tad. For the sake of public disclosure let me say that I am a methodist, and if you will check out a short article on “wesleyan quadrilateral” in wikipedia you will see what I think is the best approach. The article also mentions what they say is the traditional understanding of this from the Anglican viewpoint. They are quite similar. These are, of course, somewhere in a “middle way” on this issue.
For further public disclosure, I was not raised methodist. I came to these conclusions on my own, and then when I discovered the methodists and what they thought in this area (and also their understanding of “works”) I merely thought “these are my kith and kin, I am so glad I have found them.”
I do not believe that “nothing but the bible is binding,” taking that statement at face value. Fundamentalists do not believe this either, though they seem to think that they do. Example: fundamentalist preachers talk about being “called” to preach. They describe this “call” as personal rather than general and describe it as compelling, frequently citing scripture about a “fire in the belly” sort of thing. This “call” by their own understanding is from God, not simply the application of some bible verse. It is certainly not inconsistent with scripture that such a thing could actually be, but no specific call by name for anyone today is stated in scripture. This “call” however, they consider binding and compelling and from God. This is called “experience.” It is not the only thing that can be shown under the general heading of “experience” but I use this example because fundamentalist preachers use this.
They “reason” by and around scripture to arrive at their conclusions. Nobody simply reads scripture and then dismisses the congregation. They just deny the use of reason in the process and call it exposition only.
Another example: they amazingly arrive at some similar and unique conclusions about some things and these ideas can sometimes be traced back to where they got started and how they got promulgated–think, real christians read this author and not that author–and then see nothing about that which looks like tradition and/or the development process of tradition.
But whether one limits the issues to scripture, tradition and reason or whether one adds experience to that list, I submit that fundamentalists themselves believe this without admitting it. Perhaps a more fair observation would be to say that they practice this without believing it.
All christian groups that I know about have a “high view” of scripture, but understandings of specifically what that means are somewhat varied, as are attitudes toward tradition, reason and experience.
linda wrote:
I haven’t read all the comments so far, so I don’t know how that conversation has panned out, but I thought you might find this an interesting read: http://krwordgazer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/are-women-seeking-ministry-demanding.html
Gram3 wrote:
I have a few theories on this one. People can be drawn naturally to filling a what they think is a chaos vacuum. People can be drawn to rules, roles and formulas for what they think is living out the Christian life. (Muslims do this, too, for Allah)
Some of the young women I have been around in both seeker and Reformed venues are particularly silly about this. In a tradition where everyone is scared to death something is a works salvation they still need something they “do”. And rules, roles and formulas fit the bill. The irony is the whole comp doctrine world is a works salvation formula but few seem to connect those dots. (Saved in childbearing is often trotted out—a glaring “works” salvation mistranslation)
And I am old enough to see the trajectory. Those who were NOT depending on this doctrine for their income tend to start rejecting parts of it years later even if done quietly. It can become a huge source of contention in the home. Especially if she has had to work the entire time. It simply becomes untenable.
Those in ministry who depend on this doctrine for their income simply think working women families should pay them more so she can be the good comp wife.
I grew up with pastors wives who worked. Some were teachers but there was an accountant and even a lawyer in the mix. It was the normal at that time. Now it is a huge deal which I find incredibly silly in this economy.
The same pastors who tell you there is no way to earn your salvation will insist on merging comp doctrine with the Gospel. The same pastors who tell you that Jesus’ righteousness was imputed to you on the Cross will insist comp doctrine is part of the Gospel. Why those diametrically opposed dots are rarely connected by their followers, is the real conundrum.
linda wrote:
I think that is over reaching. Discussing the problems with comp doctrine and its inconsistencies in translation is not fussing and fighting. It is what people do when they are analyzing a popular teaching. And that is a good thing. It is not about “rights”. It is about “truth”
I already believe I am equal in every way but that does not stop me from engaging others in the cognitive dissonance of the false “equality” that is taught in comp doctrine. It is good to “think”.
Ironically, you are using the same response many comp pastors use to shame women when they start asking inconvenient questions. They automatically start shaming them for wanting “rights” and “equality” instead of looking at perhaps they want “truth”.
I never bought into “roles” talk. The life of a believer is not about playing a role. The language is horrible and takes us down the wrong road to begin with. Roles are something we pretend to be. It is a scripted life. It always had a fake/pretend feel to me. I would challenge the comps I was around to try and not use the word “role”. Do you know how hard it is to propagate that teaching without the word “role”?
linda wrote:
So, it seems like you claim to be as disobedient as the rest of us. That, at least, is honest. I have a suggestion. Why don’t you go and do what you are telling “everyone” to do and then let us know how it goes? In the meantime, I shall continue in the “drivel” as you call it.
I remember coming across Alistair after the Wilson ‘conquers and penetrates’ kerfuffle a few years ago. He wrote a series of posts which he said were totally not defending Wilson’s views, but he simply spent the whole time deriding women for being ’emotional’ in their responses to Wilson. Because apparently calling out sexism and misogyny means you’re irrationally emotional and your arguments aren’t worth listening to.
I’d also point out (haven’t read the comments yet so someone’s probably already covered this) but Alistair’s comments on violence, war, and manliness betray a real historical ignorance. Women aren’t new to the battlefield; they’ve been involved in conflicts as long as conflicts have happened. They’ve fought in conflicts throughout history across the world. War isn’t some bastion of manhood, not now, not ever.
Wayne Boyd wrote:
What do you mean by “binding?” I often get confused by some of these Christian words that are loaded with all kinds of meanings.
As for truth outside of the Bible…how about mathematics, science which is discovering cures for Ebola and creating incredible computers? How about black holes and thermal vents? I believe that all truth is God’s truth and that will include a gazillion things outside of Scripture.
Then, how about all the various theological pundits who tell us we are not Christians if…we believe in an old earth, we don’t believe in preselection of the saints and the condemned,etc. Then, there are the eschatology wars, the baptism conundrums, etc… All these supposed scholars who tell us exactly what the Bible says and do not see the absurdity of their pronouncements.
Even worse, the Bible has been used to defend racial segregation and slavery. Women were told they couldn’t vote or even own property because of “sola Scripture.”
The Bible is sufficient for pointing us to our Creator, explaining our state, the need for the Cross and Jesus ad pointing us toward home. Its all the stuff in-between that is not terribly clear as evidenced by the debates.
If God really wanted us to do the “sola Scripture” thing, wouldn’t he have made it abundantly clear what we are to believe about all sorts of things? If not, why not?
@ dee:
Good stuff there, Dee.
Folks
I have been a bit out of pocket. My step father fell and landed in the ER-he is OK but he had to have surgery the next day for an unrelated problem. I was with him the entire time. Then, my dog Lilly got quite sick during the night with some sort of weird sinus thing and had respiratory distress. I was afraid i would have to do CPR. I ended up giving her Afrin (an old post op trick) to open her nasal passages which helped but then was told I had “poisoned” her by an all night on call vet who wasn’t our regular vet. I didn’t and the vet was wrong-Afrin can be used in small amounts with dogs and my regular vet apologized for the dustup. However, I pretty much sat up all night wit her. I was also away over Labor Day at a big wedding on Cape Cod for my neice.
Anyhoo-I think I am back and hope things will settle down! Thanks for understanding my seeming absence.
@ Nancy:
Indeed. I offer the following definitions for refinement by the community:
Preacher (n): One whose profession is a living rebuttal of sola scriptura.
Pam wrote:
I watched his comments to people who disagreed with him. Although he is unfailingly polite, he seems to tell people that they just didn’t get what he is saying. I was obviously one of those people.
He gave a caveat to the women and war thing-he used words like “generally’ to stave off criticism. He is quite clever at this. He claims he wasn’t saying women couldn’t be involved in the church leadership but then he invents, (IMO) a new form of priesthood based on violence and maleness.
I am left with the opinion that “comp” theology is a bit of a boondoggle. It has little specificity and is one big blob which basically says anything goes except women as pastors. The comp crowd agrees on nothing more.
When Keller says that he is comp in theology and egalitarian in practice, he shows the problem. he thinks he is solving it but he isn’t. If the doctrine means little in agreed practice then it is useless.
Pam wrote:
Men are at a disadvantage in trying to deal with emotions, but especially women’s emotions. Let me tell a tale which may relate. Years ago auto dealerships were uniformly rude and condescending to women. Taking one’s car back to the dealership service department for anything was a difficult experience to have to endure for women. Eventually the car companies realized that women had become major customers in their own right and they first encouraged and then coerced the dealerships into changing their ways. Those are my memories as one who was dissed by the dealer a lot.
In the midst of how things used to be my husband told me this. When you take your car in and they treat you badly, throw an emotional hissie fit and they will stop it. How so? Because you make them remember when they were a little boy and their mama caught them with their hand down their pants and shamed them for it. Female emotional hissie fits evoke those same feelings in grown men. I remember he mentioned urinary incontinence (metaphorically) which could be provoked under the right circumstances (I have cleaned up the language here, of course.)
I don’t know if his reasoning was correct, but I tried emotional hissie fitting and got better results at the car place.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That is really good. Wish I had thought of that.
@ Lydia:
I agree with you. I am not wanting women in positions of authority in churches due to the “power.” (Digression: It always makes me laugh that pastors think they have power when, in reality, they are admirals in rowboats). I firmly believe that the marginalization of women in the church means that well over 50% of the possible input into issues in the church is missing. I wonder what might have changed with the way that the church has dealt with pedophilia and domestic violence if there were women who actually had a voice.
@ elastigirl:
That sounds like a much more interesting movie than the one I pitched. Since I live in a pop cultural cave, there is nothing more here to contribute to the project. Carry on. 🙂
@ dee:
I was one of the other commenters on those posts, at least until I realised that despite his polite wording he really had no interest in listening to anyone else’s opinions. In that context and in this one he’s very careful in his wording, trying to make everything sound nice and putting in pseudo-caveats, like saying women were ‘generally’ not involved in war. Wording like that is code wording – it allows him to dismiss critiques of his downplaying of the fact that women have fought because well, he did say it was only ‘generally’ true, but it also lets him greatly minimise anything he thinks is inconvenient. Combine it with the critiques of being ’emotional’ and it’s just manipulating language to silence anyone who disagrees with him.
@ Lydia
“I never bought into “roles” talk. The life of a believer is not about playing a role. The language is horrible and takes us down the wrong road to begin with. Roles are something we pretend to be. It is a scripted life. It always had a fake/pretend feel to me. I would challenge the comps I was around to try and not use the word “role”. Do you know how hard it is to propagate that teaching without the word “role”?”
Wise words. And if I might add from my own observation of this phenomena, the “scripted life”, more often then not, has a nasty underside to it.
dee wrote:
That’s how he responded to me too, Dee. Rather than us not understanding him, I think he’s the one who doesn’t get what we’re saying.
Tim
I agree. He doesn’t get it or doesn’t want to get it. He’s just one more person in a long line of comps who are trying to find something that makes sense and filing mserably in their attempts. Oh yeah, the Christian church is going to get reams of visitors after his pronouncement on the “warrior preisthood.”
Pam
Then I must have read you over there. I have to admit, I started laughing each time he marginalized folks by going “academic” and saying people just didn’t understand his arguments. He’s rght, of course. Few do understand his POV, as well as not understanding the rest of the comp apologetics brigade, and that is why the comps continue to lose support.
I am waiting for the person (it will have to be a guy) who can explain comp theology in any practical sense. Then I will be impressed. So far, comp theology and church discipline are two of the least able to be defined “things” in the current climate.
dee wrote:
It seems that way because that’s why George Knight came up with it in the first place. Kevin Giles has good stuff on the history of “roles.” The mainline churches were ordaining women after WW2 when attitudes began to shift regarding gender equality.
The old patriarchal notion that women were less fit intellectually and spiritually just were no longer plausible, so what then was left to reserve the clergy to males? Not a whole lot because the idea of male clergy was just a cultural carryover from church tradition/culture and from the wider culture.
That is why I think they guy who is most responsible for this mess is the one we hardly ever talk about, George Knight. He’s the one who came up with “roles” for the Persons in the Trinity and for males and females. That was his invention so that they could make appropriate statements about gender equality at the same time that they said that God reserved the clergy to males. 1 Timothy 2:12 and all that.
The reason it all sounds reasonable to some is they use lots of bibley language and quote Bible verses. Without textual or historical context. The reason it appears obviously made-up and ad hoc and illogical to those of us who have examined it closely is because it actually was made-up and ad hoc to address a pressing question in the PCA and OPC.
Using sound logic and exegeting and applying the text with integrity by employing sound hermeneutics was not the point of Knight’s exercise, IMO.
dee wrote:
Let me get this straight. TGC is tickled pink with Alastair and Alastair is in agreement with much of what Doug Wilson proclaims. Really? When will the real TGC please stand up? I believe their actions have become proof of where they stand. What I see is anti-gospel.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes Gram, I came across Knight when researching the Danvers Statement years ago. I was shocked at how much influence he had even on Baptists. But he was speaking the hierarchical language they coveted. It was all a backlash to what was happening in the culture at the time. It was a cultural driven response. Not a spiritual one.
Also I read both of Giles’ books when I was researching ESS because I live at ground zero and Bruce Ware was becoming a huge influence at the time. You know what astounded me more than anything in Giles book that made me go check it out for myself? That Ware and other “scholars” were actually editing quotes from Athanasius to promote ESS! How dastardly can you get? I would not trust a thing that comes out of SBTS. Too many examples of such nefarious indoctrination.
Tim wrote:
I’m not familiar with Alatair, but I do know that in Federal Vision culture there is the idea of a cultural elite–the readers who are leaders–who are responsible to dispense their learning and thoughts to those of us who are less capable. However, to me too often that works out to be thinkers who are stinkers.
Leithart, whom Alastair apparently admires, is one of the stinker-thinkers who inform Doug Wilson whom these guys think is so witty and insightful.
Does anyone have a link to the discussion on Wilson’s penetrating post that some are referencing here? Much appreciated if anyone does.
@ Mae:
I think for those of us who believe in evil, that evil is delighted with the focus on “roles” defining the Christian life. It keeps us focused on each other and and whether our spouse, etc, are performing their “roles” or not.
A better way: “abiding in Christ”.
@ Gram3:
The original post was on Jared Wilson’s blog, which TGC linked to. Jared Wilson quoted Doug Wilson in an article. The entire episode went viral. Doug Wilson started commenting to defend his point. People were asking JW to take his post down. I believe he eventually did, after some days of attempting to defend it. Many other bloggers responded with their own articles.
linda wrote:
Aside from the point of me not knowing the women who are fussing and fuming, maybe this could illustrate what happens:
I am holding a hundred-dollar bill that someone else has given to me, and I have in mind something I would like to buy with it that I really want. But I find out that it would bless you to give the cash to you because you need it or there is something you would like to have. If I give it to you, and presuming it does not violate other responsibilities I have, then giving it to you is laying down my right to it. That is being Christ-like.
However, if you grab it out of my hand to use for your own purposes, then I am not wrong if I protest (fuss and fume.) It doesn’t matter if you bring in your powerful friends to say it is OK, and even good, for you to do that (like Grudem and Piper). You have no right to take what has been given to me, and you have no ground to shame me for protesting your confiscation of what is mine by saying I should be willing to give up what I have for you in order to be Christ-like. It would not be unChristian to ask for others to help me fight to regain what you, totally without warrant, have taken from me.
@ Bridget:
Alastair’s comments were on Jared Wilson’s posts? I think they were archived somewhere, IIRC, so I’ll look for them.
@Dee, @linda
glad you’re back and glad your stepdad and little Lily are OK. I also think your description of the last couple of days are an excellent refutation of Linda’s judgmental assumptions
Linda, with respect to all your assumptions how do you know we don’t do what you are insisting upon? A point by point refutation from my own long history would be wearisome to write and read; but I offer just two examples. When I became certain that the church I was invested in was corrupt I walked away. More importantly my working life is spent “getting my hands dirty” while serving others. I work at a community college running a learning lab for developmental math students. We work with minimal resources for low salaries. I have been screamed at and mocked. We have all ages, all ethnicities, all economic levels. Last year two of our students were arrested for a drug-related murder. We often have students who go “home” to a shelter after classes. We have narrowly avoided gang confrontations in the classroom where as many as 80 students may be studying and testing. We just keep helping them with their math and teaching them to be college students. My staff is very tight and I’m living out my faith in front of Hindus, Muslims, Jews, pagans, Buddhists, and all.
And that’s just me. I’m sure much of your “everybody” could share similarly; although their stories look very different than mine. God places each of his obedient servants where each is most needed.
@ Gram3:
God has called women in all capacities of ministries without qualifiers. My thoughts are let the women serve be– it Pastor, Deacon, Sunday School Teacher, etc.right where they are. It is beyond wrong IMO to tell them to go elsewhere such as what the Southern Baptist Convention has done when it comes to Women Pastors.
BTW I left the Southern Baptist Convention very recently after having been a member for 40 years. Why–My conscience will not let me be a part of an organization that treats women as second class citizens or little children that someone needs to tell them what they can and can not do.
Someone might say why did you not stay? As it is right now if someone openly feels the way I do you are viewed as divisive and treated as such.
@ Nancy:Thanks for your kindness as well as your excellent reply to Wayne.I appreciate your perspective. In addition, I’m always curious, since I left the movement, but have so many acquaintances still in it, (cause you know once you leave you don’t have friends, that’s why I call them acquaintances now), that there is so much talk about sola scriptura, and how the Word alone is sufficient, but most of them have EVERY SINGLE book by these celebrity pastor/authors and whole study groups are built around studying the latest book.
Lisa wrote:
So what else is new?
In the Seventies it was Late Great Planet Earth.
In the Eighties it was Turmoil in the Toybox, Satan’s Bid for YOUR Child, and Dark Dungeons.
I was out of the loop by the Nineties, but by then it was probably Left Behind.
Gram3 wrote:
AKA The Philosopher-KINGS of Plato’s Republic?
(Never mind the minority opinion that Plato wrote that as a satire, to show a Perfect Society might not be that hot an idea.)
@ dee:Thank you for this! The word “binding” set off red flags for me as well, but considering my emotional state these days I was afraid I was just being “punchy” or trigger happy.
Bridget wrote:
“PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!
PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”
(And guess who’s on top doing the Penetrating Colonizing Conquering Planting?)
Never mind Alistair Cookie, even Aliester CROWLEY would be an improvement on this Alastair.
Mae wrote:
ACTORS play roles from scripts.
Anyone here remember the Koine Greek word for “Actor”?
people who ‘protest too much’ often have related issues
so could it that these men who are so passionately restrictive of their wives (example: no working outside the home, etc.) . . . that these men question their own masculinity and shore it up by placing women so far beneath them in dignity that they cannot perform even basic decisions without their ‘master’s’ permission?
It would be one psychological reason why some men NEED to be heavy-handed with their wives and extend the recommendation to other men to do the same . . . and I wonder if there is some back-up data out there that has resulted from this theory being explored by behavioral scientists.
It is not normal to tell a grown woman she ‘cannot work outside the home’. It seems more a sign of a deep-seated insecurity in the man who feels he must put this on another human being as a requirement, much less a ‘command from on high’ . . .
some thoughts
Pam wrote:
I learned the hard way growing up that Politeness and Niceness are the marks of a sociopath.
dee wrote:
Two words: PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.
mot wrote:
I’ve walked a similar road and been the subject of the “divisive” and “rebellious” dismissals. My comment was an attempt to refute the “women are just lusting for power that God has not given them.”
The Lord secured our freedom in him. The SBC has elevated secondary or tertiary doctrines to primary ones. I’m sorry you have had to leave just as I have.
Nancy wrote:
Before I take issue with something you didn’t actually mean to say, Nancy, would you mind clarifying that claim?
Do you mean all men everywhere throughout time, or just some men, or just more men than women? Is the disadvantage to which you refer a cultural one, a biological one, a spiritual one, or something else? Does it mean that there are some jobs (in the church or in society at large) that “a man” shouldn’t really do because he can’t do them as well as “a woman” – or at least should be required to work twice as hard in order to be considered half as good? Do you think this disadvantage should be celebrated and exploited, or mitigated? If mitigated, by carefully targeted preferential treatment or otherwise? How do you think this disadvantage compares to any analogous disadvantages from which women suffer? Do you feel that, by contrast, women understand mens’ emotions better?
I ask for two main reasons. Firstly, the communal consensus here at TWW generally frowns on generalisations beginning “Men are…” or “Women are…”. And secondly, there are some very tired old stereotypes about “men” and “women” and emotions that need to be challenged.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: HUG, I love your comments. They are a bright spot in my life! Thanks for making me laugh.
You ask “what else is new?” A website by people calling themselves Raiders news updates, or something like that. My fundamentalist friend reads their pseudo science, end of times prophecies, etc…and believes it all. Wait for it, wait for it….they believe aliens are the Nephilim, the Pope will require us to worship an alien, and more. That’s what’s new! Aren’t you glad you asked?
@ zooey111: You’re right! And i’m thinking of grape juice and crackers as “tradition”.
mot wrote:
I know there can be different approaches but how can a woman, who is marginalized to begin with, ever expect to change things from within an organization when her voice isn’t appreciated or given any sense of authority?
Lisa wrote:
That is so true. We don’t want *that* magisterium, but instead we will create our own who shall tell us what saith the Lord. And any who oppose them are to be opposed as ones against the very faith itself.
The idea of sola scriptura is often misunderstood. It does not mean, and should not be made to mean, that the only truth to be discovered is found in the Bible. This is the kind of thinking that is present to greater or lesser degrees in nouthetic counseling. But that is a whole ‘nuther can o’ worms.
It does mean that the Holy Spirit has inspired it and, as his inspired work, it is authoritative above any human person or institution. And that is where the discussion gets interesting, because, as far as we can see, the canon was put together by humans, and specifically humans in an organization. What we cannot see, behind the human authors and the human organization, is the Holy Spirit working within those human authors. I readily acknowledge this is a faith move, but for me that is one of the axioms I work from.
Sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible can only be read one way. It must be taken on its own terms without imposing our agendas on it. This is not easy, and I believe it is best done in community with others who view it as supernaturally inspired and authoritative.
I’m finding this aspect of the discussion very interesting and helpful.
Next So Much More is up:
http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/so-much-more-p-1-13-part-3-the-black-and-white-cookie/
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t remember if Alastair commented on that article or not. I was mainly responding to you regarding “Does anyone have a link to the discussion on Wilson’s penetrating post that some are referencing here? Much appreciated if anyone does.”
dee wrote:
Good thought, dee. I believe we do actually have a voice despite what many are told. We might just be a bit leery of using it as it’s been drilled into us so long that “men” are running the show and there’s no place for us. But the internet has changed that and empowered women to speak up on matters of great importance in the area of injustices and abuse.
I happen to be of the opinion that women and men aren’t all that different. I know…I know…but much of what we call differences is nothing more than learned behavior. We all have dreams, goals, talents/giftings, strengths, weaknesses, hurts, etc. and we all want to be validated by our family and friends. All are individuals with commonalities and that’s where the focus should be rather than the differences.
When 1/2 of the individuals in a gathering are not permitted to take part and offer their skills, etc., the assembly as a whole is sorely lacking valuable input. The scriptural “one-anothering” does not happen in the areas that might benefit from the silenced voices. The body is not functioning as intended.
Paula Rice wrote:
Does her voice need to be given “any sense of authority?” I suggest she needs to be heard in the Church and not just dismissed.
In other “organizations” a woman may need and have authority because of her knowledge and expertise. This is fine in organizations. To me, anyway, the Church is not to function like any other organization. It is to be different with no authoritarianism inherent in its life. Which means neither men’s nor women’s voices should be accepted because they are given a sense of authority. Men and women should be recognized and function in the body according to their gifting. As it is, most of the functioning in the body has been delegated to those with certain male parts based on the fact that they have those male parts and not because of gifting.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Good point. Hypocrite.
@ Bridget:
OK. Still looking for the archive I think I remember (standard disclaimer at my age.) I had not heard of Alastair before this post. That I can remember, that is.
Could I get an opinion from our native Britons regarding whether Alastair’s manner of writing is normal for Britons? Just wondering. To my ears it sounds a little, I dunno, effete and condescending in a way that mimics non-condescension. But maybe that’s just my American ears.
@ Bridget:
Maybe I misread Paula, but I took her question to be somewhat rhetorical. IOW, what is the point of a woman speaking up, regardless of the *way* she speaks when her words are dismissed a priori because she is a woman? It’s the familiar double bind.
However, I may be reading my own experience into her comment.
your “readers” are your fans or students?
tear “them” up and you get a following of flea infested
junk yard dogs.
at some point even such a “watch dog” needs to ask
what they’re barking at and what they’re protecting.
Victorious wrote:
I’ve heard it described as voluntary and intentional spiritual hemiplegia. I got that from somewhere–maybe from Nancy.
Bridget wrote:
Yes, I agree with you. And I’m guessing you would agree with me that our authority, as brothers and sisters in Christ, stems from our connection to the life of God and then living that out together within the church by walking in accordance with the Spirit of Truth (hope that didnt sound too esoteric).
I was always aware, even when entrenched within a complementarian construct, that because I was filled with the Holy Spirit, if the Spirit moved within me then it was my duty to speak or to act in obedience to God.
What happens to women within communities that are structured based on complementarianism, women are simply not allowed to participate fully. The Spirit is quenched, but it doesn’t mean the Spirit isn’t active within the lives of women, giving them wisdom and discernment and teachings and insight and knowledge, etc, etc. As I see it, there are men (and women) who adopt a mindset that shuts people out of the practice of ‘authority’ as they define it. But the truth is, every believer has authority in Christ. It’s not something that comes with a position or with specialized training. Sure, the ability to function may be enhanced through being equipped to serve in certain ways, but it never means that one is given the “spiritual authority” to then lord over other believers. Would you agree?
Christiane wrote:
Gramp3, who operates very capably in a competitive and extremely if not exclusively masculine/male environment, thinks that is their problem. Or, to modify a Texas saying, “If ya got the cattle, don’t need to talk aboutcher big hat.”
Gramp3 is my authority, and he informs me that there is a locker room variant of that saying, so I guess I have to submit to his authority and agree though I have no independent knowledge of same. 😉
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Oh. I did not know there was such a communal consensus, but understand that I do not adhere to the current thinking that men and women are basically identical were it not for minimal physical differences. I just do not see that. However, if there is such a communal consensus I will abide by the rules.
Until I read your comment I had no idea than any man on the face of the earth would disagree with that statement. I thought you guys were proud of your abilities to not be swayed by emotion. So I don’t really know what I am dealing with here. Had I thought that what I said would be offensive like that I would not have said it. I expected there would be chuckling and some guy thinking “you got that right.” So, I apologize for…for what? I can’t say for hurting your feelings. I would say that to a woman but not to a man. That would be to demean him by saying that he was somebody who would “get hurt.” Even though that might be the case, certainly I would never be so offensive as to point that out. Heck, Nick, I don’t know how to handle this. I apologize. If you want to hear something specific just tell me and I will say it if it is reasonable and true.
I hate it that you and I cross swords so often. I don’t have a clear understanding of where your boundaries are, but if I get a clue I will certainly try to do better in the future. Right now my thinking is that you personally and I personally probably live in very different cultures and thus have some different suppositions and expectations. If that is it, well can’t help that, but none the less I hate these moments.
@ Gram3:
I did not say that, but I will be happy to take credit for it.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, you are correct. And this is the difficulty I think many of us have faced, and it isn’t issue that is limited to the experience of females in the church. Men are marginalized as well within churches that place a greater emphasis on the “spiritual authority” of the pastor, etc. If you’re an elder or a deacon or the the guy who passes the offering baskets, who are you compared to the big cheese?
The whole Mars Hill mess, including the lock-down Driscoll has on the power with his by-laws and his ‘Board of Advisors and Accountablity’ doesn’t even reflect how a church should operate. Meanwhile, the members of the church sit there waiting to be told by their ‘leaders’ what they should do. Well, maybe not as many members since they’re all leaving.
And speaking of leaving, and going off topic here…more and more SGM churches are leaving according to the Facebook posts I’ve read on Brent Detwiler’s page.
I can’t help but wonder what is going through CJ Mahaney’s mind concerning all this. Mahaney spent so much time talking about how much he cared about the church, how devoted and committed he was, and his legacy…which he clearly saw as being connected to the whole operation. One can only imagine how wounded his pride must have been after being demoted and no longer the Head Honcho of SGM. My guess is he finds pleasure in seeing the whole thing collapse. I mean, I’m not losing any sleep over SGM’s demise, but Mahaney is responsible. But he’s shown no sense of remorse for his actions which directly led to SGM’s fall. He may even relish the thought.
Same with Mark Driscoll. Will a man who claims to “love Mars Hill” love it as much if he’s not the Head Honcho anymore? Is his committment to ‘serving God’ really only about him being served through the church that he has organized to serve him and his purposes?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I think these guys are hierlings. Mahaney, in my view has been clearly exposed as one. If he truly cared about advancing the Kingdom of God through the lives of others by serving the purposes of God according the ways of Jesus, by dying to himself honoring others above himself, then we’d have seen that by now. But no, instead he sits there like Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burns, and while it does, Mahaney’s outer laying of sheep’s clothing is burning off too, only to reveal underneath the skin of a wolf.
I suspect the same will be true of Driscoll. He’s already run off. And if people don’t comply with him then he’ll probably write them all off as un-masculine, unwilling to follow Jesus, his Senior Pastor, who is a tough enough cage fighter to beat Mark Driscoll up, right?
Funny thing is, it looks like Mark Driscoll entered the cage and has been KO’d in the first round. Oh no, wait…he actually just walked out of the ring without a fight!
@ Nancy:
Thankyou for your considered reply, Nancy. It being Friday night, we’ve just finished our Friday bottle of sparkling white, and if there are two things I’ve learned on the blogsphere, they are: never post angry, and never post drunk. Well… in my defence, “drunk” is overstating it somewhat (and I’m not angry) but I am 13% less on-the-ball than I might be.
So I’ll reply properly a bit later on, but for the noo, suffice to say that
Your post was not offensive, and I didn’t take it as such (though I thought it potentially inaccurate)
We are – ISTM – actually closer than you might think on many things!
In other news, my latest piano project is the first part of the Allegro Scherzando from Rachmaninov’s second piano concerto (up to when the orchestra introduces the second subject). And I am in a position to reveal an important fact on that score (no pun intended).
Any performances you may have heard of this piece were, I can definitively tell you, elaborate hoaxes.
I know this because the piano’s statement of the first subject is completely unplayable by anyone with the traditional complement of (only) two hands and one brain.
__
“Women, Scripture, Culture, And Church Conduct, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
DId Apostle Paul intend to start a ‘complementarian’ franchise with his lettered comments about women’s conduct during church attendance?
huh?
Apostle Paul (who apparently penned most of the New Testament Epistles, writes to Timothy (1 Tim 3:1-15 *) that the responsibility for teaching and leadership in the church falls on ‘qualified men’.
What?
How is that message/exhortation reflected in the church today?
huh?
Has this message/exhortation been abused?
Should this message/exhortation be expunged and disregarded?
Are we hearing Apostle Paul right or correctly?
Do we have the right understanding/interpretation in these matters, or some other?
Do we need to ‘adjust’ the channel?
Is there something wrong with our television set?
-snicker-
Was Apostle Paul correct or mistaken when taking this position, and teaching this message/exhortation?
Did we get it right?
Should this divinely distinguished dead man dictate or direct the conduct of women within the church walls of today?
“Why or Why Not?”
Please explain your answer(s).
__
Notes:
* 1Tim3:1-15; 1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
14I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
—
some various references(s):
Do a Google search: which church denominations have women in leadership positions
http://www2.cbeinternational.org/new/E-Journal/2007/07spring/denominations%20first%20installment–FINAL.pdf
http://www.bing.com/search?q=women+in+church+leadership&form=APIPA1
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_women.htm
http://www.fcfonline.org/content/1/sermons/021394.pdf
;~)
—
Paula Rice wrote:
Oh. Is this what it looks like?
It’s the will of the Father that no one parish.
I am pretty sure that the Lion and the Lamb are one in the same.
If it was a game of rock, paper, scissors, the rock smashes scissors.
The Lion is not afraid of wolves.
And there need not be more cuts made on the paper…
How else would paper cover rock?
@ Nancy & Nick:
I don’t object to there being inherent differences between men and women, I just want to make sure that those differences are actually real and scientifically demonstrable. Most of the ones talked about by church leaders aren’t, and are really just stereotypes, anecdotes and cultural phenomena that they’re mistaking for inherent differences. So if we want to talk about the differences between men and women, fine, just make sure it’s footnoted with actual research, and not with some pastor going, “I, like, suck at fashion so my wife has to put me together in the morning! That’s the difference between men and women, right there!”
I missed Nancy’s comment with the statement about men and emotion, but I can’t recall any time when Nancy was offensive so I doubt it was. I would, however, regard men being less emotional as an unhelpful stereotype, since I’m a pretty non-emotional woman, and I know several other non-emotional women as well as men who are much more emotional than I am.
@ Nick:
Were you playing it before or after the Friday bottle of sparkling white? 😉
myowname wrote:
I guess you don’t read over here frequently. The readers teach me more than I teach them. And since I allowed your comment, my readers do not need to be my fans, either.
myowname wrote:
You go ahead and call me names but calling people who read here “flea infested junk yard dogs’ demonstrates your ignorance of Scripture. Everyone who posts here, whether I like them or not, are dearly loved children of the King and you would do well to remind yourself of that.
myowname wrote:
And what makes you think we don’t ask that question on a daily basis? You see, we allow ignorant comments and insulting comments so that we hear all sides. We have the public watching us and commenting on us. I wonder, are you brave enough to use your real name and put it out there for public consumption so that you, too, might be judged in such a manner?
@ Hester:
You are always informed and sensible. And we probably disagree on some interesting aspects of the male/female stuff, so I am thinking that as time goes on we could probably have some good conversations about that.
In the meantime, to stir the pot, I want to point out two places we might start thinking. I grew up and lived for the first 36 years of my life in one part of the country (long enough as an adult to have some experiences as a grown up) and then moved to a different part of the country where I was for 17 years and have now been here for 27 years. Long enough in each place to get a feel for some cultural differences. These three places are, in some aspects, quite different from each other. One of the obvious differences, to me, has been in the apparent cultural expectations for men and women in certain public areas of life (for example on the job) and a difference in the ways that men and women seem to interact with each other (at least in public) when they are in “relationships” with each other. Obviously I have no idea what does or does not go on behind closed doors. But I have heard a lot of what people say that the think, and I have to start there without evidence to the contrary. Now if we come along and dismiss the cultural aspects of all this, whose culture will we decide is the “right” one, and who will have the authority to make that decision, and how would that decision be enforced? There are secondary issues which might be considered along this line also.
Another point that might be interesting to discuss is whether or not the display of alleged sexual/gender differences, regardless of how that happens, might be a way of sustaining sexual interest between the male and the female of the species and might serve a purpose. I am not a sexologist, but I am thinking that when certain behaviors survive from generation to generation, regardless of gene or meme, there might be a reason. Let me be careful here. Back in the day when I remembered a little more about sex than just how to spell the word, there were certain things about certain men (I am throwing all this apparent and certain talk to conform to the consensus that Nick mentioned) that I found incredibly sexually “compelling.” Some of these behaviors, like I say gene or meme, are some of the very behaviors and ideas and stereotypes which some people apparently resent. And they include certain stereotypes which Hollywood has used to great financial success, so I am thinking that I am not the only one. What would be the advantage to civilization to minimize sexual attraction, if indeed the proposed changes would do that?
There must be other aspects to this which would be interesting.
@ myowname:
That is probably the most ironic online pseudonym I’ve ever seen!
Bless ’em – they keep coming, don’t they? What would a Friday night be without one of these? 🙂
Hester wrote:
Yes.
myowname wrote:
[smacks forehead] Sorry – we’ve just been out picking blackberries and I’ve not read all the most recent posts here.
Of course. “myownname” is a chatbot.
myowname wrote:
Yes, that’s how I interpret that too, which is why I don’t go to church anymore. 😛
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You gotta go over to Warren Throckmorton’s blog! The crazies are out in full force over there. One guy, who goes by “Mr Truth” believes that Mark Driscoll is the best things since John Calvin. It is quite amusing. He reminds me of the not so fondly departed John Carpenter.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Huh? I need help. What is a chatbot in simple language?
myowname wrote:
Haikus are supposed to be only three lines, with a meter of 5:7:5
However, the general opacity of your comment is headed in the right direction.
@ myowname:
Speaking only as a flea-infested vexatious woman junk yard dog, I must say I have no idea what you are talking about in either of your comments. Are they spiking the Kookaid where you are?
If you could point to a particular issue, perhaps we can discuss it like sentient beings–see Nick and Nancy above–but if you want to just write like a Bot, then what is the point of commenting here?
Patrice wrote:
Does everyone in Luzianna know this???
@ Nancy:
Different generations, perhaps?
I hear you on the sword-crossing, too.
dee wrote:
We can be thankful Driscoll and those of like mind do not have the power of the Council.
It looks like the current Mars Hill PR strategy for dealing with Throckmorton is to throw at as much chaff as possible to obscure the signal.
@ dee:
It’s a computer program – basically a contraction of “chat robot.” I used to enjoy an occasional go-round with one Tufty the Squirrel, because it was easy to confuse “him,” albeit he/it could be infuriating.
There are all kinds of chatbots; I know someone who had a pretty crazy exchanged with a chatbot calling itself “God.”
dee wrote:
This is worth a blog queen’s while to get to know about. Actually, I should’ve said “chatterbot” which is the name by which they are more properly known.
A chatterbot is a computer program designed to read, and generate, prose. Writers of chatterbots generally test them by subjecting them to the classic “Turing Test”; that is, hooking them up to various blogs, and seeing how many commenters think the chatterbot is an actual human.
Chatterbots can be designed to join conversations by detecting replies to their “comments”, but generally they will parse discussion threads for particular phrases and “join in” using those phrases and replies designed from algorithms the programmer has built in.
However, at this stage they’re not very sophisticated. You can quickly tell a chatterbot by the way it strings unrelated sentences together that, whilst they are (technically) grammatical sentences, are not actually meaningful. That is, they “understand” the rules of grammar, but cannot perform the vastly subtler and more complex task of distinguishing between a correct sentence and a meaningful one. Noam Chomsky famously came up with an example of this sort of thing, with the “sentence” Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
The “myownname” chatterbot hasn’t been told that “parish” is a noun, not a verb…
@ Gram3:
Wait. That was Zwingli. Nevermind.
Gram3 wrote:
To round off my (and, I see, numo’s) previous comments: myownname is not a sentient being, and so the point of commenting here is to see how many people it (or rather, its designer) can fool into thinking it is.
Oh, and there is a program called “Chomskybot” which was created, probably as a joke, to generate prose in the style of Noam Chomsky.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Very interesting. I had no idea. Is this some way of developing or testing AI? I first started using BoT to describe the Banner of Truth true believers I kept running into and away from.
@ Nick Bulbeck: I suspect you’re right about this, Nick. 🙂
__
“Church Gone Ta Junk: There Goes The NeighBorhood, Perhaps?”
myowname,
Hey,
Your bark’in up da wrong tree fella,
“You will know them by their fruits” ?
hmmm…
The harvest is not gathered from pastoral thorn bushes, nor God’s precious Wheat gleaned from abusive proverbial pastoral thistles, are they?
Tear them up (dem TWW kind folk) N’ you get the following:
Mercy and Awareness Of and For da victims of spiritually abusive pastors.
Aid and comfort for da ‘church’ victims of sexual abuse.
A ‘safe’plaze for Kind Folk ta tell there story without fear of reprisal, or a proverbial pink slip.
(just ta name a few)
Skreeeeeeeeeeeetch!
All for free.
top that lightbeer.
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
__
Comic relief: Sheryl Crow -” There Goes The NeighBorhood !!!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmfmtwPAKP8
;~)
—
@ Nancy:
I would say this is the exact reason that we should favor scientific research on male/female differences in brains, etc. over culture, because cultural differences are not only variable from one culture to another, but variable within one culture between different historical time periods. This is also the main reason I think men being less emotional is a stereotype. It used to be perfectly acceptable in, for instance, the 1800s, for men to be highly emotional and use language about their male friends that we would consider romantic and/or sexual; anachronistic misreadings of this have actually led to claims that Abraham Lincoln was gay because he wrote passionate letters to his friend Joshua Speed. It’s really a more recent development that culture decided men should be emotionless, refrain from emotional language, and only engage in displays of affection with their (female) sexual partners. This is why two men being visibly affectionate or emotionally intimate with each other is considered “gay” today. Here’s a prime example of this phenomenon: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/07/29/bosom-buddies-a-photo-history-of-male-affection/
I think it’s hardly worth mentioning how gender differences in clothing change over time, but here are some interesting examples nonetheless. Who knew high heels were originally military footwear and that women originally adopted them as part of a “masculinizing” fashion trend? 😉
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21151350
http://18centurybodies.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/male-make-up-in-eighteenth-century-england/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/?no-ist
Scientific research isn’t perfect, but it’s still a heck of a lot better than just believing the (highly context-driven and temporary) culture you happen to have been born in about the supposedly eternal and “obvious” differences between men and women.
This would be an interesting topic but unfortunately I don’t know anything about it. Just keep in mind that what you found attractive in men, might be very different from what another woman found attractive, and that cultural definitions of attractiveness come into play here as well (and are just as changeable as the other cultural elements I mentioned above). But I’m sure you know that already. 🙂
@ Nancy:
Much agreement here Nancy, especially on Wesley’s quadrilateral. I no longer subscribe to Sola Scriptura but rather Prima Scriptura which holds that human agency and reason are also valid arrival points when infused with the light of Christ. Erasmus put it this way:
Sacred scripture is of course the basic authority for everything; yet I sometimes run across ancient sayings or pagan writings — even the poets — so purely and reverently and admirably expressed that I can’t help believing their authors’ hearts were moved by some divine power. And perhaps the spirit of Christ is more widespread than we understand, and the company of the saints includes many not in our calendar.
From: The Godly Feast circa 1522 by Desiderius Erasmus.
@ Gram3:
“It does mean that the Holy Spirit has inspired it and, as his inspired work, it is authoritative above any human person or institution. And that is where the discussion gets interesting,…”
+++++++++
yes, interesting. “Holy Spirit has inspired it” — what does that mean? what does it not mean? (I have my own thoughts, but they’re continually being shaped)
Wow, flea-infested junk yard dogs (now I have a Jim Croce song in my head…) is a pretty cool insult even if it did come from a robot. Added to the list.
Also reminds me of an old story about early attempts to get computers to paraphrase where “Time flies like an arrow” became “Time-flies enjoy eating arrows.”
@ Phoenix:
Loosely on which subject, Serena’s opponent in the women’s final at Flushing Meadow will be Caroline Wasnae Arkie.
@ dee:
Judgment in the manner by which “the flies are falling” is before
One Judge, not a majority vote or popularity public forum.
Curtain was torn from top to bottom
One sacrifice for all
Judgment began in the house of G-d One.
I am most sure He doesn’t need a website
to judge Himself.
@ Victorious:
“I happen to be of the opinion that women and men aren’t all that different. … All are individuals with commonalities and that’s where the focus should be rather than the differences.”
++++++++++++
I tend to think the most striking differences are between personality types-shaped-by-circumstances (& complexities therein), not between genders.
making a big deal of the latter is a convenient way to say “AAAHHHHHH you with the smarts, self-confidence and the boobs… you are a threat to my power and control so the most convenient thing to do is relegate you to your realm so I can be comfortable & unhindered in mine.”
elastigirl wrote:
My honest opinion is that no one actually knows the how of it. Not even Wayne Grudem!
My personal understanding of inspiration of the text is that it is somewhat analogous to the conception of Jesus. Mary as a human was certainly necessary, but the Holy Spirit made something happen supernaturally. So a God-Human is conceived and grows in the womb and is born in the same way as every other human child.
Similarly, the collection of texts that have been canonized as authoritative were written by humans using their own words but words which at the same time were given to them by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit worked through the means of the visible church (maybe some corporate gift of discernment?) to recognize which writings were authoritative for his Body. Then, the Holy Spirit continues to gift people who can study, interpret, teach, and live out those words he has given to us, and all that through his power.
I don’t think the scriptures were dictated. I do believe that they are living text and not dead letters because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit who is omniscient and omnipotent and all the other omnis.
That’s how I think of it. And I’m fairly certain that is not exactly how it happened or maybe not even close. But each of us has to decide our own axioms of life. That’s mine at this point.
As another analogy, I tend to think that we are Newtonian and God is quantum (or whatever physics is these days–I’ll have to ask the kids) only more so. And that means that I don’t worry about the “how” of the supernatural and just marvel at the “what” and the “so what.”
What is your understanding?
myowname wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please clarify?
Phoenix wrote:
Meaner than a junk yard dog…
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Wow-I had no idea. How hard is it to tell the difference between a chatbot and a Mars Hill clone?
Gram3 wrote:
Darn, that’s good. Comment of the day!
numo wrote:
Tufty the Squirrel. Best laugh of the week!
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Thank you for a great laugh!
@ numo:
different generations
different cultures
different religious dialect
different gender
But you know, we are all different here one way or the other, and mostly that is not much of a problem. Anyhow, it is not the end of the world and there is always tomorrow.
dee wrote:
Thanks, Dee. As soon as I find the Selectric port on this new computer, I promise not not have so many typos. Like typing “at” when I meant “out.”
@ myowname:
@ Muff Potter:
well, what would the world do without the ever changing minds of those who
lay claim on their Father who… does or does not change His mind?
Let’s see, if the pot on the wheel folds in the potter’s hands, surely the potter can make a new pot that is pleasing… Did He change His mind or have mercy on the clay or… just want to make a better pot because He can, when He wants?
How the pot is formed?
By what means and what hands is for the Creator.
Remembering from which ya’ll were made should cause a wee bit of holy fear and prayer for those in the hands of the SAME FATHER you say loves you “here”.
Would you not want the same compassion for “them”?
If you’ve been invited to the potter’s house and you stand in that place and mock the trouble the potter may be having with the clay —
If you pick up one of His tools and poke at and mark what He
Himself had long ago smoothed with His own hands —
If you say, “I have this mark, I got it from his pain and that pain
is not good, and I will say so.” What redeeming quality is in the
scar — or mark?
least you forget that the whole lot is made from the same lump of clay.
Being “brave” is not measured by someone who does not know my name.
@ myowname:
@ Muff Potter:
well, what would the world do without the ever changing minds of those who
lay claim on their Father who… does or does not change His mind?
Let’s see, if the pot on the wheel folds in the potter’s hands, surely the potter can make a new pot that is pleasing… Did He change His mind or have mercy on the clay or… just want to make a better pot because He can, when He wants?
How the pot is formed?
By what means and what hands is for the Creator.
Remembering from which ya’ll were made should cause a wee bit of holy fear and prayer for those in the hands of the SAME FATHER you say loves you “here”.
Would you not want the same compassion for “them”?
If you’ve been invited to the potter’s house and you stand in that place and mock the trouble the potter may be having with the clay —
If you pick up one of His tools and poke at and mark what He
Himself had long ago smoothed with His own hands —
If you say, “I have this mark, I got it from his pain and that pain
is not good, and I will say so.” What redeeming quality is in the
scar — or mark?
least you forget that the whole lot is made from the same lump of clay.
Being “brave” is not measured by someone who does not know my name.
myowname wrote:
@ myowname:
@ Muff Potter:
well, what would the world do without the ever changing minds of those who
lay claim on their Father who… does or does not change His mind?
Let’s see, if the pot on the wheel folds in the potter’s hands, surely the potter can make a new pot that is pleasing… Did He change His mind or have mercy on the clay or… just want to make a better pot because He can, when He wants?
How the pot is formed?
By what means and what hands is for the Creator.
Remembering from which ya’ll were made should cause a wee bit of holy fear and prayer for those in the hands of the SAME FATHER you say loves you “here”.
Would you not want the same compassion for “them”?
If you’ve been invited to the potter’s house and you stand in that place and mock the trouble the potter may be having with the clay —
If you pick up one of His tools and poke at and mark what He
Himself had long ago smoothed with His own hands —
If you say, “I have this mark, I got it from his pain and that pain
is not good, and I will say so.” What redeeming quality is in the
scar — or mark?
least you forget that the whole lot is made from the same lump of clay.
Being “brave” is not measured by someone who does not know my name.
dee wrote:
Very tempting to go for cheap humour here… 🙁 However, that would be, well, cheap.
The long and short of it is, not hard at all, provided they write more than two sentences. The cloniest Mars Hill person is more capable than a chatterbot of stringing sentences together that, at the very least, relate to each other. In the case of myownname, you’ll notice it puts carriage returns in between short lines. It’s presumably got a bank of religious-sounding phrases and does a pick-n-mix from it for each reply. But it can’t intelligently write new ones, nor can it work out which ones actually give a meaningful reply to any human commenter – or even which ones actually belong together in a paragraph.
@ dee: yep! Tufty the Traffic Safety Squirrel. Adapted for weirdness by some people who run a parody site about the guerilla war waged on us by squirrels.
Not a chatbot, but I used to *love* the Groundhog Translator on the official Punxsutawney Phil website. You typed in words and phrases and it made them come out in groundhog squeaks, whistles and clicks. Unfortunately, that program is no longer with us.
@ dee:
since you said please…
you should take some time thinking about Who you “talk about”
quick to defend… a question you “ask every day”?
If you need to ask something “everyday” then either you don’t
want to hear the answer or you’ve heard it and rejected it with the hope
something with some real meat, flesh and bone to it?
Oh, wait… that’s right.
You feed off the juicy news so ya’ll can be the kids
who say “we told you so.”
At who’s expense?
You should know what I am talking about.
Live it, or make ‘them’ suffer for every pain “they” inflicted?
@ Lisa:
Let’s see…1+1=2….not taught in the Bible but is the truth. Will that not be “binding” (whatever that means) in heaven? Will 1+1=34?
Gram3 wrote:
Unlike Dee who has so many typos because she types too fast for her brain to keep up? Do not worry about typos. I am the WORST offender.
@ dee:
BWAHAHA!
Help-someone made a joke and it made me laugh regarding myownname’s misspelling of perish as parish “wishes that none would parish”
They said “That is why I don’t go to church.” Awesome joke!!!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I am not an “it”
Humble yourselves.
@ dee:
It’s not a crime to misspell a word.
There are other crimes far, far, more heart breaking.
@ dee:
It was Patrice.
myowname wrote:
It was a funny misspell. It is also not a crime to take yourself less seriously. Laugh more-it is good for the heart!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
And this would be a misread, Dee.
But, hey — you’re learning — so mistakes are forgivable, right?
At least for you, but surely not the kids you need to compare and contrast.
After all, without the bad kids, the good kids would not look so… holy?
@ Hester:
If you go back to 17th and 18th c. portraiture, you’ll see a lot of men not only in heels but showing off their legs for the ladies. And back in 16th c. England, couriers and other men about town were wearing calf pads (again, mainly to impress the ladies, but also as an ego thing).
Louis XIV was famously vain about the figure he cut in knee breeches and insisted that portraitists emphasize his calves. He also wore heeled shoes guaranteed to make his calves look their best.
@ Sopwith:
When justice is served, it is done so
when the kids are heard…
Then, the children have got to step back
and there should be a place prepared so that
they’re not drooling at the door of a discipline action
whereby the grace of Christ has been neglected and abandoned
by a mob of kids who were lead by the so called “empathetic”
who sided with judgment over mercy!
@ dee:
Okay Dee,
But I am serious about this.
Don’t be fooled to think I’ve not traveled this road long before
this website was your ministry and Eagle had a testimony.
myowname wrote:
What is it that you are serious about? You very much seem less than serious since you don’t attempt to engage in plain and understandable communication. At the moment you are playing games and I take you as a joke.
@ numo:
Courtiers, not couriers. Stupid autocorrect!
@ myowname:
I am having difficulty understanding exactly what you’re trying to say, and I know I’m not the only one.
You may feel that you’re communicating clearly, but in all honesty, a lot of your comments *do* read like they were “written” by a chatbot.
@ myowname:
This comment isn’t very coherent.
Back to chwatbots: the best are adaptable and incorporate new vocabulary typ d by human users on an ongoing basis.
So, no insult intended, but this appears to be what’s happening w/your comments. You might well be a person attempting to sound like a chatbot, for all I know.
@ numo:
While i, human though I be, am doing a very good imitation of a cat walking on a laptop keyboard, w/all my typos!
@ Bridget:
so, that would be a problem with your hearing and your need
to voice how you perceive.
I said I was serious, I don’t need to prove it to you
because you hear me as a joke — why would I?
“Person hears you as a joke, prove to the person
who hears you as a joke that you’re serious.”
Red Flag
@ numo:
Dependent on the computer and the “right” way to communicate
on the internet? What a trap and lack of freedom. Do you think
the man in the middle of the web is Jesus orchestrating the movement
of the wee little schools of fish that move here and there based on
words and content that is perceived by people? Who do you think
programs these man-made “tools” but tools themselves in need of
some kind of language to… make jokes?
I am
A poet
I write the way
I sing
Maybe I need some kind of sponsorship, hu?
Then my writing will be accepted by the in-crowd?
Worse yet, tracked by the majority rules judgment of
“he said….” and “she said…”
“Say you’re sorry.”
“I am sorry, no offense…”
“I forgive you, no offense taken.”
“Wait. did that guy say he’s sorry?”
“not yet.”
“Hold a fire under his feet until he does.”
No thank-you.
My Heart belongs to One
He said, “I am sorry.” One time
And it is enough for me.
Sometimes the cross talks —
And sometiumes we don’t think it’s funny to be mocked.
@ Bridget:
Once upon a time some kids cried and said, “Church and church-people hurt me REAL BAD. I was abused, here and there and I spoke and I was ignored and heard as some kind of joke.”
“I’ll have compassion on you. You’re not the only one. Come, join our talks, you can cry and write and say what you need to say to heal. You’re safe here.”
So, the kids came running and began writing and sharing their stories…
“Let us take stats on this — this is a huge problem — we need support.” Said the compassion kids. And, they got it.
Soon, all the attention was on the crying sad stories of the kids who had been abused and hurt by those they had trusted in the name of Spirit and God…
“Abuse is the common factor here. And healing too. It is our mission to share the love of Jesus — he can take it, he can hear it…”
One day a Builder came to the place where the children had gathered and were crying and he heard the kids and saw them pointing at wounds. “Here, they did this in Jesus’ name. I was less abused in the world… they told me the world was not my home — my new family was spiritual and with them. I believe them. See here is another wound, and here too — this is where the hammer hit, and this is where my flesh was torn open — as if with a whip. And here — see my throat? I was told it was fresh, clean, cool water — but it was horrible sour bitter water and it burned my throat. It is HORRIBLE cried the children. We were told we were going to be pretty and new, but we were hurt and we feel old and tired.”
The Builder, who builds all things, called to His Friend and the two sat near the kids. The compassionate kids who had tended to their cries and helped sooth the wounds of the abused kids were ready to see that Builder destroy the places where the kids were abused. In fact, they had hoped for this day…
But something else happened.
The Builder and His Friend began to speak of their workmanship
And the meaning of the work of their hands
And how it was different than the work of people-hands…
At first, the kids were afraid. One said, “What you are saying is much more harsh sounding than what we have endured… I was hit with the hammer once. I have a bump on my head and it will not go away. I still get dizzy. I do not want to be at that end of the hammer ever again.”
The Builder looked to His friend and said, “Shall we invited this one to hold the hammer with us?”
The Friend replied, “I’ve endured to the end… please, every single tear from these kids has been like nails hammered into my own name — my own feet — my own hands… Is this not enough that they can identify with the rejection?”
myowname wrote:
Or maybe people just think? Asking the same question ‘every day’ is called being self-critical and being perceptive. It’s a good thing, it shows awareness and a desire for empathy, sympathy, and accuracy.
Gram3 wrote:
You mean Loser-ianna? (Why can no one spell these days?) But yes, they all know. Down here on Dunhadit Avenooo, everyone does the same.
Because we’re nothing if not just like everyone else. w00t
@ Pam:
Sure, that’s it, Dee. The ever needed eternal doubt.
@ myowname:
Except that in reality, all the abuses every single Peron in this world has ever suffered were borne by Christ, for the least of these.
Perhaps if you show some compassion for those who have been hurt, you would be doing a Christ-like thing, no?
Pam wrote:
Sure, that’s it, Dee. The ever needed eternal doubt.
Are you building your own faith?
@ numo:
Person, not Juan Peron.
I’d better quit typing, methinks.
@ numo:
Tell me what it is to “show compassion for those who have been hurt” when
Jesus’ spirit is taking it all on Himself in the name of His beloved.
@ myowname:
Do you think it is possible to abuse “compassion” and make
Christ into a crying room? Or come in to a state funded day care church
in order to write up overworked and underpaid substitute parents?
Healing… healed… who gets to say?
Seems to me the holes in Jesus’ hands and feet did not disappear after
He rose from the dead. Were you expecting someone else — someone who
can’t raise up because the demands and expectations of people who are called by His name?
It’s like Alice in Wonderland around here. “When I use a word, it means just what…”
What is the purpose of chatterbots?
@ myowname:
OK-you are a chatbot. You are going into moderation and may or may not be approved.
myowname wrote:
Then why the parable of the good Samaratin? How do you show love if not by helping the downtrodden? What were the Beatitudes for?
Did it occur to you that many of the people here are not the same as when TWW first began? Might many have moved on and others stumbled to this place? Who is to say how long healing takes? Have you attwmoted to help a sexually abused person recover – maybe a son or daughter?
Aren’t we to imitate Christ?
@ dee:
Thank you!
dee wrote:
I’ve been at Warren Throckmorton’s for the last couple of days as poosh1 (a name my much-younger-then daughter gave me when she signed me up at Patheos for a first&failed attempt into the Christian world. Years back. I keep it for humor/memory.)
Contrarians have come through in waves: propaganda and slurs. The only way I can understand it is spite because it convinces no one, ever.
mr Truth has been there for a while and contradicts himself all over the place. Uses the typical spiritualized phraseology and words that suit. One might think him a chatbot, too, but the minute someone is kind, he flips it over with a lash back, and he is particularly good at picking on people who sound a little vulnerable. It’s quite a bit of work to do what he does, and requires a fair amount of focus.
If there wasn’t anything particularly wrong with him when he became mr Truth over there, something will be deeply wrong with him by the time he leaves again. Oy!
And people just can’t let him be. What odd and funny creatures we are!
Anyway, I found the whole thing fascinating.
3 comments not approved.
dee wrote:
Or it’s Dr. Bronner, “ALL-ONE!”
What a weird bunch of posts. They really are reminiscent of the slightly creepy Dr. Bronner’s Soap bottles.
@ Gram3:
“What is your understanding?”
+++++++++++++
oosh, now I need to articulate… easier to keep it in my jumble of thoughts. BUT here goes:
First of all, I think inspiration happens in many areas of human life.
I think inspiration that is on the raw / pure side is almost universally recognizable… at least by people of similar cultural backgrounds. What comes to my mind is The Nutcracker Suite orchestral performance (especially if the Walts of the Flowers ends right, with solitary trumpet on the birdseye, no piccolo, and not drawn out too much but not too little, either), some Joni Mitchell songs, Robin Williams at his best,….many other examples that escape me at the moment.
I’m partial to the arts, but I think inspiration happened with penicillin, and many other discoveries that save lives and contribute to healthy, clean, and safe living on earth.
I think some athletic moments & performances are inspired.
It’s like these things are glistening or shimmering with something extra-normal, extra-human… like some kind of beautiful energy is running all up and down it.
I think Ephesians 1 (especially that run-on sentence in the 2nd half) is stunningly inspired. I can feel the buzz just in thinking about it, can’t you? Many of the Psalms, too. I do not think most of Leviticus is inspired. It might be important for contextual understanding, but not much more.
When Paul says things to the effect of “this is my opinion”, I think what he says is worth considering. Inspired? I dunno. Authoritative?? well, enough to consider it. But it’s his OPINION, he says so himself. As if to say, “Look guys, I know you all get worked up over everything I write, but chill…. these thoughts of mine, you might find them helpful, I dunno. just don’t get carried away here. I’ve got food poisoning & I’m sure i’m not communicating all that well anyway.”
Some things in the bible are worth devouring and getting all over your hands they’re so rich. Some things are just fine at 30,000 feet. Some things are just…whatever.
This isn’t my thesis on the subject of “what does inspired mean?” i’m sure I could do better if I wasn’t so tired. but I enjoyed it.
@ Patrice:
I thought that was you!
4 comments not approved.
@ dee:
Ah, you’ve encountered the Courtier’s Reply.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Hey! You’ll give away our secrets. 🙂
In all seriousness, spot on.
@ myowname:
http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0
Gram3 wrote:
I believe Wilson’s Gog and Magog blog has been taken down or renamed to his current one, but here is a discussion about it on RHE http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/gospel-coalition-douglas-wilson-sex I think I may have saved the original article at the time but it would take me a bit of time to hunt through my poorly filed topics at the moment…
So to super-sized the whole “violent priesthoid” shtick in lite of this evenings comments and typos–
“KKids need to be lead. Therefore, only particulate Perons maybe perish priests.”
Haitch wrote:
The posts by Alistair are from July 2012, there’s a series of them, called ‘on triggering and being triggered’. This is the link to the first one: http://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/triggering-and-triggered-1/
It’s very long (and there are follow-up posts) so if you don’t want to read it I’ve pulled out one quote that shows the ugliness under the pretense of niceness from Alistair –
“One of the most impressive things that I have witnessed in this entire debate has been the strength, spirit, humour, confidence, independence, and agency of Pastor Wilson’s daughters, especially when witnessed against the embarrassing foil of the (frequently calculated) wilting weakness, passive aggression, and overwrought emotion that is widely on display from Rachel Held Evans and her cohorts (about which more later). The proof of this pudding may well be in the eating: I for one know which characteristics and virtues I would most value and admire in a wife or daughter.”
Note the contrasting language – Wilson’s daughters are humorous and confident (they were actually mocking and abusive in their comments, I remember because I was part of the discussion) while Rachel Held Evans and the rest of us who took issue with Wilson’s language are ‘weak’ and have ‘overwrought emotion’. In the posts on his blog and in comments elsewhere, Alistair explicitly used the ’emotional’ nature of women’s critiques of Wilson as a reason to dismiss them, as some sort of proof that we were children who should be excluded from the discussion. I’ve come across his comments on other blogs too, and he’s always exactly the same – lots and lots of words about how he’s objective and right and anyone who disagrees with him is being ’emotional’, which he just uses as an excuse to never respond to the content of any disagreement. He’s basically a very wordy tone troll.
elastigirl wrote:
You did? Sweet, I am recognizable. (I get a little preachy sometimes I know oy.)
Several TWW regs there, off top of hat: nmgirl, mirele, Dee (couple appropo comments). Slactivist or two, too.
I felt useful to Warren’s work, for a bit, and I do so enjoy helping the good bloggers.
I think we should actually be thankful to these guys:
– Mark “I see things” Driscoll who is scared of not being perceived as sufficiently dude-like
– John Piper, who is scared of women giving directions in a way that feels like they are instructing a man, and of course, of overly physically fit women
– Doug W. (Piper: “He gets the Gospel”), who wants to penetrate, conquer, colonise, …
– Wayne Grudem with his interminable lists of what women can and can’t do, and who once complained in an interview that even most couples who say they are complementarians lead practically egalitarian marriages (I say “Good for them” because egalitarian relationships have been shown to be better)
– Alastair Robertson (Church leaders as warriors who must fight and kill are – by definition – men)
These guys are doing us a service. They make it abundantly clear how ridiculous complementarianism is.
While it is true that the husband and wife’s roles in a marriage may be very different at various times in a marriage, that difference is for the couple to negotiate and agree on. We don’t need any complementarian high priests to decide for us how we should live.
So, the message for these guys:
“Guys, it was a nice try. It just didn’t work. Stop flogging a dead horse. It’s as dead as they come. So, enough with this silliness. The evangelical-industrial complex provided nice perks while it lasted, but now it’s time to move on.”
@ Dave A A:
Oh dear, looks like Dave A A has been thoroughly chatboxized by Sopy’s evil twin !
@ Haitch:
I did respond to this about Alistair’s posts about Wilson, but it’s in moderation right now.
Lydia wrote:
Good point. An extreme reaction is as culturally driven as one that is completely agreeable.
Haitch wrote:
Au contraire! If you take exception to my “particulate Perons” remark, the trouble must be with your reading comprehension. I kindly suggest that you retake your ESL classes. Good Night, and God Bless!!
Oops — sorry– I got chatboxized by Wilson for a minute there, and mistook you for Pam. (all Australians with “overwrought emotions” look alike to him!) I’m back in my right mind now.
I’m reminded of That Hideous Strength, whence Wilson borrowed his “True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.”
When Babel descended upon the N I C E organization, the deputy director attempted to restore order, saying:
“Tidies and fugleman-I sheel foor that we all-er-most steeply rebut the defensible, though, I trust, lavatory, Aspasia which gleams to have selected our redeemed inspector this deceiving. It would-ah-be shark, very shark, from anyone’s debenture . . .”
@ Haitch:
I said I would return to respond, and here I am….And no…no baby yet….going on about 10 days of every night is surely “the night”….I do not express my skepticism….Having been through this twice before I have learned at this stage in the pregnancy to always agree….
This is a difficult thread and blog to address “defining” issues such as complementarianism(which I never spell correctly…I do hope spelling is not a Gospel issue…). The challenge to do so lies in the fact that, just like in the lack of a central/coherent non-negotiable “definition”, there is not a central/coherent point of criticism. This does not mean that those who are critical do not have THEIR central and coherent point, it is just that there isn’t an overriding position.
TWW gathers a number of different viewpoints that disagree on a lot of issues…We have nones, Catholics, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Ex-Whatevers, atheist/agnostics, etc….And so while one may satisfy the person with perspective “A” by how they explain/respond, the individual with perspective “B” will not be satisfied.
One of the largest challenges we have in communication(in general) is having a mutual understanding of basics. We like to argue about the functional problems with something on, lets say, the fourth floor, while not having an agreed upon understanding of the preceding floors. Theology, Biblical scholarship, philosophy, etc, all have “root” assumed positions that people naturally imply by the form of the argument they present. Yet we rarely address those issues, but instead argue about the “fourth floor”.
Specifically regarding a response to the critique of “comp” theology this creates a challenge on TWW. Some assume a deliberately organized Church as being the normative Christian expression of Church, others assume no church, or, little to no church as the acceptable norm. While others assume no God at all. So, while there may be a unified position of “No to Comp”, the reasoning behind that conclusion is different.
So to briefly(and most likely, inadequately) respond to the three main positions…followed by more thoughts….
Assumed Church: If one accepts that Christ established the Church to be normative expression of life for all Christians, then the question has to be, “What DOES the Bible prescribe for the organizing principles of said Church?” I would contend that a plain reading of scripture indicates; 1) Elder leadership, 2) Male Primary Leadership While Gram3 likes to point out her “Genesis Question”(which I have no problem with) it does not effectively change the functional, observable and instructable paradigm of the established Church as found in the NT. There are no “slam dunk” arguments for women apostles or elders found in the NT, or, in the early Church.
No Church, but Christian: This is a whole different ball of wax because in my opinion if one is to reject an understanding of a deliberately organized Church, then of course the idea of “leadership” in the spiritual realm doesn’t “make sense”. The argument against “comp” in this perspective falls(imo) more into the, “No one can tell me how to practice my faith…period”. So, in this case, we may argue about the “fourth floor” but we are coming from such diametrically opposed assumptions that I really don’t think anything a “comp” would say would hold any water…period.
Atheist/Agnostic: I hope most believers would agree that no one finds salvation by being won over by someone proving their perspective in some “in house” debate about how one approaches a specific biblical/theological issue. “But but but but(that’s you saying that) what if someone CAN’T come to faith unless THAT issue is “resolved”??” Quite frankly I think that is bunk. I call it the sin of deferred responsibility. Salvation is found in Christ and His finished work on the Cross, and that alone. Our hearts are changed by what Christ has done, not whether or not we feel like he started up a club we feel more or less comfortable in attending.
My more personal thoughts:
I am a complementarian because; 1- I am convinced that the Bible prescribes the Church as the normative outward expression of Christian living(not the only, but a big part of it). 2- The prescriptive call to the leadership structure in the Church is Elder(as males) led.
What it looks like to me—with this brief aside…We become pharisitical when we begin to create man made lists of the “do’s and don’ts” of something when it is not deliberately prescribe in Scripture. Meaning, the modern economy was not normative (nor is it an eternal normative in the first place…) so what kind of job one has, or who makes more money, is immaterial. For instance, the whole idea of “read your wifes emails” could not possibly be normative because…well….they didn’t have emails back then….and it is ridiculous.
When I think of and use the word “leadership” it is a concept like on a sports team. A coach might call you a “leader” and expect you to “act” like one. This does not mean that this athlete can now punish other players, tell people HOW to practice, call the plays themselves, kick people off the team, etc. It does mean that they are expected to be a pace setter and example to their PEERS. One of the things we often hear about Football teams(not pretend football like they play in Europe, which we know is a sign of America’s decline….sorry Nick) is that when a team lacks “locker room” leaders the team goes south. Sometimes players are put on a team not for their athletic skills, but because they bring a tone and attitude to the team that is essential. We often hear how certain problem young guys need to go to a team with strong leadership on the team so he can learn how he needs to conduct himself. And when you have a team without good internal leadership you start to hear about young guys getting in trouble with the law, with the coaches, etc.
The expectation placed upon being a “leader” means that you are also held to a higher standard.(not that it absolves other individuals for their actions) I remember being on a team trip where we stayed in a hotel. Like teenagers are wont to do, we got into some shenanigans which led to the hotel security banging on my coaches door at midnight. While we were ALL in trouble, myself and another guy(captains, older guys) were especially chewed out. The reality is, that we could have kept things from getting out of hand, but we didn’t. Could the other guys ignored us and not participated, of course, but the reality is, I was a “leader” and they followed the tone I set.
In the midst of all of this is the reality that the role of a father is more influential than any other role in our lives. Regardless of the quality of the mother, grandparents, etc, how the father behaves will set the tone for their kids, family and community. It is not because someone arbitrarily said “I make YOU the leader”. There is something intrinsic within our wiring that causes us to respond to fathers in a way that we do not respond to anyone else.
This article… http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-05-024-v is a very interesting study on the influence of fathers in the spiritual lives of their kids….as an aside…much of the direction this article takes the data I disagree with, but the data is the data….
To briefly summarize, the mothers spiritual life has virtually no effect on her children. But the fathers is HUGE. What dad does is what the kids will do.
This, in conclusion, is why I contend for comp theology. Can mothers and women be amazing teachers, Godly examples, skilled leaders, etc….Absolutely. Is there an internal wiring that is deeply dependent upon male leadership(in this case…fathers) that shapes us, and our communities, in a way that women, regardless of their “skills” do not have? I think it is obviously and observably true.
Male leadership isn’t about what other people should do in response to them being “leaders”, but has everything to do with what men are responsible for. There isn’t a list of dos and don’ts that exist, there is simply accountability towards men and fathers that the spiritual health and well being of their family is interwoven with their walk with the Lord in a way that no one else’s is.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Wow! Words fail me, Adam. I’ve asked several times for the scriptural basis for your belief in male leadership in the family. Have I overlooked it in a previous comment perhaps? Because your sports team analogy simply doesn’t do it.
Where in scripture do I find that concept of “accountability towards men and fathers” that lends itself to the spiritual health and well being of the family?
@ Adam Borsay:
You based your response on information from a study that was conducted in Switzerland (population 7 million) in 1994? That is a very small percent of the world population, and census data is usually conducted on households not individuals. The actual study that the article is based on doesn’t seem to be cited.
I’m all for fathers and mother participating completely in the lives of their children!!!! To say fathers are more necessary to children’s spiritual welfare is stretching things quite a bit.
@ Adam Borsay:
“Male leadership isn’t about what other people should do in response to them being “leaders”, but has everything to do with what men are responsible for. There isn’t a list of dos and don’ts that exist, there is simply accountability towards men and fathers that the spiritual health and well being of their family is interwoven with their walk with the Lord in a way that no one else’s is.”
I also join in an ask, where in scripture is this supported? Sounds more Mormon to me then not.
As a woman I am encouraged when I read 1 Timothy 1:5 where Paul cites the faith of Timothy’s grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice, who imparted their faith to Timothy. Hmmm, no mention of Timothy’s spiritual health and well being is attributed to his father.
@ Adam Borsay:
The summation of that article was distinctly patriarchal. Some parts of it were outrageous.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Okay…to use a word from your comment, in my life, this is demonstrably not true. In my own family, it was not the father that set the spiritual tone. It was my mother. And not by a narrow margin. I have friends, as well, for whom this statement is patently false. My mother’s (and their mothers’) spiritual life had enormous effect on the children. This is the kind of sweeping, blanket statement that I hear from pastors to bolster the patriarchal position that makes them even less credible because I know the statement to be false…from experience, not theory.
Bridget wrote:
I should have said the author’s summation . . .
Adam Borsay wrote:
This statement is, imo, nothing more than wishful thinking and certainly thinking more highly of oneself than one ought to.
I’m of the opinion that most qualities/behaviors are learned and come from a variety of sources; i.e. parents, teachers, peers, teammates, etc. Strengths can be encouraged and weaknesses can be strengthened to make a healthy, balanced individual free and confident to be all that they can be. 🙂
Jeannette Altes wrote:
…………………
Whole heartedly agree Jeannette. I can count up at least 6/7 families whose fathers (decent men ) faithfully attended church but their 30’s something children just don’t attend church period.
On the other hand, I can off the top of my head count three families where the mother was the spiritual head and at least half the adult children attend church.
Not to say women make better spiritual leaders.
Why there is such a need in the church to over glorify all things male, I cannot say. I just know it’s very unhealthy, unholy, to demean half of God’s creation.
To first respond Victorious….regardless of how one wants to interpret the text in Ephesians 5, the basic reality is that the husband is given MORE prescriptive instruction than the wife. And, as Christ as the example of “leadership” this does not indicate that men can go around saying, “I’m in charge, so do what I say”. Instead, like Christ, to lovingly give of themselves and to be pro-active in spiritual leadership(however one wants to read, wash in the word, etc) You used the criticism with a key word…namely responsibility TOWARD….That is where we are disconnected here….My spiritual responsibility as a husband and a father does not come with the connection that therefore I can demand that my wife must then do “x”. My spiritual responsibility is not about making others do anything, but instead how I am to conduct myself.
Let me rephrase my point that a mothers faith has virtually no impact on the children’s spiritual life. I agree in re-reading it was to much broad brush….to clarify a bit….
The entirety of my immediate family’s spiritual life can be directly tied to my grandmother, at age 45, reading a tract someone left on her door and her deciding to accept Christ. She then led my mother to the Lord, who in turn told my dad she couldn’t keep dating him if he wasn’t a Christian, who then became a Christian. My Grandma was one of the most amazing and faithful women I have ever known. But her husband was an alcoholic jerk who never walked with the Lord. My mom’s sisters on the other hand followed their dad’s lifestyle and a history of multiple marriages and cousins with multiple children from multiple partners, drug abuse and jail time are a testimony to my grandfathers influence.
I would not be here today where I am spiritually if not for the legacy of faith my grandmother established. So it was poorly put to say, without qualifier, that there is zero impact.
RELATIVE to the impact of a father(in general) we see culturally over and over again that the example of the male role models have a profound impact that operates in a way that can, and often does, supersede the mothers. Not that there are never wonderful cases and examples of fatherless children, or, kids with terrible dads, growing up to be amazing people. But to deny the reality of the fathers impact is unhelpful and putting ones head in the sand.
While the study is “limited” and the other things they write about using the study as their “sledgehammer”…the point is still important. What dad does will generally be the tone setter for the kids. While mom can be phenomenal, she is fighting an uphill battle to counteract dad’s example. And what is interesting about the study is that even if the mom is unchurched, it has no “negative” impact on the kids if dad is going. Meaning, mom can be a “bad apple” but it doesn’t affect the kids as much as the dad being a “bad apple”.
In conclusion, practically speaking, men being “leaders” in their homes and spiritually does not mean they are the king and everyone must do what they say. But, that they have a personal burden that the reality is their behavior will most often be mirrored by the people around them. More so than anyone else, by a wide margin.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Would that be like Monica and Augustine or like Timothy and his mother and grandmother?
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Me too Jeanette. A statement like that, if it were true, would be a virtual curse on so many young people. I too have been there and done that, and thanks be to God I did not go down that path.
@ Mae:
“Why there is such a need in the church to over glorify all things male, I cannot say. I just know it’s very unhealthy, unholy, to demean half of God’s creation.”
++++++++++++++++
I suspect it is an effort to attract men to church activities.
Given that many in christian culture don’t put on their thinking caps when engaging in church/christian culture programs (books, articles, bible studies, recorded sermons, conferences), it’s largely accepted as “godly”, “gospel-“, “biblical”, “scriptural”, “God’s command”, “by design”….. (designed by way of marketing campaign)
@ Nancy:
It has been my experience that it is the mother’s influence in things spiritual that lasts longer through life than the father’s. Perhaps this is more true of daughters than sons, but I have friends who are male whose spiritual grounding came from their mother, not their father.
Just to wade into deep water….(yikes), on one hand, I have heard many many anecdotal stories from male pastors/ministers who talk about the steadfastness of their mothers’ spiritual lives keeping them grounded or bringing them back to faith.
And now the deep end, shared only to show that the mother’s influence is much deeper than Mr. Borsay seems to suggest – from opposite ends of the spectrum – Timothy being taught and grounded by his mother & grandmother….H P Lovecraft being formed in his spiritualism by his mother. This is not to say that H P Lovecraft’s spiritual path was a good thing. It is to refute the assertion that a mother’s spiritual life has “virtually no effect on her children.”
I would contend that the mother’s spiritual life can and does have a profound effect on the lives of her children. I would also contend that to state “the mothers spiritual life has virtually no effect on her children” is blatantly saying that a mother’s spiritual life has no value.
@ Adam Borsay:
How about all those who men Paul cites as fellow workers, etc.? He certainly did *not* put them on a lesser plane than men, and seems to have regarded them as equal to himself.
Then there’s Priscilla and Lydia and … I could go on, but you get my drift.
There simply is no way to blithely dismiss all these folks as if they never existed and/or were treated as if they were some kind of women’s auxiliary.
@ Jeannette Altes: these claims about mothers having no influence are nonsensical. As you and others have said, much of the time the opposite is true.
Adam, you just wait and see re. your own kids’ lives. Might be a very good time to dump the Kool Aide down the drain once for all!
@ Bridget:
I think a careful look at whether the data in question was a case of correlation, causation or both would be warranted also. Many popular reports of studies don’t understand the distinction between those two things. In short, the data may stand, but I’d still be wary of drawing such sweeping conclusions (mothers across the board have “virtually no influence” on their children’s spiritual lives) from a single study unless it’s been replicated at least once.
@ Adam:
There are also no slam dunk arguments against them, as outlined here by this (basically) comp Biblical scholar (whose blogs I really like, and who actually doesn’t really care much about the issue):
http://drmsh.com/2011/02/20/women-in-ministry-is-there-a-biblical-view/
When you look at the realm of Biblical scholarship, you can find intellectually credible and honest people on both sides. It’s not as if all egalitarians are playing smoke and mirrors while the comps are the only ones seeing clearly (though I don’t think you meant to imply that anywhere). I agree with Heiser above, that this is basically an issue of conscience, not clearly taught and immutable doctrine. Personally, my conscience has some serious misgivings about comp (mostly the marriage side), and is pretty p***ed about the sexist, misogynistic and abusive BS that I have seen it used to justify.
@ Adam Borsay:
When you say you are relying on the plain reading of scripture, I’m assuming you are relying on 1 Timothy 2:12 for your view, so if that’s wrong, please correct me.
What is the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:13, 2:14 and 2:15 in your understanding?
Can you explain the structure and purpose of Paul’s entire argument there? Do you think it is legitimate to sever one verse from his argument and make that verse normative and universal?
I’m trying to figure out what principles of hermeneutics are essential to you and how you apply them because I don’t want to assume that you are using the same approach as someone else.
Sorry if this repeats something earlier in the thread. I’m replying late and from the top where I left off yesterday.
Why does it have to be either/or?
For myself, I am not saying the father has no spiritual impact. But your first quote said the mother did not. You got some push-back on that and then say the second thing. It is not a zero-sum situation. Both parents have an impact. And which one has a greater impact will be seen on a case by case basis, depending on each relational dynamic with both the parents and the child.
I seems to me that when we start getting into the realm of saying “this is the way all normal ‘godly’ relationships should look,” we set ourselves up for some serious distress among those families for whom this ‘presciptive’ is not the norm. I know that when I was immersed in the former church and they taught this stuff, I began to get angry at my father for not ‘spiritually leading’ the family. This was absolutely unfair, unhealthy and unhelpful.
My question is this: why is it so darned important that one or the other (male/father vs. female/mother) be more important than the other one? Why can they not be equally important – equally useful – equally influential – equally reflective of their Creator?
@ Jeannette Altes:
oh, bother. Apparently failed to close the blockquote after Adam’s second quote…or something. Hopefully the gist is not lost.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Let’s grant that strictly for the case of argument. What does that have to do with the question at hand? There may well be something intrinsic that causes us to respond to all kinds of different people in different ways.
How does that have anything to do with whether or not one human being is under the authority of another human being simply and only because that subordinate human being is a female?
I truly appreciate your willingness to engage, since I have not do date received answers to questions that I think are straightforward. If someone could just explain how we decide what parts of 1 Timothy are to be strictly enforced and which ones are culturally informed, then I think that would go a long way. Part of that process is not explaining what 1 Tim. 2:12-15 actually means as an argument. Each of those verses is linked to the others.
As for Ephesians 5, just take a look at the Greek. There is no verb, mu.ch less an imperative verb, in 5:22. There isn’t a verb in 5:21. There is a string of participles which *describe* what life in the Body looks like. I don’t think there is a conservative hermeneutic that directs us to take descriptions and make them prescriptive, never mind universal.
We can’t say that we are being conservative with the text if we don’t use a consistent hermeneutic and pay attention to what is actually in the text rather than a narrative imposed upon it.
Sorry for the length, but I thought I would once again lay out the most glaring problems that exist for the so-called Complementarianism from a *conservative* point of view.
And I might add that I am really angry about this because the English translations do not convey either the grammar or the words of the “killer” verses. As one who takes a conservative view of the Bible, that is unconscionable. It is nothing less than (see how I can channel Al Mohler?) an abandonment of the authority of scripture to substitute the doctrines and words of humans for those which the Holy Spirit has given us.
Adam Borsay –
Praying for the arrival if the new family member. Hope all is well.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Ok, I’m looking through that article and one of the two sources it uses, which can be found at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=430177&Site=COE. It’s about 50 pages long, so it will take a bit of time before I give a full response, but here’s a really important quote that, personally, I think makes Touchstone’s entire article pretty much rubbish immediately:
It seems likely that most of those enumerated as being of no religion or giving no response to the question have experienced a religious upbringing but, on reaching adulthood, not longer feel the need to refer to it. The reasons why this might be so are, of course, outside the scope of this report.
The study itself says that it make zero conclusions on why individuals do not continue with religious belief. You cannot use a study that explicitly excludes a particular discussion to support your side in that discussion.
@ Adam Borsay:
No wonder Paul said that if the unbeliever wants to leave the marriage, let him go.
Hester wrote:
http://drmsh.com/2011/02/20/women-in-ministry-is-there-a-biblical-view/</blockquote
I read the article and didn't see impartiality, but I couldn't find the counterpoint article he linked, so maybe that's what I'm missing. His article seems to me to exhibit the same dismissive attitude, particularly in the comments, that I've come to expect.
He claims to be exegeting a "Naked Bible" but then imports an interpretation of the Man naming the Woman as having significance by indicating a position of authority in the ANE/Semitic context. That *might* be OK if he didn't then ignore the ANE/Semitic significance of God giving the Father's Blessing to both the Man and the Woman without distinction. Women did not receive inheritances in the ANE/Semitic context of the Genesis compiler, yet he ignores that fact. And, he fails to acknowledge that the NT tells us that all believers have received the inheritance through the Son.
It is more cherry-picking of the data and selectively applying his rule of only exegeting the actual text,ISTM.
@ Gram3:
Obviously messed up the tags. My comment follows the link.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Tried to fix it. 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
Fixed it. 🙂
@ Adam Borsay:
Just wondering, how old are you?
I have a real problem with your remarks because they sound like they are coming from someone with limited life experience.
Adam Borsay wrote:
See Adam, Ephesians 5 doesn’t speak to leadership of a husband. Paul likens the sacrificial love a husband should have toward his wife to Christ’s sacrificing Himself for us. He gave Himself up for our sake. The love a husband has for his wife is reflected by giving himself up for her. That’s the example given. There is no mention of leadership, authority, or spiritual responsibility of a husband.
Jesus is the example for all believers; not just male believers. It was not His maleness that Jesus identified with believers; it was His humanity. Because He became human, scripture says He is able to sympathize with our weaknesses and extend mercy as our High Priest. We are co-heirs with Him.
When we slice and dice scripture into male and female, we will arrive at erroneous theology that somehow mandates males to emulate the “masculine” scriptures and mandates females to emulate only the “female” scriptures. And yet Paul admonishes us to imitate him (1 Cor. 4:16, 1 Cor. 11:1) but using the slice and dice method of interpreting, that would not include me.
Paul quotes the commandment to “honor your father and your mother” but there’s no mention of spiritual leadership or more responsibility of a father. There are over 50 verses that define the mutual sharing, caring, deferring, loving, etc. that believers should have toward one another with absolutely no indication of one having more responsibility than another.
I’ve noticed over time that when confronted with scripture that contradicts the theology of comps, they develop a new term (like “servant-leader”) in an effort to make their teaching more palatable, but still give prominence to men by virtue of their maleness to the exclusion of the female. This slicing and dicing of scripture is contrary to the overall message of the gospel just as it was when it marginalized the gentiles. It was a difficult lesson for Paul and Peter to learn of the equality of the gentiles and women, and obviously is difficult for some believers today.
stuck in moderation…
@ Hester:
I read the article. It was not impressive. What turned me off on the author was the way he treated someone in the comments. Very offensive to me.
@ Gram3:
He made it clear near the end of the post that he is not actively opposed to egalitarianism/women’s ordination, he just can’t find enough explicit warrant for him personally to advocate for it. He has also said elsewhere (I couldn’t find the quote when I linked to him before) that some Christians have always been comp and some have always been egal, and that that’s okay and it’s a matter of conscience. Most popular comp teachers claim that egalitarianism will automatically put people on a slippery slope to denying the Gospel. Those two positions are worlds apart. (You really should read the rest of the exchange with Hobbins, it’s really quite interesting.)
I read multiple scholars’ blogs (comp and egal) and Heiser really is quite good, whether you agree with his comp stance or not. And he has in other places advocated ideas which seriously undermine some of the worst excesses of complementarianism. It was through Heiser that I found out the ancients considered women’s hair to be a kind of testicle/sex organ and that this probably influenced the argument about headcoverings in 1 Cor. 11. Try telling that to someone like Driscoll and watch what happens. 😉 So I won’t write his blog off just because he’s not as interested in gender issues as I am. I’ve found way too much of value there. (If the comments section on that post is the one I’m thinking of, then I do agree he could improve his attitude toward victims, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate other things he’s said.)
What’s amusing to me is that I’ve actually found more that I disagree with on Hobbins the egalitarian’s blog, than on Heiser the complementarian’s.
@ Gram3:
Here is Hobbins’ first response with links to the rest of the exchange at the bottom, if you’re interested.
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2011/02/women-in-ministry-why-the-issue-matters.html
Hester wrote:
Thanks so much. I’m in the process of reading them right now.
Adam Borsay wrote:
How nice of you to dismiss the concerns of atheists/agnostics so easily and tell us it’s bunk. Even better how you read the minds of them saying they wish to defer responsibility. Good thing I have you here to tell me how we atheists think.
I go offline-ish for a few weeks, and come back to this. What a thread! Lacking anything intelligent to say, I still felt compelled to reply just to say…
Hester wrote:
This can be easily illustrated: recall what Sir Mix-a-Lot finds attractive in a certain part of a woman’s body, and compare that with what many men (and a few women) find attractive in the same vicinity. There are some who share a preference for his desired proportions and others who don’t. This trends along cultural lines, but isn’t a complete overlap. And it goes the same way with men: there are people who like large hairy men, skinny hairy men, skinny hairless men, muscular men, and so on and so forth. It seems to me that the only practical reason cultural preferences are put on such a pedestal is because it can make your life suck if you fall outside of the acceptable norms. Then you’re pressured to – gotta pull in the obscure quote to see who gets it – “Turn it off.” 😮
@ Albuquerque Blue:
I think maybe he is saying that what some kinds of believers say about the way non-believers either come to faith or are kept from coming to faith is bunk. It’s bunkish to say that one particular issue brings someone to faith or keeps them away from faith. Just thinking out loud late at night, and maybe I’m misreading him.
@ Gram3:
Perhaps, but I did not get that impression from his statement. I do not like having my motivations, my knowledge and my inner life easily summarized and dismissed by someone who doesn’t know me from Adam…wait that doesn’t quite work here. Bob, doesn’t know me from Bob. In the larger paragraph from where I quoted, he said people aren’t interested in his term “4th floor issues” (That’s a good analogy Adam, I’m stealing it btw). I find it dismissive and patronizing, and it also seems to follow a trend of lets cover up problems so the outsiders don’t see that Christians have problems. Because that’s worked so well.
@ Adam Borsay:
Hi Adam, I think you meant to reply to Hester? I can’t discuss this topic from a biblical perspective as I don’t have a finger in that pie so to speak (you’re talking to someone who is atheish and took a vow to remain single and thinks radical feminists are piss-weak). So hearing views promoting complementarianism and male leadership makes my brows furrow and want to sob hysterically.
Adam Borsay wrote:
Supersede the mother’s? This thinking is unfathomable to me.
Adam Borsay wrote:
I don’t know of and have never heard of the father’s impact being denied. Only generalised discussions relating to children of divorced parents and same-sex parents. But I don’t think you mean to refer to this? So more unfathomableness from my end.
Adam, I don’t want to go all Freud on you, but I would ask (you don’t have to answer) what was your relationship with your own mother?
Anyway, segue to your impending child’s birth and becoming a papa (?again), am wishing you all the very best during this time, and here’s to you happily ignoring TWW and having some uninterrupted family time together. Cheers
@ Gram3:
There is another longer comment to you in moderation explaining more about Heiser. Apparently Dee isn’t up yet. 🙂 You may also be interested to know that Heiser and the commenter under the post I linked to, came to an understanding under the next post he wrote in the series.
@ Josh:
Yeah, well, that is an interesting take on it. Except that when she and I were talking about this subject I was talking about behaviors, not body parts. I was trying to say that some cultural expectations of behaviors might serve a good purpose. She does not agree about whether cultural stuff can be good or not. There is not too much that people can do about body parts, though apparently lots of us are spending barrels of money on plastic surgery. I am not defending that as a practice that we might want to encourage. But who cuts the grass and who does which and what and whether a male hand on the female arm is gracious and expected or controlling and offensive–those things as cultural and therefore no need to fight over. Also whether they are sexual identifiers which remind people that we are in fact sexual beings and that the male/female sexual dynamic is (or at least can be ) a good thing.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
We have a problem here in talking about subjects. We have some people who are really into what does some study show, or some poll or such. The results of studies/polls/statistical analyses all are generalizations based on significantly large populations. So, that is one way to form generalized opinions, I suppose.
Then there is the point you have brought up about “you don’t know me.” In other words, the focus on the individual, as opposed to the group.
I have blundered conversationally with either approach. I have no idea how to deal with this. But I am just saying.
Who’s The Boss ????
Tim was going to be married to Karen so his Father sat him down for a little chat. He said, ‘Tim, let me tell you something. On my wedding night in our honeymoon suite, I took off my pants, handed them to your Mother, and said, ‘Here, try these on.” She did and said, ‘These are too big. I can’t wear them.’ I replied, ‘Exactly.. I wear the pants in this family and I always will.’
Ever since that night, we have never had any problems.
“Hmmm,’ said Tim. He thought that might be a good thing to try.
So….On his honeymoon, Tim took off his pants and said to Karen, ‘Here, try these on..!
She tried them on and said, ‘These are too large. They don’t fit me.’
Tim said, ‘Exactly. I wear the pants in this family and I always will.
I don’t want you to ever forget that.’ Then Karen took off her panties and handed them to Tim. She said, ‘Here, you try on mine!”
Tim did and said ‘I can’t get into your panties.’
Karen said, ‘Exactly. And if you don’t change your smart-a$$ attitude, you never will.’
@ Gram3:
How can a calvinist at the same time say that God controls everything, and at the same time say, well no, it the earthly father who controls (predetermines and causes to be) the child’s relationship to God.
I think we all hear problems with this idea and their theology.
@ Adam Borsay:
Fathers’ impacts are stronger because the church remains patriarchal. A portion of the authority and influence belonging to a woman is constantly subtracted from her and added to the man. It is actually impressive how much influence a mother retains in spite of it.
That survey at Touchtone link isn’t useful. One flaw: the author assumes church attendance = good Christian. Inaccurate definitions ruin analysis. Another flaw: the institutional church’s patriarchy is unaddressed in the analysis, and that nullifies their conclusions since it is a discussion of male/female influence.
A likelier tentative conclusion (if anything can be drawn from it) is that children are more deeply influenced by their fathers because they carry more cultural power/influence; thus they will tend towards church more often when their father does. The fewer who identify more with their mother will tend away from hierarchical structures in which the mother has little place, and more towards heart issues. This will be true even though mothers bring children to church more than do fathers do. It’s a second-on effect of patriarchy.
(con’t)
(con’t)
I hasten to briefly comment on your earlier dismissal of nones’ opinions on these issues, since it directly relates to the assumption that church attendance = good Christian. I am a none and wish very much that I could find a way to attend church. This desire is true of all the “nones” I know and is an ongoing reproach to the USian institutional church. Part of the reproach is this very issue: women’s existential ability to function as they’ve been gifted.
Thus, though you think “nones who are Christians” have little to say in the debate over complementarianism, they are not only as much a part of the Church as you, but indeed are among the louder voices that need to be heard.
Finally, the following is such an insult to mothers that I will assume you don’t know what you are saying: “To briefly summarize, the mother’s spiritual life has virtually no effect on her children. But the fathers is HUGE.”
Patrice wrote:
Same here…I am a none for this very reason. I’ve not given up on Jesus or my faith in Him, but having walked out on so many anti-female sermons, I’ve given up on “the church” that meets in buildings and has little use for women.
Hester wrote:
Which leaves me wondering if, in the end, we all just choose comp or mutual/egal positions based on what we are most comfortable with in our own lives. I have to believe that all our experiences play into our decisions as well. I also have to believe that what one is taught and and what is modeled to a person regarding male/female roles has a strong influence on their perspective as well.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
I would like an answer to this too.
I suspect it has something to do with our eccentric perception/use of the Bible but I don’t know.
Patrice wrote:
I believe I was insulted to a point. I soon realized that more than anything the statement was disheartening and could very easily lead to hopelessness for many mothers 🙁 The next thing it can lead to is the thought that one must work at getting that father to be a Christian and do the right things with the children.
I hope that every mother who is a believer realizes that we all have a Father who is no comparison to the earthy father we were given, no matter how marvelous he might or might not be to us. Neither my mother nor my father had anything to do with my spiritual formation. My Brother and Father had everything to do with it 😉
Nancy wrote:
Actually, since we are on the topic of Alastair Roberts, fan of Doug Wilson, it’s appropriate to point out that Doug Wilson thinks that fathers are that important and are responsible for the way kids turn out.
But,you have to read the fine print and consult the lexicon for New Calvinists. God works through means and secondary causes or some such. Think about that WRT your question. The answer might seem plausible, but then they would have to say the means determines the end, or that God intends for the kids to be messed up.
I’m not a philosopher, but that’s how I see it. Ware has a book on Compatibilism which is tighter than Molinism but looser than determinism.
About Adam’s comment and that article. Switzerland? Really? The whole thing sounds to me, in the light of what I see here, culture specific.
In the classroom, when certain things come up for discussion, so my daughter tell me, the African-American teens begin saying “…that’s what my grandmother used to say.” Lots of that sort of response. The Latinos have a different response and the white and rural yet another.
In that missiology stuff I like to talk about here is how it works out, according to the author in certain muslim cultures. Dad is the sole determiner of the official beliefs of the family, dad is usually the only one who is literate, dad will at some point have a private “ceremony” in which he baptizes his wife and informs her that she is now a christian. She usually has no idea what is going on but is eager to please her husband so there they go. However, if he dies and leaves her a widow with children still at home, she will go back over to the mosque, get things straightened out over there, and raise the children muslim. So in that situation, the adult male married with children muslim convert to christianity, whether or not the children turn out to be christian depends on whether he lives to enforce that decree.
I am trying to illustrate a couple of circumstances where I see some cultural impact on this issue.
What the article is saying sounds very white and protestant and probably middle class to me. If it is not forbidden to do so by our current political correctness rules I would like to see somebody do an extensive cross-cultural investigation of this subject
@ Gram3:
Yeah, for those women who rely on their pastors for these kinds of understandings, this is disheartening and hopeless-making. Oy.
And as you say, a mother who believes this will tend to passive-aggression because she knows her children’s needs and if their faith-needs can only be filled by a father (whether competent or incompetent, he’s one person), what else can they do? Let the nagging commence.
I have no more patience with Christian men who think women dumber and/or less capable and/or less gifted than them. (“Differently” gifted, capable, intelligent is doublespeak.) Or who think it simply doesn’t matter how we are made because God welded in a set of chains when He created women, and they’ll be wearing’em for eternity. Just let my people go already.
Yeah, how sweet it is that our God is much bigger than described! For even a modicum of understanding, we need a panorama of metaphors: father, mother, sister, brother, lover, spouse, teacher, counselor, artist, king, servant, mountain, rock, water, wind, bird, etc.
@ Patrice:
I intended that as
a response to Bridget. Sorry
@ Bridget:
@ Patrice:
Another potentially impactful facet that wasn’t explored was whether sons were more influenced by their fathers and daughters more by their mothers.
@ Bridget:
Absolutely!
@ Gram3:
I have a great idea. Speaking within the area of my own expertise, as a radiologist I do know a little something about human anatomy, and there is, in the majority of people, and understood to be a normal finding, a middle finger on the hand. I suggest that we use that anatomical entity to its best advantage in some of these circumstances.
This is a beautiful opportunity to blend the biological and the cultural to our advantage.
@ Hester:
Good point.
Nancy wrote:
Me too! Would be fascinating.
@ Nancy:
That’s certainly what they are effectively doing to those who challenge them to play by their own rules. For me WRT them, I just did a demure and properly deferential little wave and said, “Bah-bye, now” which removed both my offensive presence and my financial contribution to their cause.
Patrice wrote:
Yes, good point about the assumption concerning church attendance. I know too many “nones” who live out the kingdom more than most I knew in megas who “check the church attendance box”.
As to the mom’s influence, it was ALL my mom in our home. My very Edwardian workaholic dad was always at the office. However, he was known as a man of character and truth. I will take that any day over a patriarchal one.
Nancy wrote:
And if we are Calvinists, God has already determined whether we’ll use that finger for such, so let’s not choose by using it most enjoyably.
Hester wrote:
Hmmm….why would someone who is patriocentric see the need to study who influences daughters when daughters will themselves have no influence?
@ Patrice:
WORD Patrice, WORD. Your two comments – expressed so well.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This has hit a bit of a nerve with me, as something I really care about is dignity in work. I feel I’m often met with deaf ears or contrarian push-back arguments. Sharing – I had (or tried to have) a discussion about obscene (imo) CEO salaries with a dear friend who grew up in a third-world country, emigrated to Australia, started work as a K-Mart cashier, and studied hard at night for well over ten years until she got her accountancy degree and CPA. She now has I guess what you’d call an enviable job. But my pontificating about value etc was met with a shrug of the shoulders. I think she may be of the worldview, ‘let the market decide’. Perhaps uncaring. I don’t know because the conversation didn’t get anywhere. It’s an issue that affects all of us, and an one really concerning one to me is the humungous (love that word) rise of CEO and other executive salaries in universities, public/private utilities and local government. I’ll stop now and disappear into the complementarian ether.
Patrice wrote:
In other news, God appointed negative media attention to decease the Martian tithes and offerings, to give Mars Hill the opportunity to glorify God by closing down 3 or 4 campuses!
In other other news, the dAvid trolling on the Throckmorton blog is no son of mine! Just wanted to make that clear,
Haitch wrote:
I can think of many reasons for that, and I would include in your group the heads of non-profits and trade unions. Large institutions that manage your 401k draw their “talent” from the same pool as the boards of the corporations in which they invest. Sounds familiar to interlocking (even if only informally) boards and self-dealing in the church world. During the same period that distortions developed in the church world, distortions developed in the financial world. There are lots of similarities.
@ Patrice:
Patrice UNITED STATES on Sun Sep 07, 2014 at 10:10 AM said:
Jeannette Altes wrote: “why is it so darned important that one or the other (male/father vs. female/mother) be more important than the other one? Why can they not be equally important – equally useful – equally influential – equally reflective of their Creator?”
Patrice: “I would like an answer to this too.
I suspect it has something to do with our eccentric perception/use of the Bible but I don’t know.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
hmmm… I think it’s safe to say that females have been subjugated by males since the dawn of human beings — not in all places at all times, but in most of them. it’s deeply etched in our collective consciousness. in our memory and inherited memory. To the point that even when a man makes a concerted effort to be fair, to promote a woman, to be equitable, a woman may misinterpret it. it may still seem discriminatory. the only solution may seem to be to continue to vie for a seat at the table. and then men may interpret that as trying to be more important.
My feeling is that men, generally speaking, are so used to being dominant the equal validity IN PRACTICE of the other half of the human race doesn’t occur to them. My feeling is that women, generally speaking, simply want an equal seat at the table and an equal voice, an equal opportunity. Not to be more important. Women’s efforts to gain this can be seen as trying to be dominant; men’s efforts to be fair and equitable can still be seen as discriminatory — if they favor a woman over a man, then that seems unequitable. if they favor a man over a woman, that seem unequitable.
best I can do at articulating at the moment
@ elastigirl: i think you stated this very well indeed!
Also true (imo) of any dominant group in its perceptions of people that are Other (via ethnicity, skin color, religion, language etc. etc. etc.).
Comp and patriarchy systems fail and cause misery because the formula and predetermined thinking will not account for differences in individuals. Humans, whether try be make or female, have certain gifts and talents. They also have weaknesses and downright pathology in certain areas. To force a married couple to live within a paradigm where they cannot adjust, based on their individual strength and weaknesses, is an obvious potential train wreck.
I know a righteous, sweet Christian man who has prolific spending problem. He can’t manage money even is his life depended on it. Imagine if he and his wife bought into the nonsense that he as the manly man could only control the purse strings and manage their budget?
The Calvinistas believe so much in sovereignty and pre-determination. So in keeping with this, they would believe that God in his sovereignty made my dear male friend with a weakness for spending money. So, is it also God’s pre-determination that his household should be in financial ruin because he MUST manage the money and not his wife? There is no logical way to defend such a position. To argue that God insists you live less well or face hardship because of some nebulous “design” really reveals how crazy this.
The manly men like Driscoll that insist on such nonsense surely must be big sports fans. In football you run certain offenses based on the “weapons” and the weaknesses you have. Why can’t these men understand then that you put a married couple in the position to lose as a team because they cannot play according to what they have. It also completely removes the Spirit from their lives too and what a shame.
@ Pam:
@ Nancy:
The original article is about changes in linguistic and religious groups in the cantons (states) of Switzerland. It uses census data to see what sort of changes have occurred in a range of demographic areas over 140 years (1850-1990) in Switzerland, but it is specifically looking at the canton level, and does not make any comments about individuals. So not only is the original article quite culturally specific – it’s looking at Switzerland because it is a historically multi-ethnic country with distinct regions for each language group – it’s also not really about what the touchstone article says it’s about. I linked and quoted it earlier but my post got stuck in moderation (so I’ve linked back to my comment), but the original report specifically says that discussing why individuals do or don’t follow their parents’ religion is outside the scope and data of the report. There’s actually only one paragraph and one graph that discusses parents’ and childrens’ religion, and while the statistics quoted were accurate, the further statistics and discussion stated that when both parents describe themselves as being of the same religion, almost 90% of children describe themselves as the same. Of course that stat doesn’t look dramatic and scary like the stats about regular attendance at church, so the touchstone article ignored it.
But on to the touchstone article Adam originally linked. Apart from the dishonest conflating of attendance with belief, apart from making arguments the original authors very explicitly say cannot be made with their data, it’s just full of holes and hyperbole. It claims that ‘criminologists, psychologists and educationalists’ determine most of what their childrens’ lives will be. Not true. Generally, children are ore influenced by their same gender parent, but it’s a general rule not a specific prediction. The stability or instability of the home is also important – a single parent with a good job is generally better than both parents with no job. In terms of education, involved parents are what is most helpful.
Frankly there’s too much ridiculousness to address in the second half of that article, so I’ll be brief(ish). The author makes huge assertions with zero data to back them up. He’s extrapolating out from one census question in one year in one country to make sweeping statements about all families and all people everywhere. That is a terrible and deliberate misuse of data. Then there’s the author’s assertion that feminists hate ‘femininity’ and motherhood, which it does not, instead it asks for women to be allowed to be more than mothers and other than stereotypically ‘feminine’ if they want. He says feminism is the most hostile philosophy to infants without explaining what he means and later calls it ‘materialistic paganism’, because when you can substantively respond to an argument just demonise it, I guess.
But he’s not only sexist and dismissive of women, he’s got a pretty horrible view of men, too. He says that male biology is uncivilised and that they’ve become ‘feral’. I’m not sure how a male is meant to civilise another male if their natural state is to be ‘feral’, I guess there’s some magical thing that happens when men become fathers where they’re suddenly Mr Civilisation, as long as you don’t want them to listen to women or spend any time in female-dominated spaces. Or something. More to the point, though, crime rates haven’t really gone up with the ‘breakdown’ of families, and wives now have hard fought legal protections against bad fathers/husbands, gained by those nasty feminists.
This is turning out to not be at all brief, so I’ll try and go quickly! His language about feminised ‘wet, spineless’ and sensitive men show a real distaste for listening to others or showing real compassion and empathy, I guess because those are icky girl emotions. But the biggest giveaway on why the article is problematic is the second last paragraph, where the author finally reveals his true motivation: patriarchy. According to him, not accepting patriarchy ‘disfigures’ God, disobeys Jesus’ teachings, and rejects the holy spirit. No reasoning is given for this. But it does show the author is not a complementarian, he’s hardcore patriarchy. He doesn’t really think women have much value at all.
@ Pam:
I’ve spent a bit of time in the French and German-speaking parts of Switzerland. So yeah, to take *that* study and apply it to white US men (who are likely the target demographic) is WAY beyond ridiculous!!!
@ Bunsen Honeydew:
Fwiw, MD is a *huge* fan of cage fighting.
ken wrote:
I would buy it, too.
Ann wrote:
For some it’s actually Bible, God the Father as in the Old Testament, Paul.
@ Pam:
I’m pretty sure that was a backdoor way of referring to abortion.
@ Gus:
Among the beasts, dragons and sundry other prophetically-pictorial creatures described in the book of Revelation, the beast described in Revelation 17 (on which Babylon, the “mother of harlots”, rides):
Now, please understand that I’m not trying to pull one of those “Billy Graham / the Pope / Mickey Mouse is the antichrist” shockers. I am not making an allegorical connection between this creature and any particular person, organisation, “movement” or even theology. But when I see God himself called the one who was, and is, and is to come, it disturbs me to see Christians proclaiming a God who in any sense was, now is not, and yet will come. This is just not a good way of describing him.
I think that’s my biggest problem with the reduction of God to a book – or, to put it another way, the idolatrous elevation of a book to the point where it can be considered an adequate replacement for God or even an adequate containment vessel for the Holy Spirit.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes. I am glad you went ahead and used the big “i” word. Some views of the understanding and position of scripture do appear to be idolatrous. Some views of the understanding of and position of church look very similar. Correct me here if you think I am wrong, but it seems to me that both scripture and church can be a form of “law.” The way in which the scripture worshippers use scripture results in a complex mass of rules and procedures which they deduce from scripture The way in which church worshippers think results in strictly hierarchical behaviors with other people (elders mostly) controlling people’s lives, much like the interpreters of the complex OT laws did. (Jesus’ traditions of men comment).
Is this related somehow to the old and unresolved law/grace debate, do you think? It is easy to see what the gain is to the people who build their careers and earn their living by promoting these ideas and systems, but are there people who want or think they have to have an external system of complex and rigid laws and rules in order to function adequately?
In other words, what are dealing with here?
Bunsen Honeydew wrote:
“In’shal’lah…”
Well, a lot of these Celebrity Preacher types ARE into Fantasy Football Leagues….
Pam wrote:
This is called “Hypermasculinity”. Define Manliness entirely in terms of aggression and domination and POWER and burn out everything else with a white-hot iron. What you end up with is best expressed by one of the Poster Boys of Hypermasculinity, a certain A.Hitler:
“CLOSE YOUR HEARTS TO PITY! ACT BRUTALLY! THE STRONGEST IS ALWAYS RIGHT! THE WINNER IS NOT ASKED WHETHER HE HAS ONE FAIRLY, ONLY THAT HE HAS WON!”
— Orders to the German Army for the invasion of Russia, June 1941
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I think it is even worse than that. Some have gone way beyond that and have begun using the Bible as a tool for their own purposes. While talking about the authority of Scripture, they really mean their own authority. They have their own “Holy Books” that they have written, and that’s what they really want us to believe
The Bible is more like our Constitution + Declaration of Independence than it is to statutes or regulations. It’s not that the Bible is the Constitution or DoI, but I’m getting at the relationship between what the Bible is and how it is used or should be used. Apologies to Nick for the Americanization of his comment.
The Holy Spirit has been functionally evicted from the House he is creating, and the Book he has written has been misappropriated (plagiarized?), modified, and repackaged to suit the purposes of men. And I say that from the perspective of sola sciptura, and grammatical-historical interpretation.
@ Pam:
Thanks for this investigation into the article Adam referenced. I did a quick read of it and came away with several red flag moments as noted up thread. Your posts hadn’t shown up yet, but are much welcomed. I couldn’t even find where the author cited the study where he seemed to derive most of the stats. I wonder how many other’s like Adam have used this article to support their position?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
A good friend of mine is a Lutheran pastor and says there is even a term for that – bibliolatry.
Luther actually said that the Bible is like the piece of cloth (i.e., the nappies/diapers) in the manger that held the baby Jesus and thus presents him to us.
And what IS true, IMO, is that – as Jesus is fully man and fully God, and we know neither where one ends and the other begins, because they don’t – the Bible is both many books/letters/histories written by men as well as God’s revelation to us, and we don’t know how to separate the two, because we can’t.
What many evangelicals don’t (want to) see is Jesus’ humanity, and neither can they accept the bible as a human document.
Nancy wrote:
Some years ago, I ran into a British article about British women converting to Strict-to-Extreme Islam. According to the article, a lot of them had been raised in the “do your own thing” and extreme personal freedom meme of the post-Sixties and had burned out on it. After all the hassle of Personal Atomism, it was a relief to submerge in a social system where your appearance, your clothing, your role, even what to think was spelled out for you in detail. No need to stress out, no need to think for yourself, just Follow the Rules Exactly.
Nancy wrote:
The same way a classic Communist can at the same time say that The Coming Revolution and resulting Perfect Society is an Inevitable Dialectic of History yet Believers Must Constantly Work and Sacrifice to Bring It About. (Marxist version of “Imminentizing the Eschaton”, i.e. trying to jump-start Armageddon.)
People are not known for consistency.
Dave A A wrote:
This sounds like one of those Paid Political Announcements currently on heavy rotation on local radio or a phenomenon called “Aphasia”. Rudyard Kipling wrote a short story on the phenomenon, “The Conversion of Aurelian McGroggan” where a young British civil service type in India has too much sense of his own importance and overloads himself until his spectacular burnout breakdown at the end.
And as someone who’s experienced Aphasia, I can describe it from the Inside. Your mind is working down multiple lines of thought so fast and so hyper your brain is running far faster than your mouth can keep up and what comes out is a jumbled mess of fragments from all those lines of thought that makes perfect sense to you and nobody else.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Maybe the commenter a few days ago suffers from that, which might make him seem like a chatterbot… In the case of the NICE folks in the book, an overload of despising the word of God led to them losing the word of man (According to the resuscitated Merlin).
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
“…a British article about British women converting to Strict-to-Extreme Islam. …a lot of them had been raised in the “do your own thing” and extreme personal freedom meme of the post-Sixties and had burned out on it. …it was a relief to submerge in a social system where your appearance, your clothing, your role, even what to think was spelled out for you in detail.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
that’s like bailing on being a grown-up human being.
bailing on responsibility — too stressful to be responsible about anything, including oneself. going back to being 3 years old.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Very good description of life with ADHD, albeit the latter operates on a timescale of seconds rather than tenths of a second.
Ok everybody, quick! Go check out Libby Anne’s blog on Patheos and look up the latest on Mark Driscoll or else google Driscoll’s name with “penis homes”. I am not making this up.
Apparently every man’s penis is homeless until he gets married and it finally has a “home”.
Oh yeah, and his penis is on loan from God. (Is a woman’s vagina also on loan from God, or does He have no need for one?)
As one commenter put it, “Welcome to the pearly gates. You may return your penis over there.”
I know of a number of homeschool moms who are very frustrated with the patriarchy ideology that is so prevalent in the homeschool culture. Isn’t it interesting how often it is the mom who is teaching and parenting these kids at all hours, yet there exists this bizarre philosophy that the dad is more important or influential over his children’s spiritual lives. Nevermind that it is SHE who is with them at all hours. Further, these women are being left out of the discussion on homeschool issues when it is SHE who is doing the teaching. Supposedly, many of these homeschool conferences feature male only speakers even though they’re not the ones in the trenches doing it. Don’t know if all that is accurate but that’s the chatter I see on certain blogs.
NJ
I saw the “penis home” comment. Driscoll is one sick puppy.
@ dee:
Guy seems like the kind of dudebro who would cause teenage boys with unfettered internet access say “You’re a little too obsessed with sex man.”
@ dee: Not only is his whole rant incredibly creepy, the part about “your penis is God’s penis” is… well, at least as bad as calling women “penis homes.” And, strangely enough, fairly Mormon-ish, since the Mormon god was a human being once, “with flesh and bones.”
@ Albuquerque Blue: indeed.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
@ numo:
It is becoming apparent to me that Mark Driscoll needs psychiatric help.
@ dee: I think that’s been clear for a long time, but now, with more and more evidence, becomes so glaringly obvious that I cannot imagine why so many protected him for so long.
@ dee: You know, what he says is totally consistent with the manosphere/mens’ rights-views of women.
At this point, i wouldn’t be surprised if he either posts a lot at Heartiste and Dalrock – or if he actually IS Dalrock. (Or someone like him.)
I need brain bleach!!!
Here’s a question: what about a man who goes to bat for his wife in a highly non-stereotypical way, but yet… is seriously going to bat for her?
I got married Saturday, despite all the comps telling me that makes me less of a person or something (ha)- lovely wedding, everything was perfect, if only I could remember it! (I was quite the space cadet- I called tablecloths “tablecurtains”) I’ve written here before about being assaulted as a teenager, and my husband’s last name happens to be the first name of the boy who assaulted and stalked me. It was rough thinking about becoming this guy’s name, and my then-fiance fully supported me keeping my name. Then he pointed out that he liked the idea of a joint name AND didn’t want me to have to constantly put up with that guy’s name… so he took my name. We went to the clerk’s office this morning.
Now, by my standards, he was doing a heroic service, a real Christian sacrifice for me. (The magistrate judge was practically in tears) By these guys’ standards? Wimp.
I didn’t make him. I didn’t even suggest it. He did it of his own volition to excise that guy from our lives. He did it to protect me. I don’t know, but that sounds like a manly guy to me.
(We also had a female officiant- so it’s not like the comps loved our marriage ever)
@ NJ:
TIME has now picked up the story.
http://time.com/3304861/pastor-mark-driscoll-penis-homes/
@ Caitlin:
Woohoo congratulations! That is an awesome story and Mr. Caitlin sounds like a heck of a fella, kudos good sir.
@ Caitlin: congrats and WOW! He sounds like he’s a lovely person; so glad you two found each other.
And yep, he’s a real man.
Deb wrote:
I could have lived a lifetime without reading that article . . . can’t say I’m surprised though since we’re talking about Driscoll.
@ Caitlin:
Sounds like you got a winner there. Congrats.
@ Nancy:
I think the law/grace debate itself comes out of our desire to define legally what grace means which, in turn, comes from the basic desire behind any idolatry: to have a “God” we can see. We’re too sophisticated nowadays to chop a tree-trunk in two, burn one half as firewood, and pray to the other half for guidance and deliverance. Thus, our idols are in document form.
Moreover, that’s usually good enough even if it’s an idol someone else has made. There’s a fair body of evidence from the field of psychology that people will put up with a lot of hardship at the hands of others – even outright abuse – if it grants them familiarity and stability. I don’t know how many studies have been done on the psychology of cults – probably quite a few – but the appeal often comes down to, the cult had all the answers, or enough of them to take responsibility for the big decisions.
Wow, that penis needs a home writing by MD is some crazy stuff. I expect though that we will hear instead about how hateful we are for sneering because, after all, he’s apologized for the William Wallace II stuff, and how dare we bring up something he’s apologized for. Of course, this misses the whole point of just how sick this man is and how he has no business being a pastor.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Oh, drat. Back there in the ivy is a great huge yellow poplar stump just right for a forest idol of some sort. Maybe a couple three-stringed instruments at the stoke of midnight. A chunk of fresh pig on the grill and call it a sacrifice ( Carolina pig pickin style ). Maybe even a little real mountain dew for the adventurous. Now you have gone and ruined it all.
@ Bunsen Honeydew:
There’s already been a few apologists on Libby Anne’s blog saying that although he worded it badly he’s totes theologically correct, yaknow.
Bridget wrote:
I just can’t help but think that this has more to do with socialization than with some sort of God-given spiritual authority. In a culture which still puts spiritual women on a pedestal (a place where one can be admired and yet be prevented from having any power or influence), is it that surprising that there would be an attitude of “My mother was a saint, but she was just my mother”? It is the father whom children are taught by traditional culture to emulate.
Until it can be demonstrated that this difference is innate and not socialized, it says absolutely nothing about any supposed God-given spiritual authority of men.
Adam Borsay wrote:
In the vast majority of cases I’ve read, or in which I’ve listened to people in person, most American men (fathers) are not interested in things like attending church, or reading the Bible to their kids.
In my family, this was certainly true. My father believed in God, but he would have been happy to spend all Wed. nights and Sun. mornings in his recliner drinking beer and watching football, rather than go to church.
My mother was the one who dragged us to church. She was the one who read my Bible stories. She used to sing “Jesus Loves Me” when I was a kid at home. She used to buy me little “Jesus” trinkets for every Christmas holiday as part of my other gifts. My father never talked about God to me, or read Bible stories to me.
From what I’ve seen in other people’s families, the same thing holds true for them: the dad rarely takes in interest in spiritual things, and it’s up to Mom to lead the kids to Christ.
You said,
Part 2b is not biblical at all. That is your bias being assumed about things.
The Bible says nothing about women lacking any of these types of qualities (that are necessary for leading or teaching), or men having intrinsic qualities that make them better or more suited at “leadership” or being preachers.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
This reminds me of how frequently I hear grandmothers being mentioned on Christian TV.
Seems like 99% of the time, when some guy (or lady) gives a testimony of how they lived shady lives (such as, they worked as drug dealers, or something illegal), they said they came to Jesus because of their Grandmother.
They either say they
1. knew grandma was praying for them, or else she was bugging them to go to church all the time, or,
2. they hadn’t spoken to their grandmother in years, but, they remembered how Grandma used to teach them about Jesus when they were little kids, or read them Bible stories, etc.
The end result of either point 1 or 2 being that the person said they prayed to God, turned their lives over to God, stopped selling drugs or whatever they had been doing, and have been living clean ever since.
I’ve yet to hear a “grandfather” story like the “grandma” ones. I’m sure some exist, but in my many years of watching a lot of Christian television, I’ve yet to hear one. They always credit their grandmother for whatever spiritual light they received.
Bridget wrote:
I started out as a gender complementarian. I was very hesitant to reject it, since I thought rejecting it may be rejecting a plain, literal understanding of the Bible and treading into liberal territory.
I started seeing inconsistencies of the complementarian view by comparing one part of the Bible with another. There were women in the Bible whom God permitted to lead and teach men, for example.
Then I read books by conservative, egalitarian Christians that showed me there were equally valid ways of interpreting the Bible concerning women.
So I kind of came to accept the egalitarian view reluctantly at first, and I was very cautious about it.
KR Wordgazer wrote:
I think that on the issue in question some more research needs to be done but the guy is probably wrong. We do note, however, that in some closely related species the male behaves differently from the female in certain behaviors, and it would be interesting to investigate how this impacts the young in our own religion-creating species.
However, that is not what I want to say here. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, and without doubt I am “hearing” you amidst the other voices who seem to have said the same thing, but it sounds like you are saying that only those things which are “innate” can be God-given, and if something can be shown to be due to socialization it is not God-given. If that is what you are saying I think I have a problem with that. Does not scripture say that humanity is innately prone to sin, called by whatever name one wants to use for this concept. Did not God in the OT give laws saying you will do this and you will not do that precisely because people left to their own innateness do not always do right? What about the instruction to train up a child in the way he should go, is this not socialization? It seems to me that the church can be seen as a sub-culture serving the purpose of socializing people to some extent toward God-pleasing attitudes and behaviors. I am thinking that in the NT the idea that certain things are fruits of the Spirit would indicate that these things are in fact not innate and must be a work done by the Spirit; how is this something which is intrinsically not innate while at the same time being something God-given.
Maybe I am hearing incorrectly. Maybe people are not saying that if something is cultural then it must be rejected. Some lines of thinking, in differentiating man from other species, emphasize that among other things man develops more elaborate cultures by far. If that is so, then the building of societies/cultures is arising from an innate tendency to do so, so culture per se could not be dismissed as totally separate from biologically driven innateness. The issue then would be to say, not that culture and its importance can be dismissed, but only whether what man developed was “good” or “bad” using whatever criteria for that one would apply to such a decision.
Nancy, I wanted to note that I was responding in terms of Adam’s post, and particularly his statements like this:
“Absolutely. Is there an internal wiring that is deeply dependent upon male leadership(in this case…fathers) that shapes us, and our communities, in a way that women, regardless of their “skills” do not have? I think it is obviously and observably true.”
I don’t think he has proven that this factor, if it in fact exists, is because of “internal wiring.” I’m not saying that everything we’re “internally wired” to do is of God– but one thing we have to take into consideration is that if God is good in any way that makes any sense to humans, then anything in our internal wiring that leads to life and love and holiness is from God, and anything that leads the opposite direction is from indwelling sin. So it remains to be asked– is the subordination of women to men, as a thing in and of itself, something that leads to life, love and holiness? If not, it cannot be “internally wired” into us by God.
I have just completed a blog post rebutting the 1994 Swiss study, if anyone’s interested: http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2014/09/fathers-influence-on-childrens-church.html
Daisy wrote:
“Sort of… You take care of this life and your wife takes care of the next?”
— Inherit the Wind
Pam wrote:
Purity of Ideology, Comrade.
Purity of Ideology.
Lisa wrote:
Sounds like an inversion of George Adamski, Spaceship Ruthie, and Eric von Daniken.
Pffft….everything old is new again. Most modern christianity sounds like Victorian “Muscular Christianity” mixed with a strong dash of misogyny and ‘rape culture’ thrown in. “Grrr…I’m a MAN! Girls, sit down in the back of the bus and shut up.” Yeah. Attractive, that. Not.