MRS. RHONDA J. AUBERT vs THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA : Part 2 Case Study

“If you have to keep a secret it's because you shouldn't be doing it in the first place” ― David Nicholls link

http://thouarttheman.org/2014/09/08/the-young-restless-and-reformed-movement-lurches-into-crisis/1martinluther/
Martin Luther

Over the next few weeks, we will keep you all updated on Julie McMahon. I will be able to disburse another $1200 to Julie this week. You all have been so awesome! Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Deb is working on a series regarding abuse in IFB group homes. Amy Smith has hit the big time in Dallas. She is featured in D Magazine which looks at her efforts to expose Prestonwood Baptist Church's response to allegations of sexual abuse. We will write about it. I have read a fascinating book by Peter Wagner and cannot wait to do a couple of posts on demons, especially the "Queen of Heaven." Unbelievable. 

I have not forgot the promised post on Spiritual Friendships within the celibate gay movement. On top of all of that we have some new gospel™ ideas on church membership that are floating around the usual websites along with some fascinating views of the roles of woman. And Deb used to tell me she was afraid we wouldn't have anything to write about…

Again, we want to thank Rhonda for her insider's look at how her denomination handled a concern. I want to highlight the following statement she makes in this post.

I still struggle health wise. I have panic attacks, recurring nightmares and, as I said before, I find it difficult to trust people.

It is vital for churches and Christian groups to note that painful episodes with churches can result in long term physical, emotional and spiritual  issues. Such folks need a place to go where they are treated with kindness and understanding. Please join with me in praying that Rhonda will be surrounded by the love of God and faithful friends as she integrates and recovers from a difficult situation. Here is a link to Part 1 from last week.

This is a complicated story dealing with appeal upon appeal. This is a message to those of you who think that denominations are the answer to the abuse of authority. They aren't.

I have added some bolding and underlines along with subtitles to highlight some important points.


PART 2: 

‘I am Woman’ 
‘You can bend but never break me 
‘Cause it only serves to make me 
More determined to achieve my final goal 
And I come back even stronger 
Not a novice any longer 
‘Cause you’ve deepened the conviction in my soul’. 
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/helen-reddy/i-am-woman.html 

I was not invited to the Presbytery’s June meeting. Nevertheless I fully expected that I would be able to meet with them at a later date. So I wrote them a letter in preparation for such a meeting. I expressed the more personal side of what I had gone through especially the distress I had felt at receiving the emails and phone calls from the Minister and Elder. 

In the second week of June a letter arrived from the Presbytery. I felt a mixture of apprehension and excitement as I opened the envelope but as I read the letter this soon turned to disappointment. It was only to inform me that my report had been presented at Presbytery. They thanked me for my concern and said that they would advise me of the outcome of their investigations. 

What I had been through up to this stage was very telling on me. The once confident healthy me was no longer evident. I had developed claustrophobia, I was not sleeping and I felt anxious all the time. I did not want to answer the phone or check my emails. At the advice of a pastor friend I started counseling. 

A slap on the wrist for the church.

Two more months passed and I was still waiting for a reply from the Presbytery. I was hoping this meant that they were carrying out a very in-depth investigation. Then on the 14th September a letter arrived. I could not believe the briefness of it in comparison to my six page report. It said Presbytery ‘have investigated the matter thoroughly’. As a result they had strongly encouraged the Church to improve their administrative procedures and had directed them to the relevant procedures outlined in ‘The Code’ and the ‘Standing Orders of the Presbytery of Maroondah’. Then they thanked me for my concern with the way business was carried out at the Church. 

Were they for real? 

Their response amounted to nothing more than a tiny slap on the wrist to the leadership of the Church. The punishment did not fit the crime. I responded with a letter to the Members of the Presbytery letting them know how upset I was and that I still wanted to meet with them. 

The Moderator of the Presbytery responded to my letter by email. He said that he was sorry the letter had caused such disappointment and sadness and he knew that it was very brief and addressed none of my questions. He assured me that the material had been read and looked into in detail and the Presbytery had responded in various ways, as it saw fit. Then he said he was sorry again this has been so hard for me. 

An appeal

I phoned my friend who had helped me write the report. I cried as I read her the letter that I had received from Presbytery. She suggested I should appeal their decision. 

Spring may have been here in Australia but what was about to unfold would be the ‘winter of my discontent’

I found the information I needed re an Appeal in ‘The Code’. It stated: 

‘An appeal is a signed document given in by: 

a. a member of the court who has voted in the minority; or 

b. a person who is or was a party at the bar in a case before the court 

and is designed to bring the decision of the court under the review of a higher court. 

A party who wishes to appeal must clearly state his intention at the time the decision is announced by the moderator, by saying: “I intend to appeal”. The moderator must inform any party at the bar of his right of appeal’. 

Another section stated: 

‘The normal grounds for appealing are that the decision of the court was not reasonable given the information before the court, or that it was prejudiced by improper procedure’. 

It was obvious that I could not state my ‘intention to appeal’ because I had not been invited to their meeting. This also meant I could not tell if it had been prejudiced by improper procedure. However, I did know that the decision was definitely ‘not reasonable’ considering the information that I had passed on to them. I assumed the ‘his’ in the clause was gender neutral. 

I appealed to the General Assembly of Victoria, the reason and the grounds were based on the fact the response I had received from the Presbytery was ‘very brief and addressed none of my questions’. 

A higher appeal

I sent my ‘Appeal’ to the Moderator of Presbytery asking him to pass it on to the Clerk for presentation at the Presbytery’s next meeting. 

‘The Code’ states that: 

‘A court grants full extracts of the minutes relevant to any case to a party who: 

a. is entitled to them; 

b. requests them. 

Extracts may be applied for and granted both before and after a decision is made on a case, and these extracts are attested by the clerk as extracted from the record of the court’. 

In my letter I requested the full ‘Extracts of the Minutes’. I knew I would not receive extracts of their confidential minutes which are kept in what they call, ‘Record Apart’. 

Read this next section carefully: Two different sets of minutes!!

You may be asking ‘why do they keep two sets of minutes?’ This is the reason. ‘The Code’ states that: 

‘To keep its ordinary minutes free from the presence of undesirable matter every court keeps a record apart for use in cases where moral delinquency is alleged, or in other cases where it seems desirable to safeguard the church against damages or to protect the reputation of individuals. The resolution to keep the proceedings of a case in the record apart is minuted in the record apart, not in the ordinary minutes’. 

(Ed. note: I find this fascinating. The hierarchy of the Presbyterian Church of Australia is *safeguarding* allegations of moral delinquency, to protect the reputation of the church and to safe guard the church against damages.)

The appeal was rejected.

I now waited for what I hoped would be a positive response from the Presbytery of Maroondah. Tuesday the 6th of December dawned bright and sunny. I remember it well as it was our son’s birthday. In the mail that day I received a letter from the Presbytery. My hearts sank as I read yet another brief and to the point response from the Clerk. 

He told me he had forwarded my ‘Appeal’ to the Clerk of the General Assembly. He said that Presbytery had been informed that there were no grounds for appeal because they had investigated the matters I had raised in my correspondence and responded accordingly. He said the matter is covered in ‘The Code’ as I was not present in the Court when the matter was discussed. However, he did say that it would appear that I would be entitled to petition initially to Presbytery. 

What did they want me to do? Throw myself on the mercy of the court. I thought that was something the defendant did, not the plaintiff. I did not have time to read all the documentation that day, however, I typed up the following letter and faxed it through to the Clerk. 

‘In relation to your letter dated 30th November 2011 as my ‘Appeal’ has been sent to the General Assembly of Victoria, I will not be petitioning the Presbytery of Maroondah, and I will await instruction from them’. 

Look at who has now become the problem.

The next day I looked over the documents they had sent me. I was very surprised that they had actually sent me a copy of the extract of their minutes. The Bible says: ask and you shall receive; I asked but I definitely did not expect to receive them. This is what greeted me. They were titled: 

‘Minutes Concerning dealing with Mrs R. Aubert’. 

I do not know whether I can express the utter disbelief I felt reading this, but what I can say is that it was the perfect title for what followed. The first entry revealed that the Presbytery resolved to ‘sit in private’. 

‘The Code’ says that:

‘All courts other than the Session are presumed to be open. A court may, in any particular matter, resolve in sit in private. In these circumstances all persons other than members or officers of the court and cited parties to a particular matter under discussion are excluded. Associate members are also excluded’. 

I was angry. I had not been cited (summoned to appear) by the Clerk to attend the Presbytery and yet he is telling me I had no grounds for appeal because I was not present in the Court when the matter was discussed. 

Presbytery resolved to sit ‘in private’. So in return I resolved to make what happened there ‘public’. This is extracted from June’s minutes. 

‘Resolved that Presbytery refer matter including documentation to court of first appeal, [local church] Session, for report from them, to September Presbytery’. 

Confidential material exposed.

I could not believe what I was reading. The Presbytery had sent my confidential report, the emails, and the minutes back to the leadership of the Church. July’s minutes revealed that they had also sent my personal letter back. At least I now know what the Presbytery considers a thorough investigation. 

The Session is not the ‘first court of appeal’ when it comes to complaints against the minister the Presbytery is. ‘The Code’ states that
 

‘The Session does not receive or discuss complaints against the minister who is responsible to the Presbytery for the discharge of all the duties of his office. Members of the Session or others wishing to make such a complaint may do so by presenting a petition to the Presbytery’.

and: 

‘The Presbytery is the court of first instance in respect to all matters relative to the life, character and professional conduct of its ministers and licentiates. The Presbytery receives and deals appropriately, either by administrative action or by formal judicial process of discipline, with all complaints, charges or allegations of any kind that come to its notice by regular process and are directed against ministers or licentiates within it jurisdiction’. 

The discipline was decided by the people Rhonda complained about.

The Presbytery’s disciplinary action was based on a report written by the very people I was complaining about. At least that explains why they had seen the matters I had raised as nothing more than an administrative procedural infraction. 

Some of what was written in my report and letter was of a very personal nature. The people I had mentioned live in the same area as I do. I believe this was a total breach of trust and they had failed to perform a duty of care which was owed to me. The feelings of betrayal are still very much with me and I still find it difficult to trust people. 

My fear level went up a couple of notches along with my blood pressure. 

I thought about the email that the Moderator had sent me in May where he had said that they were truly sorry for the difficulties that I had been going through and that they did care and were praying for me. Based on the Presbytery’s action I now see these as nothing more than meaningless words. 

Another letter I received from the Clerk of Presbytery said that Presbytery had been informed that I did not have the right to appeal to the General Assembly. 

So this is how I see it now. I have to petition the Presbytery to get grounds for an appeal  to a court I have no right to appeal to. Sounds like a pointless exercise to me. 

There were a couple of other interesting entries in the ‘Extracts of the Minutes’ I received: 

1. The first one was that the Presbytery resolved

‘that all matters to do with the church’s property for a place of worship for [the church] be in consultation with and with the help of the Church Architect’. 

What this looks like to me is that the Presbytery was not censuring the Minister but was bending over backwards to help him. 

2. The second was: The Presbytery resolved that the Minister and those responsible for the running of meetings and minute taking make every effort to improve their general administrative practices, and to

‘take care to observe those decisions taken within the congregation and committees’. 

But isn’t that stating the obvious that you abide by decisions taken or why would you bother having committee or congregational meetings. 

Nevertheless, what is written in the ‘Extract of the Minutes’ does confirm that the Presbytery had agree, in part, that this was a complaint against the Minister. 

I knew that it was my responsibility to ensure that the Presbytery forward on the records and documents for my ‘Appeal’ to the Victorian Assembly. So I emailed a letter to the Moderator asking him if this had been done. I was not all that impressed with his response. He said the Presbytery had asked him not to communicate with me personally as he cannot and is not meant to speak for Presbytery. 

To add insult to injury, I received a letter from the Clerk of the Victorian Assembly telling me again I was not entitled to appeal to the General Assembly because I was neither a party at the bar of Presbytery nor a member of Presbytery. 

The Matthew 18 gambit

What he wrote in the next sentence left me speechless. It was

‘if you have a grievance on this issue that can’t be resolved by personal meeting and discussion…….’

Unbelievable! This wasn’t some small tiff between the Minister and me and went way past anything that had happened at the local Church. 

A shunning

My friend, the Director of the Ministry Development Committee, had been elected the new Moderator of the PCV in October. I had high hopes that he would be able to help me now. However he told me my only recourse was to petition the Presbytery. He described how this should be laid out. It was exactly what his wife and I had already done. This came from a person I considered to be a friend. (My eyes are filling with tears as I write this) 

On the 28th December I emailed a letter to the Moderator of the Presbytery requesting a copy of the report the Presbytery had received from the local Church’s Session. He responded the same day. He told me that I needed to send all correspondence to the Clerk, and that he would not even be Moderator in 2012. He did not even give me the courtesy of telling me who would be. For the first time in my life I felt shunned. 

The report would be heard in private. She could not be present because she was not a member of the presbytery. Women cannot be members of the Presbytery. (Bada Boom!)

The Clerk told me that the Presbytery had determined this report was to be ‘received, and heard in Private. This means that anyone not a commissioner to Presbytery [member of Presbytery] cannot be present in the court when the matter is presented, discussed and decided upon’. This must be an unwritten law of the Church and goes against their own Code. 

In the PCV women cannot be ordained or elected as elders. It is impossible for a woman to become a member of Presbytery. If you add to this the fact that I was not cited which meant I did not have the opportunity to be ‘at the bar of Presbytery’; it makes the statement by the Clerk of the Victorian Assembly that I was not entitled to appeal to the General Assembly because I was neither a party at the bar of Presbytery, not a member of Presbytery, farcical. 

I could go on and on about the correspondence that went back and forth but that would probably bore you. So I will try and be as brief as possible. After all these knock backs I decided to appeal to the General Assembly of Australia. That is the Supreme Court. The Clerk of that Assembly did not respond but after six weeks and me having to chase up a response, the Moderator General responded and said that any appeal to the General Assembly of Australia has to come through the church courts and my first step should be to petition the Presbytery. 

Why she didn't petition the Presbytery.

I chose not to petition the Presbytery. You may ask ‘why’ considering that is what the hierarchy of the Presbyterian Church of Australia kept telling me to do. Well there is a rule in ‘The Code’ that says: 

‘Appeals to the General Assembly, or to the General Assembly of Australia as the case may be, may be taken against any decision or judgment of the Presbytery, unless in any particular matter it is expressly provided that the decision of the Presbytery is final’. 

It seems to me that the odds were stacked against me because I am a women and I made a complaint about a minister which would ultimately be decided by his peers. Also I had a feeling the Presbytery would tell me their decision was final. So why would I bother. 

The insider's boys' club

Back in September 2011 the Moderator of the Presbytery of Maroondah told me that

‘the Presbytery has dealt with this matter as you raised by meeting ‘in private’ ………….which then means we don’t communicate any of the details or our findings to other outside’.

He makes it sound like an exclusive club. 

So who are these ‘others outside’? They are everyone who is not a member of Presbytery. So where do we the ‘others outside’ go if we have a complaint against a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Australia? I WISH I KNEW! 

I still struggle health wise. I have panic attacks, recurring nightmares and, as I said before, I find it difficult to trust people. However I was prepared to go the distance for those who could not. 

From subsequent information I received from the local Presbyterian Church, which was two months of their Board minutes emailed to me (a gift from the Holy Spirit), I believe the Minister benefited greatly from me making a complaint against him. 

PCA Prime Directive: Always protect the reputation of the church.

Looking back, maybe I should have better acquainted myself with The Code and Regulations of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria because Chapter 6, Section Three, Clause 10b says: 

‘In deciding whether to sit in private or not a court considers the interests of the church and the necessity to guard its ministers and members from charges which may prove to be ill-founded. In all circumstances a court seeks to uphold the reputation of the church’. 

P.S. I have written many letters to politicians, made a complaint to the new Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (they couldn’t help me because it all happened before their Act of Parliament came in to being in December 2012), and just recently I complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission for sex discrimination but they did not have jurisdiction over my complaint as religious institutions can discriminate in certain circumstances.

My only option has been to go public with my story. Thank you TWW for posting this to your Blog. 

* All quotes from The Code and Regulations of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria were taken from www.pcv.org.au/code_online/ accessed on 13/10/2011. 


(Back to Dee) So there you have it. Protect the church's reputation at all costs, shun those who speak about the problem, and whatever you do, keep the women out of the boys' club. Getting rid of the women purges @ 50+ % of your potential problems. 

Do you know what this reminds me of? The response of the Roman Catholic church to  the Reformers. Now, the Reformers are acting just like the Roman Catholic church. What goes around; comes around.

This story is a living example of the book: The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: Recognizing and Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church. Rhonda: send those boys' club members a copy of this book and tell them that Dee sees some similarities. Thank you for sharing your story with us.

Lydia's Corner: Leviticus 1:1-3:17 Mark 1:29-2:12 Psalm 35:17-28 Proverbs 9:13-18

Comments

MRS. RHONDA J. AUBERT vs THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA : Part 2 Case Study — 252 Comments

  1. My goodness, what a mess. I am amazed that you persevered with all that. Thanks for sharing that with us. I hope I never have to deal with something like that. It takes a special sort of person to keep on in the face of so much difficulty.

  2. Thanks Dee for posting this; I have had some wonderful responses to Part 1 on Facebook. I appreciate what you did with the highlighting and the comments. What it means to me is that you understood what I wrote. And thank you for the prayers. I am thinking of using this abridged version for the media. I was interviewed by the top two newspapers here in Victoria. That is another story!!!!!!

  3. Rhonda, words fail me…I can’t imagine the heartache and misery you’ve felt as you recognized such manipulation and injustice to say nothing of the marginalization intended to thwart your endeavor.

    I’ve always loved that Helen Reddy song and here’s another stanza that speaks to this kind of difficulty experienced by many women:

    I am woman watch me grow
    See me standing toe to toe
    As I spread my lovin’ arms across the land
    But I’m still an embryo
    With a long long way to go
    Until I make my brother understand

    Thank you for your part in trying to make our brothers understand.

  4. 1. There must be a script that these guys follow.

    2. If the Presbytery looks and acts like a professional guild, it probably is a professional guild.

    3. Nonmales are supposed to have babies and not think and not question.

    4. Older nonmales are permitted to give generously but still not permitted to question. They are commanded to teach the younger nonmales to not question the males.

    5. It is not a polity problem, as SGM used to love to say.

    6. Catch-22 works well in Presbyteries if you are a nonmale.

  5. Some of our brothers do understand, and they are trying to change the way our other brothers mistreat women and treat us as less than human by ignoring our voices for the sole reason that our voices are not male. It is better, in their closed system, to be a deeply flawed male with a voice than a godly female with a voice.

  6. Gram3 wrote:

    It is better, in their closed system, to be a deeply flawed male with a voice than a godly female with a voice.

    Gram 3: What is wonderful is that we know God sees everything and He will hold people accountable for their actions.

  7. “Getting rid of the women purges @ 50+ % of your potential problems. ”

    I think that the female gendered 1/2 of the church population should remove themselves from the Presbyterian Church of Australia forthwith. No more attendance, contributions or money. Let the PCA stand and be known for what it is – a men’s club who privilege themselves under the cloak of religion, supported by the state.

    Thank you for speaking truth to power @rhondajeannie.

  8. Haitch,

    If it was me that was reading this blog and I was still a board member. I would certainly be removing myself off the board, forthwith. A lot of people on boards of unincorporated association are unaware of the associated liabilities of holding such a position. Interestingly I think you would find that the female population would be greater than 50% as in most churches.

  9. From the post: “Do you know what this reminds me of? The response of the Roman Catholic church to the Reformers. Now, the Reformers are acting just like the Roman Catholic church. What goes around; comes around.”

    “Revolution never won, it’s just another form of gun to do again what they have done with all our brothers youngest sons.” ~ Mike Pinder – The Moody Blues

    Better to not play the game at all.

  10. Doug,

    That comment of hers about the Reformers is especially ironic considering that they (the Magisterial ones) were scarcely any more humane toward the Radical Reformers or towards anyone _they_ viewed as heretics. The dog bullies the cat, then the cat turns around and terrorizes the mouse….

  11. rhondajeannie wrote:

    e highlighting and the comments

    I have found that giving a quick subtitle to a section makes the story easier to follow. I do it on almost all of my posts.

    rhondajeannie wrote:

    I was interviewed by the top two newspapers here in Victoria.

    How wonderful! Your story will be helpful to many people who try to point out flaws in the church and end up getting slapped upside the head. I desperately want such people to know they are not alone.

  12. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    See what happens when you let a woman serve on the board.

    This has to be one of the best example of complementarianism run amok! You can’t come to the meeting because you are not a member. You can’t be a member because you are a woman. Case closed. Men snicker behind closed doors.

  13. Haitch wrote:

    I think that the female gendered 1/2 of the church population should remove themselves from the Presbyterian Church of Australia forthwith

    And no more staffing of the nursery.

  14. rhondajeannie wrote:

    Interestingly I think you would find that the female population would be greater than 50% as in most churches.

    You are 100% correct. The women have always been in the majority of the church congregation. Some of the new patriarchal hipsters believe that this means the church has failed and we need to initiate cage fighting and cigar smoking to get the men in. Maybe the real reason that women are in the majority is because they are more sensitive to the call of the Holy Spirit.

    And, to cause further heartburn for the manly men in the Reformed tradition…maybe God is purposely calling more women than men. (Dee runs for the bomb shelter!)

  15. Doug wrote:

    Revolution never won, it’s just another form of gun to do again what they have done with all our brothers youngest sons.

    Awesome quote! Thanks.

  16. I wonder…..will actions like this cause more females to stop attending church?
    I disagree with why men do not attend. I feel we as men feel just as strongly called by the Holy Spirit. We men however see the church leadership for just what it is…..sorry ladies. Think of how many females are attracted to worthless men?……and many of these guys work on their sex appeal….

  17. K.D. wrote:

    We men however see the church leadership for just what it is…..sorry ladies.

    I think there is a lot of truth in that about the men. Guys who are in the real world every day come to church and it just is so fake and contrived. The men they see in the pulpit could not survive in the real world, and many of the men know it. I think it is a fundamental respect issue. At least that’s what I hear from the main men I trust in my life. The real answer to many problems might be a return to the Paul model of bi-vocational teaching/preaching.

    Women are a different story. Maybe for some it is idealizing the pastor. Maybe it’s the social interaction. Personally I love deep Bible study and hard questions. That is no longer permitted in certain Baptist churches because the men are so brittle and the women are so fearful.

  18. “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” by Johnson and VanVonderen has been very helpful to me. I encourage you to check into the connection between nouthetic counseling and presbyterian ideas too.

  19. dee wrote:

    This has to be one of the best example of complementarianism run amok! You can’t come to the meeting because you are not a member. You can’t be a member because you are a woman. Case closed. Men snicker behind closed doors.

    “NO GURLZ ALLOWED!”

  20. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    That comment of hers about the Reformers is especially ironic considering that they (the Magisterial ones) were scarcely any more humane toward the Radical Reformers or towards anyone _they_ viewed as heretics. The dog bullies the cat, then the cat turns around and terrorizes the mouse….

    From an old Beetle Bailey strip:
    General yells at the Colonel.
    Colonel yells at the Major.
    Major yells at the Captain.
    Captain yells at the Lieutenant.
    Lieutenant yells at Sgt Snorkel.
    Sgt Snorkel yells at Private Bailey.
    Private Bailey kicks the barracks dog.

  21. Would a man have been listened to, when faced with the facts, if he had been so diligent as Rhonda? Maybe, but the result, in my opinion, would have been the same. Fear of exposure, fear of looking ignorant, fear of what the higher-ups would say, maybe losing your position, were the operating factors here. Rhonda is obviously a candidate for a top financial position in some company. She called attention to the infractions and that is very good. Sometimes a ripple in the pond can turn into a wave.

  22. Hanni wrote:

    BTW, ever heard of The Donner Party? Just sayin’ Help, 6-8 more inches tonight!

    77 today, 77 tomorrow here on the Texas Gulf Coast…..however, Friday morning, it is to be 24-25F. Our coldest of the year….and the azalea bushes are blooming, the blueberries are budding….

  23. Such wonderful news of your daughter!!! I imagine that the annual exam is always lurking in the background and making anxiety….I am so glad for your news!

    Praise God for this huge blessing amid all the hard stories and situations you guys deal with.

  24. dee wrote:

    And, to cause further heartburn for the manly men in the Reformed tradition…maybe God is purposely calling more women than men. (Dee runs for the bomb shelter!)

    I find it particularly ironic that the vast majority of correction in the Bible is aimed at men. And if women were to leave churches in droves, most of those churches would fold. They (the manly men leader types) know this all too well. If you simply go by numbers, it does indeed appear that God calls more women that men (if you are of that persuasion). Or maybe it just that women are better at listening to God than men are. Maybe we are just too dense.

    One of the greatly overlooked solutions to many of these problems, imo, is for there to be a women’s movement, like the women’s suffrage movement, in the church. I don’t recall that it has been tried before, but I may be wrong. If not, what are you (women) waiting for?

  25. Doug wrote:

    a women’s movement, like the women’s suffrage movement, in the church.

    A couple of things about this. Brave women endured all manner of slander and assault and even being jailed in order for females to have the right to vote and hold property in their own names, etc. But, ultimately, the success of that effort was due to *men* who had the power to make the difference. Women could not force it. Good men realized that it was an unjust and ungodly system and they were the ones who made the change possible. I’m not saying that their motivations were *universally* noble because I’m not naive about political considerations.

    The reason I tried to get Joe on the other thread to look at Dabney is because he is the best and most respected conservative and Reformed theologian to get the Bible so spectacularly wrong on both slavery and women. The arguments he made are basically the same ones used against women and men who would like to see women’s inherent equality recognized in the church and home *without* the deceptive language of the “complementarians” who advocate “separate but equal.” The “comps” are a step above the Patriarchalists, just like whites who supported Jim Crow were a step above the slaveholders. Still very, very, very wrong. Being better than unimaginably bad is still not being good.

  26. @ Gram3:

    Not trying to be ugly about this.
    But a number of women have been trying for some time.
    Your guess is as good as mine as to why it will not catch on and why some are so insistent of making huge doctrine out of so little support, making God out to be complicit with their thievery.

  27. @ Mara:
    If this Doug is the same one who had trouble with MacArthurites, he may not be aware of the efforts of evangelical women who are trying to get people to listen. I pray that more men like Doug will join us in trying to get the church back to focusing on Jesus and the true Gospel instead of this false gospel.

  28. dee wrote:

    How wonderful! Your story will be helpful to many people who try to point out flaws in the church and end up getting slapped upside the head. I desperately want such people to know they are not alone.

    Sorry to disappoint you Dee but they wouldn’t print my story. So again thanks for the opportunity to have it told here.

  29. @ Mara:
    Sorry, I was away for a bit. Yes, all those things count and are to be applauded, joined, etc.

    What about a mass exodus? A single Sunday where all women boycott their church. A walkout. A march? Someone had a million man march. Why not a two million women march?

    I am sure I am ignorant on what is currently going on, so I apologize for that. But why not a national grass roots organization, an organized withholding of money, withholding of your presence, closing your wallet to raise awareness. Maybe there are people working toward that?

    Or… Why not just refuse to play the game and go start your own church(es)? If the established churches are drained of resources, for the purpose of affecting change, they will fail. If women leave, the men won’t be able to handle it.

    Of course, if my rapture theory is correct, the day after it happens the churches will be full of men wondering what to do next…

    Gram3 wrote:

    If this Doug is the same one who had trouble with MacArthurites, he may not be aware of the efforts of evangelical women who are trying to get people to listen. I pray that more men like Doug will join us in trying to get the church back to focusing on Jesus and the true Gospel instead of this false gospel.

    Yes, and amen.

  30. Doug wrote:

    What about a mass exodus? A single Sunday where all women boycott their church. A walkout. A march? Someone had a million man march. Why not a two million women march?

    Can’t say for certain. However this might be part of the problem.
    Genesis 3:16c Yet your desire will be for your husband,
    And he will rule over you.”

    Or not.
    Who knows for sure except God?

  31. Rhonda: In America each state has a Corporation Commission. Every corporation–profit or non-profit, must abide by certain rules including following their own By-Laws. I don’t understand the exact relationship of church and state in Australia, but if you haven’t already alerted the State authorities you should and they should do the follow up. I think the church may be in big trouble. Also, if there are only 30-50 left, I would hope those few people would get the point and change churches. Without $$ the leaders cannot operate.

  32. Godith wrote:

    Rhonda: In America each state has a Corporation Commission. Every corporation–profit or non-profit, must abide by certain rules including following their own By-Laws. I don’t understand the exact relationship of church and state in Australia, but if you haven’t already alerted the State authorities you should and they should do the follow up. I think the church may be in big trouble. Also, if there are only 30-50 left, I would hope those few people would get the point and change churches. Without $$ the leaders cannot operate.

    Thank you Godith,
    Before I tell you what I have tried, most churches here, and probably in America, are unincorporated associations so they are not Corporations so they do not come in under the Corporations Act.
    We have the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission however they couldn’t help me as it all happened before their Act of Parliament came in to being – December 2012. They said that the State Attorney-General has jurisdiction over charities etc. so I put it into his hands, for the second time. However he told me that it needed to be handled within the Churches internal system. So that is where it is now. Frustrating, certainly is. I used to cry when I received information like that. I don’t anymore I just see it as something I can add to my story. Dee’s quote at the beginning of Part 1 was perfect for my situation.
    ‘I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work. -Thomas A. Edison’

  33. rhondajeannie wrote:

    Before I tell you what I have tried, most churches here, and probably in America, are unincorporated associations so they are not Corporations so they do not come in under the Corporations Act.

    Not at all. There is virtually no such thing as an unincorporated church in America. I think this legal difference is one reason some folks have trouble understanding your story.

  34. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Not at all. There is virtually no such thing as an unincorporated church in America. I think this legal difference is one reason some folks have trouble understanding your story.

    Interesting, I haven’t notice anyone having trouble understanding it. If you have a problem let me know and I will clarify it.

  35. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Not at all. There is virtually no such thing as an unincorporated church in America. I think this legal difference is one reason some folks have trouble understanding your story.

    This is taken from an http://www.beavandenberk.com/ it is virtually word for word on how our unincorporated churches operate here in Australia. So I gather some churches would be unincorporated associations or this information would be superfluous.

    ‘If a church does not incorporate, it is most likely something we call an “unincorporated association.” Beginning operations as an unincorporated association is relatively easy. People simply come together for a purpose. Little or no structure is required. The association may have a “constitution” to establish certain operational rules. But opening a bank account for the association, signing a lease, borrowing money, or buying property can be difficult and risky. There is no “entity level” protection in an unincorporated association, so if there are any liabilities (from missed payments or lawsuits, for example) the members, collectively and individually, can be held personally liable. It is often unclear who owns church property, which could make it easier for ill-intentioned persons to abscond with the property’.

    And this statement here is the reason I was so annoyed by how I was treated.

    ‘the members, collectively and individually, can be held personally liable’.

  36. I appreciate this particularly because I have been also told that what happened to me in a Baptist church could not happen in a Presby church because of the governance structure. Clearly this is not true. I am reminded of a quote about something floating.

  37. I used to think that there can be more structure and less corruption in mainline denominations. Now after reading this I am re-thinking those beliefs. Those bothered me the more I thought about it today. I hope this gets publicized more in t he Australian press.

  38. Eagle wrote:

    I hope this gets publicized more in t he Australian press.

    Thanks Eagle,
    I have tried to get it into the Press, been interviewed by our top two newspapers in Victoria but that is as far as it went. Certainly added to my frustration level.

  39. @ me:
    How well you know me. This is precisely why I wanted to do these two posts. Well, I did want to support Rhonda and show her that she is believed and supported. But I also wanted to show the denominational hierarchies can still play games, especially when their stated goal is to protect the reputation of the church.

    I do have a question about that. Isn’t the reputation of the church and all of its members supposed to be that we are all sinners and screw ups? What exactly are we trying to hide?

  40. @ rhondajeannie:
    I am so sorry. That happened here when the local newspaper was supposed to print and story about child sex abuse in the church. The church called an influential member who called the newspaper to get it squashed. Can you imagine Jesus doing this stuff?

  41. me wrote:

    what happened to me in a Baptist church could not happen in a Presby church because of the governance structure

    Actually, you only got persecuted at one level in the Baptist church. Can you imagine getting beat up going up the ladder of a denomination? You could get pounded 4 or 5 times.

  42. @ Mara:
    I suspect nothing will change (in the US anyway) unless women get the attention of men in some dramatic way. Most men (me excluded, obviously) don’t take hints very well. They (leaders, pastors, manly-men) won’t respond to blogs and books because they are not reading outside of their predefined and pre-approved boxes. They are trained to be myopic, and from my experience are too into self preservation to take the risk.

    My mom used to call these guys “Caspar Milquetoast”.

    For a very long time I have thought that the evangelical church in the US needed revolution rather than reformation. However, every time I have seen it play out on a small scale it has been a disaster and left a whole lot of damaged souls it it’s wake. I wonder if a women’s revolution would have the same results?

    I am not sure what the answer is, but I would love to see a mass exodus, just for one Sunday, of women in the US evangelical church, or in just one mega-church.

    And I think it is past time for us “pewons” to have our “We’re mad as H-E-L-L, and we’re not going to take it any more!” moment.

  43. Doug wrote:

    They are trained to be myopic, and from my experience are too into self preservation to take the risk.

    I agree except that I think this is a human characteristic. I don’t think a revolutionary *event* will take place. I think it will be incremental, and the signs are already right in front of us but the dots are so diffused that we may not see the connections.

    Here are a few things which may cause a quiet revolution over the life of GenX. Not Millennials, but GenX. They are just entering their children’s teen years or soon will. When they see that the “system” does not guarantee results either in their family or in the families of others, the “system” will be discredited. Also, their wives will be confronting an empty nest and will be asking, “Now what am I about?”

    And increasing number of theologically conservative women will have earned doctorates in theology or related disciplines. They will bring new *conservative* lenses to the text. At the same time, conservative men will be in class with them and some will see that the world does not end when a woman speaks authoritatively on the Bible. Lightning will not strike. Studying side-by-side with women and listening to them speak will be much more natural for this generation of men.

    I’ve seen this personally in the instance of one woman who is an older GenX. She did a woman-safe academic degree from a well-known conservative seminary when it first allowed women to study theology. From there she went on to earn a Ph.D. and is now teaching. She is totally conservative, but her conservative study showed her the flaws in exegesis and logic. She was on the leading edge at her seminary, and there are many more coming along in the pipeline. I believe this will cause a cultural shift within the conservative church.

    I think these trends will continue and grow in the subsequent generations. In the meantime, I know of several conservative women who have had it with this authoritarianism and male-normativism. We want women to be valued *and* we want men to be valued.

  44. me wrote:

    I appreciate this particularly because I have been also told that what happened to me in a Baptist church could not happen in a Presby church because of the governance structure. Clearly this is not true. I am reminded of a quote about something floating.

    I have been told the exact same thing many times! I never believed it, though. As a civil libertarian nothing is worse to me than Byzantine government structures…. no matter where they are. T

  45. Gram3 wrote:

    I think these trends will continue and grow in the subsequent generations. In the meantime, I know of several conservative women who have had it with this authoritarianism and male-normativism. We want women to be valued *and* we want men to be valued.

    I, for one, am hopeful that you are correct. And I can see your point, on how the dots have not coalesced yet. Don’t you think the resistance to a “quiet revolution” will grow stronger then? I mean, if it’s going to take a generation (or two) to unfold, I would expect the resistance to grow stronger as they realize what is happening, and even flare up from time to time in ugly ways.

  46. Doug wrote:

    I suspect nothing will change (in the US anyway) unless women get the attention of men in some dramatic way. Most men (me excluded, obviously) don’t take hints very well. They (leaders, pastors, manly-men) won’t respond to blogs and books because they are not reading outside of their predefined and pre-approved boxes. They are trained to be myopic, and from my experience are too into self preservation to take the risk.

    I think it is changing but it is not something we can “measure” in the ways we love to measure things. One reason is because many churches are desperate to present a façade that does not communicate what is really going on. People are leaving church QUIETLY in droves. More and more are becoming occasional attenders which is almost as bad for the institution. (I think this was the real reason some in the SBC were really promoting church discipline–occasional attenders who were not loyal to their way thinking)

    I am not saying churches are going to be dead anytime soon, heavens no. There will always be programs, events, etc that attract young people/families who get caught up in it for a while. It is more like a revolving door when you look closely behind the stage at mega’s and their numbers.

    But it is becoming a big problem for churches to operate as they did, say back in the 90’s. Money is a huge issue. That is why you see so many taking their brand outside of church. That is a niche market money maker. Some of this concerning the institutional church is economic, doctrinal or hypocritical, etc. More and more people are simply not seeing the point of church.

    Do you remember the big push to get men in church back in the late 90’s? It was everywhere and some of it was silly like redecorating bathrooms with masculine motifs. Now they are losing women. If you don’t have tons of children’s programs you will lose even more. Women, for the most part, work and don’t have time but they will take their kids to programs at church. All the marketing is about getting the coming generation used to attending church. I will give you a tiny anecdote that will illustrate my point. A very large church locally had no sports programs for young kids. Another smaller church nearby does. More and more large church attendees (note I did not use member) were going to the smaller church for the sports programs. The larger church caught on after a few years and immediately addressed that problem. Now they are growing in that one area. But they are losing the 45+ age group.

    It is all about marketing. The plastic fish Jesus.

    And in general men tend to attend church with women. But a lot of the giving comes from women whether directly or through influence. (It took churches a long time to get this just as it did car companies!)

    If they lose more women, they are in trouble. They had better hope women don’t get too educated about all the wrongs things they have been taught about themselves and their roles or it will be worse. They won’t want their daughters there, either.

  47. @ Doug:

    Who forces the change? The institution or the women that support them? And what would such an organized movement look like? I certainly do not want to promote women over men. I want mutuality. I love men and think there are quite a few good ones out there. :o) Women can be just as big of despots as men when they have power. It is the quest for power that is the problem.

    An interesting side note: Even as the money comes in slower, many churches will still opt for bottoms in the pews. this creates a momentum that they hope will eventually pay off. They know that people tend to give if there. The more bottoms in pews, the more nickels in the plate. So everything revolves around getting bottoms in the pews. Everything.

  48. I am out of pocket for the next 3 hours. My dear friend of the past 10 years is moving back to her family in Norway. Her husband and our friend passed away 5 years ago from pancreatic cancer. They had no children and she has a warm and extended family in Norway and Sweden. Had he lived, they would have made the US their permanent home. I shall miss her terribly.

  49. Lydia wrote:

    So everything revolves around getting bottoms in the pews. Everything.

    God help us if that’s all it is.

    Do you think women could force a change?

  50. Doug wrote:

    Do you think women could force a change?

    Forced changed sounds despotic to me. In fact I think both men and women are involved in changing the thinking on this issue.

    Most women are much more concerned with economics right now than whether their church will allow female pastors.

  51. Lydia wrote:

    Women can be just as big of despots as men when they have power. It is the quest for power that is the problem.

    I could swear we know some of the same people! Indeed the women can be just as despotic. As I’ve said many times, that is a crime of opportunity, and women haven’t had as much opportunity to show despotism.

    Forcing change would be doing, and therefore ratifying, the very thing we are concerned with eliminating.

  52. Doug wrote:

    Do you think women could force a change?

    That would be a very bad idea. Practically it would not work. Spiritually it would be a work of the flesh, so not very spiritual. What helps is when people talk to one another about how the Bible is being misused and what that means to the full ministry of the Body. We have discovered a few couples who were thinking the same things we have been thinking, yet none of us knew the others were thinking that. Cultural change is hard, and this is cultural for the pewpeons. For the leaders it is about culture and position.

    This will be a work of the Spirit subverting human systems from within, IMO, using people who are equipped by studying the relevant issues.

  53. Instead of trying to force allowing women in the pulpit, which violates the consciences of many, why not go all the way and obey Jesus?

    Why not call no man “father” or “rabbi” and instead follow God?

    I don’t think personally it will improve things a hill of beans to force one way of disobeying God to be accepted rather than another way of disobeying God. Both are just ways of disobeying God.

    Maybe it is time to focusing on actually obeying Him?

  54. Lydia wrote:

    Women can be just as big of despots as men when they have power. It is the quest for power that is the problem.

    I completely agree.

  55. lydia wrote:

    Forced changed sounds despotic to me.

    Gram3 wrote:

    That would be a very bad idea. Practically it would not work. Spiritually it would be a work of the flesh, so not very spiritual.

    Ok, so why would an organized walkout, to raise awareness, non-violent of course, necessarily be a work of the flesh? It doesn’t have to be despotic, to physically resist or protest silently, does it?

    What if women were to fill the back rows of a church for instance? Or fill the front rows? Why could not that be a Spirit led event?

    It is a lot more difficult for the beast to be kept alive if you deprive it of food. If you physically withhold money, and your presence, that says a lot more than talking to people who will just label you as subversive and rebellious anyway. I don’t know why that can’t be done in a loving way.

  56. @ Doug:
    The women who are left in comp churches are either too afraid to do something like this or would be appalled by it. As a practical matter, then, it would be virtually impossible to do, even assuming it would be a good idea. The fact that the women did something so bold would be taken as evidence that they are actually rebellious. It’s a double-bind for women that is really quite ingenious.

    There are many of us who have left the church or been kicked out, so obviously we’re not feeding the beast. The best weapons against worldliness are are the weapons of the Spirit in Ephesians, ironically enough.

  57. @ Doug:

    Doug, I am a woman is so against gender role narrow-mindedness in the Body I have not participated in women’s ministry events in about 20 years. Even then it was rare simply because I traveled in my career and was gone all the time. I think all that stuff is silly in the Body. Now some people on the more evangelical side jump to the conclusion that I don’t think there are biological differences in the genders because I do not think there is a pink or blue Christianity and that is silly, too. The last thing I would ever do is be involved in some girls club movement whether it is women’s ministry gender roles or some sort French revolution sisterhood coup d’é·tat

    Say what you will of Dale Carnegie but I totally agree with this quote:

    A man convinced against his will
    Is of the same opinion still”

  58. Gram3 wrote:

    The fact that the women did something so bold would be taken as evidence that they are actually rebellious. It’s a double-bind for women that is really quite ingenious.

    Yeah, and I suppose there might be physical consequences for some if they tried. They are, in effect, prisoners, aren’t they?

  59. Doug, the internet has done more than you can imagine on this subject. But only those who have questions are even looking. Many women and men simply do not question. Take a look around you. This is a problem in many areas of our culture. We go along and believe what we are told. Whatever happened to question everything? What ever happened to the inventive pioneer spirit of America? The personal responsibility for what we do and believe? Some will say it never existed. I say it is that America that were abolitionists, civil rights activists, inventors, etc. They questioned what they were taught.

  60. Doug wrote:

    Yeah, and I suppose there might be physical consequences for some if they tried. They are, in effect, prisoners, aren’t they?

    I don’t think I would put it quite that way, since AFAIK, the women who are still in comp churches want to be there for whatever reason. The double-bind is that women are assumed to be rebellious by nature, so they must either accept that assumption and their subordination or they will be judged rebellious if they question the assumption because the very questioning is taken as evidence against the women. There is no win for women or men in this system.

  61. Lydia wrote:

    The last thing I would ever do is be involved in some girls club movement whether it is women’s ministry gender roles or some sort French revolution sisterhood coup d’é·tat

    I can see your point, but from my seat it would be fun to watch their heads explode.

    And I think it’s better not to play their game at all then.

  62. @ Lydia

    “Plastic Fish Jesus”
    Man, I love that…can I use it?
    I see a blog using it in the future….

  63. Lydia wrote:

    @ Doug:
    No. Our legal system would say that attending church is voluntary.

    Well, maybe so. But our moral compass ought to tell us that they are prisoners.

  64. Doug wrote:

    I can see your point, but from my seat it would be fun to watch their heads explode.
    And I think it’s better not to play their game at all then.

    I have seen the exploding heads but only back stage. They rarely explode in front of the pew peasants. (wink) Does anyone remember when 800 pastors turned their backs on Anne Graham Lotz when she was speaking somewhere at a convention? That happened years ago but I still to this day hear about it from folks who are appalled pastors acted like that. All we need is some more of that very public behavior and perhaps more will start questioning. :o)

    I think the best way to deal with this is influencing our sons and daughters. (Beware that indoctrinating youth group!)

    I have a vision that someday this thinking/teaching will be introduced to my kids and they will think it bizarre and say that it sounds nothing like Jesus and is only a misunderstood interpretation of Paul. They will think it very sad that anyone believes such things about how the body operates. Not because I told them what to believe but because we studied and discussed it because that is what Bereans do.

  65. Doug wrote:

    But our moral compass ought to tell us that they are prisoners.

    I agree but when it comes to changing the traditional status quo in the Body and with understanding scripture, I just don’t think that sort of approach works. It creates unnecessary enemies who might have listened with a different approach.

    I use different approaches all the time. Using grace and humor: thanks for inviting me but I don’t subscribe to a pink and blue Christianity so it would not be a good fit. Sometimes they ask what that means and sometimes they don’t.

    I am constantly hit on to attend YRR churches in my area. Constantly. It gets really old. So with grace and humor I say: I cannot attend there because I want my children to understand they are responsible and accountable before God for their beliefs and behavior. Oh, now that one gets attention. If anyone thinks that is mean you should see some of their tactics to get folks to church. they are downright sneaky and the door is usually through some sort of neighborhood “redemption group”.

    I had the wife of one of the Acts 29 church plant pastors invite me to their church a few years back and I said: I could never attend a church where the leaders were trained in Mark Driscoll theology. She looked guilty at first and then said, Oh, we don’t do Mark anymore. I congratulated her but said I feared his DNA had left its “mark”.

    We are so afraid to offend people but we can do this with grace, humor and resolution.Get folks thinking at the very least about what they are believing and why. I never try to convince them. They HAVE to ask more questions. Most of Christendom is based upon shallow platitudinal sound bite convo’s anyway. Or based upon sitting there and some teacher/preacher indoctrinating you with no opportunity to engage with questions. That is what people are used to. Very few people want to go deep with what they believe and why.

  66. Lydia wrote:

    I could never attend a church where the leaders were trained in Mark Driscoll theology. She looked guilty at first and then said, Oh, we don’t do Mark anymore. I congratulated her but said I feared his DNA had left its “mark”.

    Matt Chandler is what Mark Driscoll would look like if he had gone to preparatory school 50 years ago. It’s the same stuff in a nicer bottle.

  67. Lydia wrote:

    Does anyone remember when 800 pastors turned their backs on Anne Graham Lotz when she was speaking somewhere at a convention?

    They were serving her. Serving by shunning. Because Christ and the church.

  68. Lydia wrote:

    Not because I told them what to believe but because we studied and discussed it because that is what Bereans do.

    Well, that does sound like the higher road.

  69. Doug wrote:

    Well, maybe so. But our moral compass ought to tell us that they are prisoners.

    I guess I see that both men and women are prisoners to the system which keeps them in both ignorance and bondage. Some simply cannot imagine how life could work without hierarchy and authority in a marriage and a clerical class in the church.

    That is probably because two particular male victims of this theology come to my mind immediately. The victims of this system have male faces for me as well as female faces. Actually, the more I think about it, the more men I know come to mind. The bondage looks different for the men than for the women, but it is still a legalistic bondage.

    The best thing that good men can do is talk to their wives and their male friends about this and reason from the Scripture and probe them about how this impacts the true Gospel.

  70. @Lydia,
    Just curious….and I may have missed it….what area are you in? ( state and if you dare city)And if you don’t want to tell me, that’s okay too….just wondering about the YRR churches asking you to attend? ( where?)

  71. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    thanks so much. So few like talking about this stuff!

    Well, maybe if we talk about it we can help some people think through some things and scrape off some barnacles. I think there are a lot of unexamined assumptions that need to be examined, including some that I have. This Catch-22 debacle in the PC-Australia is a good illustration, ISTM, of how things get so deranged by doctrines of humans.

  72. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    So it was love all along. (wink)

    Yes of course. How could it be otherwise? They were obviously sanctifying her and not dishonoring her as a woman made in the image of God. There is probably a PiperPoem somewhere about tushies and cushies.

  73. @ K.D.:

    I live at ground zero YRR Mecca: SBTSville where we have a pope named Al. CJ lives here now, too. I never name churches for good reason. My family has already paid a very high price and they do not deserve to pay anymore. My children have even been approached much like Braxton Caner was…except in person and in a much more sinister way than the Keystone copish P&P guys. I know what these people are capable of even if the average pew sitter won’t believe it because they believe the stage personas. If they cannot break you, they go after your children. They insert poisonous pills and they have the means to do it and be believed. Always listen to the victims first.

    I think there is no worse evil than using Jesus as a protective shield for power and to use that power to do evil deeds to others. Just think how long Driscoll lasted with his many vitriolic defenders on the internet…. for years! Many of them SBC pastors!. Those same vitriolic defenders here in Mecca are now saying: Mark who? but they are still using his shepherding strategies because it is all they know.

    I don’t want to destroy people who disagree with me like they do. I want to expose power/entitlement structures that have taken over Christendom…. which to the celebs is the same thing as destroying them. The only way to get along with them is to keep your mouth shut… and many do. Is there such a thing as a Christian Mafia? Yes. They have a code of silence that is enforced: Omerta’

  74. Lydia wrote:

    Doug, the internet has done more than you can imagine on this subject. But only those who have questions are even looking. Many women and men simply do not question. Take a look around you. This is a problem in many areas of our culture. We go along and believe what we are told. Whatever happened to question everything? What ever happened to the inventive pioneer spirit of America? The personal responsibility for what we do and believe? Some will say it never existed. I say it is that America that were abolitionists, civil rights activists, inventors, etc. They questioned what they were taught.

    I couldn’t agree more. The same here in Australia. Whatever happened to integrity, doing what is right even if it costs you greatly. One of the people who have helped me through this journey is ‘Rosa Parks’. Remembering what she did helped me keep going. What an amazing lady. What I still struggle with is that people can sit in church and listen to a minister preaching to them who is ‘not above reproach’. I believe ‘Jesus expects better, and Jesus deserves better.

  75. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t think I would put it quite that way, since AFAIK, the women who are still in comp churches want to be there for whatever reason. The double-bind is that women are assumed to be rebellious by nature, so they must either accept that assumption and their subordination or they will be judged rebellious if they question the assumption because the very questioning is taken as evidence against the women. There is no win for women or men in this system.

    What I have seen here with the Presbyterian Church and their close ties with the CBMW is the matriarchal women are as much to blame as the men. They have their positions of power in the pecking order, they are the ‘Godly women’ among the women so do not question them either.

  76. rhondajeannie wrote:

    the Presbyterian Church and their close ties with the CBMW is the matriarchal women are as much to blame as the men.

    That is the only agency these women are allowed to have, so they make up what has been taken from them by the men by taking the personhood of the other women.

    A phenomenon I have seen up close is “competitive submission” at gatherings of the ladies where they tell stories about what they have given up to be a submissive wife. It becomes a game of “Can you top this!” No one is ever allowed to say, “Wait a minute, where is that in the Bible?” No one is ever allowed to question the code of silence, and there is an undercurrent of fear. I believe that is because the CBMW doctrine is built on fear rather than love.

    Reading CBMW “scholarship” is an adventure in through-the-looking-glass reasoning and exegesis. Not for the faint of heart or the Biblically uninformed. It is very effective, however, with those who have some familiarity with the Bible because it all sounds so holy and bibley. That’s the way propaganda works, after all.

    So sorry you have been put through the wringer. There are many of us who have been put out for not shutting up as Bereans. You have a lot of company.

  77. Gram3 wrote:

    So sorry you have been put through the wringer. There are many of us who have been put out for not shutting up as Bereans. You have a lot of company.

    Thank you for that. I am discovering that more and more. They gave me ‘no voice’ but when you join with others who have had ‘no voice’ the silence becomes deafening. Which can be seen by what is written in some of these comments.

  78. Lydia wrote:

    Does anyone remember when 800 pastors turned their backs on Anne Graham Lotz when she was speaking somewhere at a convention?

    How sad is that.

  79. rhondajeannie wrote:

    Does anyone remember when 800 pastors turned their backs on Anne Graham Lotz when she was speaking somewhere at a convention?

    UNBELIEVABLE. I have been thinking about this and how wrong it is. I can image when these 800 pastors get to heaven they will be all looking for that extra jewel in their crown for shunning Anne. Have to say it again. UNBELIEVABLE.

  80. rhondajeannie wrote:

    . I can image when these 800 pastors get to heaven they will be all looking for that extra jewel in their crown for shunning Anne.

    They certainly showed where their hearts are. How in the world is God offended when someone speaks his truth? That makes no sense except if someone is a hardcore legalist. Their hearts are hard and their heads are high when their heads should be hung in shame at the way they treated their sister in Christ. I cannot believe God is pleased by their disgraceful behavior. And yet every one of them would probably claim he is a gentleman and one who respects women. There is no justification in the Bible for that, and it is another instance where even the pagans behave better.

  81. dee wrote:

    she has a warm and extended family in Norway and Sweden. I shall miss her terribly.

    But think about all those Scandi shoe shops when you’re over there visiting her… (*scandimania fan here)

  82. Lydia wrote:

    We are so afraid to offend people but we can do this with grace, humor and resolution.Get folks thinking at the very least about what they are believing and why. I never try to convince them. They HAVE to ask more questions. Most of Christendom is based upon shallow platitudinal sound bite convo’s anyway.

    Lydia, this has resonated with me very strongly. Thankyou. And I have loved reading the conversation betweeen yourself, Gram3 & Doug.

  83. Lydia wrote:

    Is there such a thing as a Christian Mafia? Yes. They have a code of silence that is enforced: Omerta

    Never thought of it this way before, I think your analogy accurate. These are the ‘principalities and powers’ to stand against. How very ironic. Or maybe not.

  84. @ rhondajeannie:

    I know this is a weird question but during this ordeal did you have one of those moments that was overwhelming because some of the players in the drama YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW were really totally different in a more cowardly or sinister way?

  85. @ Haitch:

    I have thought that they redefine Omerta’ which is really to hide wrong doing and evil.

    In their redefinition, Omerta is not “gossiping”. Omerta is Christian. Omerta is not dragging the Name of Jesus through the mud. Omerta is the only way they can continue to operate.

  86. Gram3 wrote:

    And yet every one of them would probably claim he is a gentleman and one who respects women.

    Very true. Every single one of them would give you the typical comp rundown of how they are only leaders who take on the “responsibility” of their biblical role.

  87. Lydia wrote:

    I know this is a weird question but during this ordeal did you have one of those moments that was overwhelming because some of the players in the drama YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW were really totally different in a more cowardly or sinister way?

    Great question. This is taken from Part 1 and I was speaking about the minister from the local church.
    ‘The look on his face when he said this actually frightened me. I believe I had just glimpsed the ‘real’ person not the one I thought I knew’.
    Other than that I didn’t get to meet anyone else. It was all correspondence going back and forward. Some letters and emails were very unpleasant and extremely upsetting. My favourite would have to be the title of their minutes: ‘Minutes Concerning dealing with Mrs R Aubert’. Says it all.

  88. rhondajeannie wrote:

    Great question. This is taken from Part 1 and I was speaking about the minister from the local church.
    ‘The look on his face when he said this actually frightened me. I believe I had just glimpsed the ‘real’ person not the one I thought I knew’.

    It is creepy isn’t it?

    In my situation it was quite a few in several venues. I could not escape the realization that this sort of thing is often a pattern by those who seek position or power especially when they do it in ministry and are on stages. And they have plenty of people around them willing to sell their souls to help them and be part of the inner ring. Of course, in mega churches they have much more to lose including very high salaries, perks, recognition, respect of many, etc.

    Now I know some folks will laugh at thinking a minister in a small church is seeking power but they do not understand power dynamics or what people will do to retain position/control or climb the ladder. Ministry is predicated upon personal image. And protecting that image is more important than anything or anyone.

  89. Catching up on most of this conversation, which is an interesting read. But Lydia, I have a question for you.

    Do you believe there is a place where we can be egalitarians and still attend a complementarian church, putting aside the issue for the sake of peace within the church? I’m assuming a church in which you can be fully open about your egalitarian views and people accept it without trying to convince you otherwise?

    I spent a lot of time considering this, and after wrestling with it, my answer was that yes, I could do this. One of the reasons for this conclusion was my belief that this is the kind of thing I think Paul was willing to cede to the culture in order to get along. Now, I do realize that it was different when the male headship ideas were coming from the culture than the church itself, but lets fact it, it’s still the culture that favors men over women. It’s not surprising to see it in church.

    Once I truly became convinced that complementarianism is nonsensical and un-Biblical, I did wrestle with whether I should remain at my church. Instead of just leaving, what I did was just speak up and see what people said. I was expecting to be judged and treated like an inferior Christian. Instead, what I got was encouraging, though sometimes it was clear folks were confused and hadn’t considered there was any other way to think about it than male headship. I remember one guy telling me “You know it’s important to have Godly men in your life who can encourage you in your walk.” I said “I agree it’s important to have Godly PEOPLE in my life in can encourage me”. He did a double take and said, “OK- we can agree on that!” He still doesn’t “get it”, but he is trying to find the common ground.

    I don’t know if I related it before, but I did have this conversation with my pastor before my wife and I got married. Before I talked to him, she told me to pass on to him that she deferred to me in the area of male headship. LOL. My wife actually thinks the whole thing is a bit ridiculous and that identifying who is the “head” is really a strange question with little practical value.

    Last night we had a prayer meeting at church and some folks prayed over my wife and I, including the pastor. I noticed that where he would have normally prayed over a husband and wife that he might lead her and protect her, in our case he said something a little different. That we might find mutual grace with one another and find our protection in the Lord. It was a subtle change of his normal speak that I doubt anyone picked up on, but I felt respected, and that means a lot to me. It also means he’s thinking about this, if not globally, at least when it comes to my wife and I. And I think it was a better prayer 🙂

  90. Jeff S wrote:

    Do you believe there is a place where we can be egalitarians and still attend a complementarian church, putting aside the issue for the sake of peace within the church? I’m assuming a church in which you can be fully open about your egalitarian views and people accept it without trying to convince you otherwise?

    Oh I did that for years. But you know, when you have a daughter growing up and hearing that stuff….. and they DO HEAR IT as it comes up from quite a few venues, other kids, parents, staff, etc. It is sort of ingrained….it can change your perspective. I don’t think it is good for boys, either, for that matter.

    Most will say that it hardly comes up at their church but we all know that what is modeled is what kids remember and emulate.

    You can teach them at home and talk all about being at peace, etc, but when people they are told to respect and obey at church are indoctrinating them, modeling this doctrine, I think we need to take action. In my neck of the woods, there are very few churches that are not comp including the liturgical, etc.

    At the very least teach both perspectives, right? But few churches do. Why have our children living out cognitive dissonance? Why teach them that a doctrine that devalues one person over another using ridiculous reasoning like ‘separate but equal’ and the more Owellian, ‘some animals are more equal than others’….. is something to go along with for peace? Should they ignore racism for the sake of peace, too?

    I certainly don’t want to “fight”. So why stay and constantly have to be correcting this stuff? It is very hard, I know. We loved those people and they were decent but constantly correcting this stuff and being different is not always accepted by little brains that are sponges and not fully developed. If they want to go that route as adults, they will be free to do so with my blessing.

  91. I agree that this stuff is harmful for boys.

    Nothing like telling a boy that he is responsible for stuff that only Jesus/God can do.

  92. @ Jeff S:

    Or telling a boy in the midst of puberty that he is in charge of the male/female relationships in his life . . . who knows what they really hear and internalize. It’s the same scenario for girls but with a different emphasis – submission.

  93. Jeff S wrote:

    Do you believe there is a place where we can be egalitarians and still attend a complementarian church, putting aside the issue for the sake of peace within the church?

    I didn’t want to invade Lydia’s space on this as you asked her, and in any event ladies first!

    Some of us, namely me, have the opposite problem. Is is possible to go to an egalitarian church and keep quiet and not rock the boat? I’ve tried to go down this road, but conscience won’t let me.

    Now experience should not determine doctrine, but out of three local churches one is ‘free evangelical’ and Willow Creek, and the latter make this issue one of membership, so hardly a secondary issue. This church which recently called a new pastor (so things may change) is weak on immorality and plays down sin in favour of a God of love. “Love, love, nothing but love”. (There are some very super people there, though.)

    The Lutherans, where I musician from time to time, lady vicars, nice people, preach a domesticated, harmless God of love and inclusivity. No gospel.

    The Landeskirche (whatever that is in English!), where my daughter went for a while and which did her some good we visited twice, both times a lady preaching. First time was good. Second time, OK until we got to Dallas Willard and pseudo-christian mysticism, that is, gross religious error and deception. At that point the bible was closed. So what’s the point?

    Now from my charismatic days, I believed then and still do in women’s ministry. The sole exception being women as teaching elders. But I can’t let go of that, and I have at least actually attended churches where the one thing I believe God has restricted women is being ignored.

    You may now grasp partly why I have entered the fray on this subject so much here. If my thinking on this is wrong, I am at least in theory unnecessarily restricting the range of possible churches to attend. Well the bible is decisive, but experience has born it out; the church makes itself very vulnerable to spiritual attack when it ignores apostolic doctrine.

  94. Jeff S wrote:

    Do you believe there is a place where we can be egalitarians and still attend a complementarian church, putting aside the issue for the sake of peace within the church? I’m assuming a church in which you can be fully open about your egalitarian views and people accept it without trying to convince you otherwise?

    I tried. It was painful. I felt shunned within the church. Maybe my church (pastor?) wasn’t as open to it as yours and didn’t want to try. I don’t know. I sent my pastor a teaching series on the Egalitarian perspective and asked for his opinion. He didn’t respond. He just ignored it. I didn’t push in person about it. His wife taught most of the women’s Bible studies. She taught order, submission, hierarchy, and ESS. It was painful to sit through when it came up. I never talked about it or engaged in public debate during studies. I felt it would be too divisive. If I tried bringing it up in private discussion, I soon found certain people not engaging with me around church any more. I was at the church 17 years and my husband and I were very involved. But no one loved us enough to hear me. Quite sad.

  95. Ken wrote:

    the church makes itself very vulnerable to spiritual attack when it ignores apostolic doctrine.

    You keep making these statements, but then don’t acknowledge that what you see as clear and apostolic doctrine to YOU isn’t apostolic doctrine to others. An egalitarian stance isn’t what causes spiritual attacks (whatever that means to you) on the Church. Look around, there is plenty of issues in churches led by only men . . . some serious abuses to begin with.

  96. Jeff S wrote:

    Do you believe there is a place where we can be egalitarians and still attend a complementarian church, putting aside the issue for the sake of peace within the church? I’m assuming a church in which you can be fully open about your egalitarian views and people accept it without trying to convince you otherwise?

    Since Ken already crashed the party, I’ll come on in. Some folks asked us this very question fairly recently, and what we told them is that it depends on several things. First are your consciences. Seek the Holy Spirit’s counsel to guide your consciences in the right direction. Lydia had some good questions, but I would add to that based on what I’ve seen.

    Is it possible for you to stay and be a witness to the truth if you will not be accused of being contumacious for talking about it. It would be something like being a missionary within your own church. Many of us have lived through the difficult adjustments of pre-existing racist attitudes in the church. Believe me, people used to believe that God ordained racial hierarchy as well, and they believed it just as strongly as any of the patriarchalists.

    OTOH, if you are in a situation like I and many, many others have been where even asking questions was not permitted, then that obviously would not bring peace to anyone. We were considered contumacious though we never brought it up. Merely questioning the Settled PseudoScience was enough to get us expelled from the church and shunned. In my case, the Holy Spirit has, quite literally, brought people from that church to us without us ever saying a word. Quite remarkable. What I have told you is what we have told them.

    Lydia made some very good points about the kids. I don’t know what your options are, and it doesn’t seem like you are under pressure like we were. The Holy Spirit will lead you.

  97. Gram3 wrote:

    They are just entering their children’s teen years or soon will. When they see that the “system” does not guarantee results either in their family or in the families of others, the “system” will be discredited. Also, their wives will be confronting an empty nest and will be asking, “Now what am I about?”

    I am Gen X, never married, no kids, and I already noticed a lot of the problems with gender complementarian teaching especially by my mid-30s.

    I noticed most churches are set up to cater to a very small demographic, the “married with young children at home” one.

    There is a blog by a 40 something woman, who is married, and her last child just left home a year or two ago for college.

    She said now that her kids are out of the house, she has noticed that churches are too obsessed with “married with young children at home” couples, and she and her spouse felt useless, unwelcomed, or unwanted at their church as a result. She has blogged about this before, she has a blog at Patheos.

    You can read her blog, with posts about how churches overlook 40 somethings here (you’ll have to dig around to find the particular posts):
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/pilgrimsroadtrip/

  98. Ken wrote:

    Well the bible is decisive, but experience has born it out; the church makes itself very vulnerable to spiritual attack when it ignores apostolic doctrine.

    That is very true. However I suspect our definitions of apostolic doctrine differ. One very big problem you are ignoring is that what we think is apostolic doctrine is actually received church tradition. Another question you are ignoring is what the spiritual cost is to the church which denies a gifted woman from teaching males.

    Let me approach this from another direction. We are certain that Paul’s prohibition against women speaking in 1 Corinthians 14 is misinterpreted by those who would place an absolute prohibition on women preaching. Yet no one who believe Paul has been misinterpreted in that instance believes that they are abandoning apostolic authority. Can we not see from that example that 1 Timothy 2 might *possibly* be similarly mistinterpreted without those questions necessarily be denying apostolic authority?

    We must first establish what Paul’s intentions were in 1 Timothy 2 before we go about declaring our *interpretation* to be apostolic doctrine. The reasoning goes that Paul is making an appeal to Creation Order, so therefore the injunction against women teachers is universal. If that is actually what he is doing, then we should certainly expect to find that Creation Order referent in the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2. But it is not there. Anywhere. And it is based on primogeniture which is a human convention that God freely abandons as Paul recounts in Romans. Therefore, the notion of a Creation Order either does not exist or God feels free to break his own rules.

    Without a grounding for the supposed appeal to creation in the Creation accounts, Paul’s supposed appeal to creation is hung on a sky hook and grounded firmly in midair (was that from My Fair Lady?) And that doesn’t even take into account the structure of Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2 where several verses are connected by conjunctions. It makes no logical sense to sever one verse off from an integrated argument and say that verse means something in isolation.

    A “plain reading” hermeneutic cannot be applied and not applied willy-nilly. Verse 15 plainly says women will be saved through childbearing, and we know that is not true, so we also know that means that verse 15 does not *mean* what it plainly says. The text describes a lot of things with plain language, but we do not naively universalize them without considering that Paul or Jesus might be saying. Otherwise there would be a lot of people walking around with severed hands and gouged-out eyes. And a lot of women would be sinning through braids and pearls.

    Maybe, just maybe, Paul was correcting a problem specific to Ephesus with his plain language. Maybe he was correcting the false creation/deception narrative of the Ephesian Artemis cult with a plain recounting of the Genesis narrative which happens to be exactly the opposite of the Artemis narrative. In that case, the real principle to be derived is that false teachers should be silenced, that those who are untaught need to be taught first before they teach others, and that the teachings of false teachers need to be explicitly and forcefully refuted with sound reason and the actual texts.

  99. @ linda:

    I notice you often argue in favor of maintaining the status quo in this area. Which means men remain in power, and women get none in churches.

    There is nothing wrong with people wanting a fair shot at decision making and other things, it is not a form of selfishness, just asking to be treated as equals.

    Change won’t come about unless people get up and do something about it.

  100. @ Doug:

    I kind of see your point. Women should maybe consider taking action – concrete steps of some sort to protest how women are treated in and by churches – instead of sitting around praying about things and hoping they improve.

  101. Gram3 wrote:

    We are certain that Paul’s prohibition against women speaking in 1 Corinthians 14 is misinterpreted by those who would place an absolute prohibition on women preaching.

    “preaching” should be “speaking.”

    And, Ken, your only exposure in Germany or England might be to liberal or diluted teaching by women. Female teachers should not all be judged on your experiences. The female teachers who are deficient are not deficient because they are female but rather for the same reason that males who teach similarly are deficient.

    It is not necessary to have a female teacher/preacher to uphold the Biblical principle of non-differentiated gifting. The point is not “Put as Many Females in the Pulpit as Possible and All Will Be Well.” That makes as much sense as limiting the pulpit to males and assuming everything will be fine.

  102. @ Daisy:
    Daisy, I have seen the problems you have experienced close-up, and it is a big blind spot in the church. I’ve seen single women and single men used by church leadership because supposedly they have more free time and more free resources. It is even worse in comp/pat churches because singles don’t advance the narrative they are pushing regarding our purpose as humans.

    You can know Jesus’ and Paul’s attitudes toward singles by reading them without the distortion filters put on the texts by the comps/pats. They loved singles, and they loved single women, too, whom they know are more than incubators and feeding stations for babies which is how the comp/pats come across to me. Women and men are valued because they are created in the image of God and because Christ died for us. He did not die so that we can fulfill our “roles” better, for crying out loud.

  103. Ken wrote:

    Now experience should not determine doctrine, but out of three local churches one is ‘free evangelical’ and Willow Creek, and the latter make this issue one of membership, so hardly a secondary issue. This church which recently called a new pastor (so things may change) is weak on immorality and plays down sin in favour of a God of love. “Love, love, nothing but love”. (There are some very super people there, though.)

    I actually agree with this. The problem is that I think it is misapplied. Seeking power or position over others is not “love” or even “responsibility” although I know most who believe those doctrines think that it is. It is not even biblical. It is not moral or ethical, either, within the Body of Christ. So much of this is totally misapplied and we turn it into an either/or situation. Sadly, I have heard it so often….if they allow women to function in the Body then they will ordain homosexuals and condone adultery. As if being a woman functioning in the Body is right up there with the these sins. I do not understand that thinking. I have come to the conclusion it is more political thinking than it is spiritual thinking.

    What I had wished in comp churches is that we could civilly discuss the passages in an objective way and listen to other views. There were variations of comp, of course. Some of it is even down right silly as in a woman can speak in front of men but not use the pulpit or stage as if furniture confers some sort of spiritual authority over the listeners.

    My last church actually had a tradition of women deacons. But I saw that change in a few short years that devolved into… they could only be deacons to women’s ministries. Why? It started when more SBTS seminary students started attending and getting involved. They influenced people that it was a sin.

    Still, in a comp church women will be denied using certain spiritual gifts if they possess them. In a mutual church that does not happen. But neither are men denied using their spiritual gifts and can function along side women for the edification of the entire Body. So you could simply leave when a woman is teaching in a mutual type of church, if you are offended. In a comp church one must decide to live with the cognitive dissonance.

  104. Bridget wrote:

    Or telling a boy in the midst of puberty that he is in charge of the male/female relationships in his life . . .

    Except, gender complementarians will make girls and women responsible for sexuality.

    That is, they say men are in control of about every other facet in life… except for sex. Interesting and convenient how that works.

    If a man sexually sins, complementarians, nine times out of ten, will pin blame for it on a woman. Their theology is that single women are Jezebels who tempt men, and men are helpless little lambs who are unable to control their sexual feelings, especially if they glimpse a woman’s bare leg in a skirt.

    So women are told never to wear short skirts, spaghetti straps, open toed shoes (in IFB churches).
    Much is made out of “modesty” in dressing for girls and women… because men are not responsible there, only women/girls.

  105. A Post Script.
    I said, “That is, they say men are in control of about every other facet in life… except for sex.”

    Well, it depends. I should add qualifiers on that.
    Some men preachers, such as Mark Driscoll, hold a double standard where if sexual sin happens, it is the woman’s fault, for not dressing modestly etc.

    In other ways though, the gender comp men want to hold the power, so they tell women it their blogs and books that married women owe their spouses sex, and Driscoll shamed women into thinking they owed their men particular types of sex acts, etc. Gender comp men want to dictate when and how married women have sex.

    But if there is sexual sin by a man, they usually want to blame a woman for it somehow. In that, they teach women have control over sex.

  106. Ken wrote:

    Is is possible to go to an egalitarian church

    Is there such a thing?

    I’ve never seen one, and I refer to Southern Baptist or conservative evangelical churches. From what I have seen, they are all gender complementarian.

  107. Ken wrote:

    You may now grasp partly why I have entered the fray on this subject so much here. If my thinking on this is wrong, I am at least in theory unnecessarily restricting the range of possible churches to attend. Well the bible is decisive, but experience has born it out; the church makes itself very vulnerable to spiritual attack when it ignores apostolic doctrine.

    I am not familiar with the terminology “Apostolic Doctrine”. Can you elaborate?

  108. Lydia wrote:

    So you could simply leave when a woman is teaching in a mutual type of church, if you are offended.

    I find it hard to understand the thinking about a woman preaching being offensive when it is the “Word if God that is authoritative.” Why would it make a difference, or offensive, if a women shares it or man? It is the same men who claim that the Word is authoritative who say that a woman should not preach. A woman with the indwelling of the same Spirit as a man should not teach or preach?? Yes, cognitive dissonance.

  109. Gram3 wrote:

    A “plain reading” hermeneutic cannot be applied and not applied willy-nilly.

    This is also a huge problem when reading 1 Corin. In chapter 6 we have believers judging the angels. In chapter 11 we have women prophesying and that Body reminded that women will judge the angels, too. then in 14 we are told they are to remain silent (the Greek means NOT ONE WORD). So what gives with the plain reading?

    It is a long explanation but one that makes total sense. 1 Corin is a response to “Chloes” people who had questions because of quarrels. In some translations the obvious questions are in quotes. Some translations do not use quotes so it can be a bit confusing.

    Verses 34/35 should be in quotes as one of the questions that was causing quarrels. Why? Because it is word for word what is taught in the Mishna/Talmud in several places.

    Another reason we Paul is not prescribing total silence in 1 Corin 14 is because of how he answers and ironically, the KJV has the best translation on that Greek word:

    36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

    It should be read as “What???? Are you kidding me? The word of God came from YOU or ONLY came to YOU?

    I makes no sense to read it any other way since he did not chide the women in 1 Corin 11 for prophesying….not being totally silent in the church.

    there is more but I will quit. It is just went one trots out plain reading or some sort of Apostolic Doctrine to shut up over half the Body of Christ it gets a bit tedious.

    The question we should be asking is how the translators decided to use quotes in this very long letter answering reports about specific quarrels. BTW: Who were the elders of the church at Corinth? :o)

  110. Bridget wrote:

    I find it hard to understand the thinking about a woman preaching being offensive when it is the “Word if God that is authoritative.” Why would it make a difference, or offensive, if a women shares it or man? It is the same men who claim that the Word is authoritative who say that a woman should not preach. A woman with the indwelling of the same Spirit as a man should not teach or preach?? Yes, cognitive dissonance.

    This is the underlying problem. They equate teaching with authority. They equate stages/pulpits with authority. What should be taught to our children even is that NO MATTER who is teaching or speaking we are to be Bereans for the rest of our lives.

  111. Gram3 wrote:

    And, Ken, your only exposure in Germany or England might be to liberal or diluted teaching by women. Female teachers should not all be judged on your experiences. The female teachers who are deficient are not deficient because they are female but rather for the same reason that males who teach similarly are deficient.

    It is more of a matter of opportunity when it comes to females. Why seek a vocation in ministry when there are so few places where you can be hired?

    You could end up like Sheri Klouda at SWBTS with a very sick husband and demoted to be forced simply because a new president decided a woman could not teach Hebrew to young men. a woman. Of course Patterson had to ignore her great evals as a Hebrew prof and the fact she completed her Ph.D at SWBTS. They were only too willing to take the money but not allow her to function in her gifting. What was Patterson’s legal argument for throwing her to the curb? The seminary functions like a church. (Don’t forget that argument because they have used the opposite argument when it is convenient)

    The female faculty at SBTS who were forced out could really only find jobs in the few CBF churches or other more liberal colleges. They had no other choice. And yes, it might have suited some better. But that negates the fact there are MEN at those same liberal colleges/churches teaching, too.

    Sheri Klouda was eventually hired at Taylor. I went on their site to listen to one of her chapel messages —which was excellent. I love it when scholars teach scripture as scholars and not as a gender. Then, by chance, few years later I met a young man who was going there and told him about her and her ordeal. He was amazed what she had been put through and most anxious to meet her.

  112. sorry for the all the choppy sentences. I am using an ipad with a broken hand and it is a huge jumble that I think is edited when it isn’t.

  113. @ Ken:

    Well, I’d suggest those churches probably aren’t for you, for more, and greater, reasons than the roles of women.

    If a church’s doctrine is off and it has a woman pastor, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the doctrine is off BECAUSE of the woman pastor. Correlation != causation.

    It’s a favorite whipping boy of comps to say that opening the doors of ministry to women is the first step toward liberalism, and then cite all the churches that have gone down that road as examples. However, when the tables are turned they are quick to use different logic. For example, domestic violence. Men mistreating their wives due to being “head of household” is a big problem, yet comps are quick to say that it doesn’t mean that comp doctrine is inherently abusive. They will say these folks don’t represent a true example of comp doctrine. It’s actually fair, and I agree that abusers will exist in any doctrinal framework; however, the courtesy is not extended to women in ministry. If a male abuses his wife in comp church, it’s his behavior that is the problem. If a church with a woman pastor has poor doctrine, suddenly it’s the woman’s fault, not the people choosing to follow poor doctrine.

    And yeah, a lot of churches with female pastors are extremely liberal. The reason is pretty obvious, and it has nothing to do with how God has prescribed the church to be organized. It’s because the conservatives have all but abandoned those churches over this issue. To make the point, what if conservatives overwhelmingly came to the (wrong) conclusion that red-heads shouldn’t be pastors. They would leave any church where a red-head was pastoring, and those churches would become increasingly liberal (because that’s who would be left). Then, of course, this would be proof positive that red-heads lead to liberal churches. The point: correlation != causation.

    I’d submit that if a church is in doctrinal error, it’s far more likely because of a host of other issues than it is letting a woman preach.

  114. Ken wrote:

    is weak on immorality and plays down sin in favour of a God of love. “Love, love, nothing but love”.

    A little off topic here, but I think you are losing the war of language here. Churches SHOULD favor a God of “love, love, nothing but love”. Jesus and Paul both made it pretty clear that love was the highest command. So we would all do to have our churches characterized this way.

    The problem is likely that these churches really aren’t about “love”, but about “lack of conflict”. I’m not in favor of re-defining “love” to mean “let me beat you over the head with your sin” the way a lot of conservative churches do; however, it also doesn’t mean “everything goes- ignore real struggles and the hurting condition of those among us”.

  115. Jeff S wrote:

    It’s a favorite whipping boy of comps to say that opening the doors of ministry to women is the first step toward liberalism, and then cite all the churches that have gone down that road as examples.

    I see this as being another big problem for complementarians. They will usually assume any woman (or man) who rejects complementarianism must be a liberal.

    I finally realized complementarianism is false a few years ago and had suspected for years before that it was false. Yet, I am conservative, in regards to social issues (I am pro-life, for instance), as well as to political issues.

    As far as I remain a Christian at all, my understanding of the Bible remains conservative also. (I usually disagree with how liberals handle or interpret the biblical text and question its accuracy.)

    Complementarians keep wanting to conflate being egalitarian (or disagreeing with complemenatarianism) with being a liberal, which is just not true for everyone.

    It’s also dishonest, because some of us have arrived at our position from studying the Bible alone, not from being influenced by secular feminism (they often assume we’ve been influenced by secular feminism).

    The complementarians screaming over and over that people who reject comp are supposedly all liberals will not wash anymore, not with me. I wish they would move on from this poisoning-the-well / strawman argument already.

  116. Bridget wrote:

    Maybe my church (pastor?) wasn’t as open to it as yours and didn’t want to try.

    Almost certainly. When I approached my pastor about this issue (in the context of not wanting complementarian vows for my wedding), all I hoped for was that he’d respect that I had different views from him. I didn’t come prepared to wage war on comp/egal perspectives. What I got instead was “Jeff, I’ve done a lot of study about this topic and I haven’t come to my own conclusions lightly; however, I am fallible and can be wrong. If I am, I want to know and so I’m interested in why you believe what you do”. I felt a little sheepish because I just assumed he wasn’t interested, but we had a brief, interesting discussion about why I believe what I do and he was very respectful. And he didn’t try to change my mind, either.

    Honestly, though, it’s hard to make too much about it with him, since it’s a high mountain to climb for a PCA pastor to change, as it would mean leaving his place of employment to accept egalitarianism (since male leadership is baked into the PCA).

    But as comp as it is, I know my church is different from your past experiences. Women aren’t only relegated to the nursery/Sunday school. Women lead in many ways, including leading worship, the congregation in prayer, and prayer meetings (even mix-gendered ones). For example, we have just started a monthly prayer/praise service at the church, and while I lead the music, a woman is in charge of organizing and leading the prayers.

    And men are also pressed to serve in the nursery/Sunday school 🙂

    When I asked Lydia’s perspective, I wasn’t asking for advice, just an interesting discussion (and I’m glad others have chimed in). I spent a good deal of time wrestling with this, and I’m happy with my decision thus far. The comp leanings of my church aren’t strong enough that they can’t easily be countered at home, much like any other doctrinal issue I’d have with the church.

  117. Lydia wrote:

    Verses 34/35 should be in quotes as one of the questions that was causing quarrels. Why? Because it is word for word what is taught in the Mishna/Talmud in several places.

    Another reason we Paul is not prescribing total silence in 1 Corin 14 is because of how he answers and ironically, the KJV has the best translation on that Greek word:

    36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

    It should be read as “What???? Are you kidding me? The word of God came from YOU or ONLY came to YOU?

    Yes, I agree the is the best understanding of the text given the other evidence that Paul did *not* object to women speaking and the evidence that the oral Law *did* forbid women from speaking. I don’t know of another way to reconcile these particular verses with the rest of Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians and the rest of his work.

  118. Lydia wrote:

    Sheri Klouda was eventually hired at Taylor.

    Oh, that is so great to learn. The way she was treated is disgraceful and ungodly. When I heard about it, honestly, I could not believe that professed Christian leaders could do such a thing.

    You make a good point about women not studying subjects where they will have no opportunity. I think this will unfortunately be an incremental process. If I didn’t know about a few examples personally, I would be very discouraged. But God is making a way for these women, just not as fast as we might like. There are more and more women graduating from conservative programs. That is good news for conservative people like me whose churches have been overtaken by Komplementarian Kudzu.

  119. Lydia wrote:

    sorry for the all the choppy sentences. I am using an ipad with a broken hand and it is a huge jumble that I think is edited when it isn’t.

    Supposedly there are speech apps. The results would probably be as hilarious as auto-correct.

  120. @ Gram3:

    Well, the other way to recocile then is just to remove them from the text altogether. That they sometimes appear in a different place has been seen by some as evidence that they were annotations and, therefore, not a part of inspires scripture.

  121. Gram3 wrote:

    You make a good point about women not studying subjects where they will have no opportunity. I think this will unfortunately be an incremental process. If I didn’t know about a few examples personally, I would be very discouraged. But God is making a way for these women, just not as fast as we might like. There are more and more women graduating from conservative programs. That is good news for conservative people like me whose churches have been overtaken by Komplementarian Kudzu.

    http://sbcvoices.com/a-personal-mission-for-david-platt-in-regard-to-young-male-sniveling-wimp-sbcers-william-thornton/

    Here is one place they are going in the SBC

  122. @ Jeff S:
    Awesomely stated. Their logic is proprietary, because it is certainly not the logic that is taught at all universities and good secondary schools.

  123. @ Gram3:

    Oh I tried that. Never again. “Buck the system” became quite vulgar and totally not me as I did not catch it in time because the done button is awfully close to the send button. (embarrassed face)

  124. @ Jeff S:

    I am so sorry. I thought I was only stating my experience and thinking on the topic…as it is something I wrestled with for a long time. The last thing one does is pull their kids out of something they love or trust without some serious explanation if they are old enough.. I think if the parents are contented and functioning in the Body in their own gifting, the kids will be fine because you love them and it is modeled at home.

    They were also in a Christian school which did not focus on the doctrines but it was there in subtle ways such as she was discouraged from playing basketball with the boys in elementary school during recess because girls don’t do that…that sort of thing (She was even wearing shorts under her uniform so she could play!). So I felt like they were getting it…even subtly… from too many angles.

  125. Jeff S wrote:

    The problem is likely that these churches really aren’t about “love”, but about “lack of conflict”.

    Great way to put it.

  126. @ Jeff S:
    I’ve seen that, and honestly don’t have the knowledge to judge one way or the other. So I generally try to make sense of it as it is. And the oral Law perspective makes a lot of sense along with the exclamatory disjunctive. That approach may make more sense to me because of my prior familiarity with very conservative Judaism where women must be silent. Paul and Jesus had to do a lot of refuting the false and re-teaching the truth.

  127. Lydia wrote:

    I am so sorry.

    Oh, no- I didn’t mean anyone had anything to apologize for. I appreciate your (and everyone’s response). I just wanted to be clear that I was interested in perspectives more than I was interested in advice. Not that advice is a bad thing; it’s just that the former generally generates better conversation and that’s what I’m interested in doing by asking the question. 🙂

    But please don’t apologize- I felt no ill-will or anything else negative by anyone’s response.

  128. Jeff S wrote:

    It’s a favorite whipping boy of comps to say that opening the doors of ministry to women is the first step toward liberalism, and then cite all the churches that have gone down that road as examples. However, when the tables are turned they are quick to use different logic. For example, domestic violence. Men mistreating their wives due to being “head of household” is a big problem, yet comps are quick to say that it doesn’t mean that comp doctrine is inherently abusive. They will say these folks don’t represent a true example of comp doctrine.

    boy is that ever true!

  129. @ Gram3:

    I’m with you. In all honesty, my approach with these things is generally to see if it’s possible for them to mean what the seem to mean as a plain reading. If they can’t, I greatly weight other scriptures and discount the ones in question until more information comes to light.

    In almost all cases, the comp proof-texts run afoul of this- none of them can mean exactly what they state literally or they end up contradicting other scripture.

    For example, saying that no women can teach or have authority over a man. No one actually believes that word for word. They have to figure out “what kind of teaching” or “what kind of authority” it means. No one believes it’s “no teaching” or “no authority”, or women wouldn’t be able to be leaders in business or teach in school. And both Deborah and Priscilla would be examples of women who defied God’s created order (as would the men who supported them, including Paul who penned the teaching in question).

  130. One thing to remember about being in a comp church is that a husbands experiences are likely going to be different than his wife’s experiences simply due to his maleness. Open/honest communication between couples who are egal in a comp church are important, as is all communication.

  131. Bridget wrote:

    Open/honest communication between couples who are egal in a comp church are important, as is all communication.

    That is certainly true. And just like racism, when it occurs, sexism needs to be confronted by persons in the favored group. That means men in comp/pat churches need to speak up and confront assertions of things which are simply not true. That means that men need to speak up whenever the stereotypes are trotted out. Women have a responsibility to speak up when their value is diminished and the Lord’s value is diminished via the ESS heresy.

  132. @ Lydia:

    It is hard for me to muster the stomach to read at SBCVoices. The misogyny is so thick there along with the celebrity worship. However, I will take a good look at it. David Platt. Cronyism and Celebrity worship personified, complete with the ooey-gooey soothing misogyny.

  133. Bridget wrote:

    One thing to remember about being in a comp church is that a husbands experiences are likely going to be different than his wife’s experiences simply due to his maleness. Open/honest communication between couples who are egal in a comp church are important, as is all communication.

    Definitely. With my wife and I, I probably over-communicate on this particular topic (just because I know my experience is different from hers). But I think she values that I am constantly taking her temperature both about how she feels at church and the interactions between us.

    I’ve actually probably made her more aware of gender issues than she was previously, but just because she was unaware doesn’t mean it didn’t matter. She’s told me before that my attitude toward these topics is very empowering for her, and empowering in a way she didn’t anticipate.

  134. Gram3 wrote:

    It is hard for me to muster the stomach to read at SBCVoices. The misogyny is so thick there along with the celebrity worship. However, I will take a good look at it. David Platt. Cronyism and Celebrity worship personified, complete with the ooey-gooey soothing misogyny.

    I hear ya. I was linking to that article because the writer was lamenting that Journeyman mission program was mainly…women! they are in training as missionaries off to dangerous foreign parts, I believe. But who is overwhelmingly signing up? Single Young Women. This was in relation to our discussion concerning women and a vocation in ministry.

    Looks like missions to the dangerous parts of the world is still open to the lowly women in the SBC. Seems the young men are more interested in ministry gigs here.

  135. @ Gram3:

    And I thought David Platt was being Radical making very little money, giving it away and living in bad neighborhoods. Becoming the President of the IMB is certainly a step away from that “doctrine” he was hawking at his church. Wonder if it is ok for his former parishioners to move on, too?

    Of course, Platt was putting his life at risk for the gospel in Dubai not long ago. (shaking head) Seems he can send the girls to dangerous places, though.

    These guys are so phony I cannot for the life of me figure how folks cannot connect the dots.

  136. Lydia wrote:

    Single Young Women. This was in relation to our discussion concerning women and a vocation in ministry.

    So……are the women only ministering to women and children when they go to these dangerous places?

  137. Doug wrote:

    So……are the women only ministering to women and children when they go to these dangerous places?

    Depends on if the comp police are patrolling . . . which I doubt since their are few men going 😉

  138. Doug wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Single Young Women. This was in relation to our discussion concerning women and a vocation in ministry.

    So……are the women only ministering to women and children when they go to these dangerous places?

    Don’t you know exceptions are made for uneducated adult men in third world countries? Here is how you do it. You don’t give her an exalted Christianese title and never call it preaching or teaching. Then you insist she is under the “authority” of her regional supervisor who is male so he is magically controlling her words from afar. Now it is biblical.

  139. @ Lydia:
    OK, read SBCVoices post and the underlying post. What can I say? David Platt has built a church in a part of Birmingham that is very scary if you are not from at least the upper-middle class, so he is obviously equipped to know how to handle scary environments. I mean, have you ever dared venture into Brook Hills? I have, and it is scary. We know some people who live in Mountain Brook which is even scarier.

    Don’t know if some of the commenters there have lost their irony perception skills or what. But the guy who whined that the IMB doesn’t adequately support the women that are sent was beyond priceless. There were a bunch of women in his group and he had to escort/chauffeur them around because the culture there is so misogynistic. Those pesky wimmin who volunteered to go do a dangerous place were keeping him from doing important ministry because he had to drive them! It never occurs to him that the line he and his buds feed women is that supportive ministries are just as important. Bullfrogs and Horsefeathers. This is when we see through the servant-leader schtick of the comps. Servant-leader does not mean leading through serving like this guy was actually doing. No, being a servant-leader means serving by leading, which is what this guy was complaining about not being able to do.

    Oh, and the one listing all the excuses for why there are multiples of single women for every single man was hilarious or pathetic or both. They can’t go because Dating and Marriage is Important to a Single Man in His Early Twenties, So They Must Stay Here to Serve the Church. Like single women are not giving up some prime marriage and dating years when they go and serve! Seriously, how vain and blind can young men be?

  140. @ Lydia:
    Or alternatively, racism trumps sexism. Brown men or black men are lower than white women, so all is well. God is OK with that. Because Order of Creation and the Curse of Ham is still in the church subconscious.

  141. Lydia wrote:

    And protecting that image is more important than anything or anyone.

    You only have to look at the great lengths the Presbyterian Church of Australia goes to to uphold their reputation. Taken from their Code: ‘In all circumstances a court seeks to uphold the reputation of the church’.
    I love this quote from The Pirates of the Carribbean:’And thirdly, the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules’. I don’t think so.

  142. Gram3 wrote:

    We know some people who live in Mountain Brook which is even scarier.

    Hee Hee. I have an extended family member who lives there.

  143. Gram3 wrote:

    Seriously, how vain and blind can young men be?

    These vain and blind young men have totally infiltrated SBC churches either as followers of the gurus or grads from SBC seminaries. It really is that bad out there.

    Concerning the “we must stay here to serve the church” shtick. That reminded me of Calvin when he was asked to go pray with the plague victims as they were requesting their great leader. he said he was too important to the church to take the risk.

  144. @ rhondajeannie:

    I am amazed at how many churches have some sort of guidelines or covenant or ‘what we believe’ type statement that includes “coming to the leaders if you have a problem before discussing it with anyone else” type of statement in them. Sounds reasonable? Don’t believe it.

    It is all about image.

  145. Lydia wrote:

    “coming to the leaders if you have a problem before discussing it with anyone else”

    Stop, you’re cracking me up.:) Yes, that always works out well. For the leaders. Which is the point.

  146. Gram3 wrote:

    They can’t go because Dating and Marriage is Important to a Single Man in His Early Twenties, So They Must Stay Here to Serve the Church. Like single women are not giving up some prime marriage and dating years when they go and serve! Seriously, how vain and blind can young men be?

    I think the point of that particular comment was the churches make marriage a pre-requisite for pastoring, so by giving up prime dating time, young men trained for pastoring are putting their ability to gain employment at risk. I believe that the commentor was (correctly) pointing out that the church is subverting the idea of this ministry if they punish applicants by adding an un-biblical requirement to gain employment. And of course, the commentor isn’t concerned about women who want to pastor for obvious reasons . . .

    Pastoring is the only profession I know of where marriage is a pre-requisite, so that is why there is extra pressure on these men beyond what any non-pastoring man or woman would have.

    Anyway, the whole article is a bit strange to me for multiple reasons. It wants to address the “problem” by asking Platt to speak louder about it when it’s probably a far more complex situation than “just tell people to change and do it with more force” can solve. I mean, it didn’t even address whether the situation is a problem or not and why it would be.

  147. Jeff S wrote:

    Anyway, the whole article is a bit strange to me for multiple reasons. It wants to address the “problem” by asking Platt to speak louder about it when it’s probably a far more complex situation than “just tell people to change and do it with more force” can solve. I mean, it didn’t even address whether the situation is a problem or not and why it would be.

    The writer cannot do that because the problem is the elephant in the room that is not allowed there. This is speaking in generalities but the number of men (married or single) opting for the mission field after seminary in the SBC has dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. Why?

    Simple: the YRR movement. “missions” in the SBC is now church planting in the USA (mostly in the South where there is a church on every corner) for 20 something seminary grads to walk into and be the leader. Another area of missions in the SBC is for the YRR to infiltrate existing churches and teach them the true Gospel.

  148. Jeff S wrote:

    The problem is likely that these churches really aren’t about “love”, but about “lack of conflict”.

    YES!! Thank you. An awful lot of pondering why we don’t fit in the Willow type church fell into place with your little phrase ‘lack of conflict’. There is a kind of lukewarmness, wishy-washy, you don’t know where you stand about it, even though (to avoid appearing as though all I want to do is to find fault), there are some really decent people there.

    Part of why we drifted out, wife first and then me, was not knowing where you stand on anything. The bible is not the ultimate authority, you can appeal to it, but (for example) psychology in the form of psychobabble can trump it. Ignore it if it makes anyone feel bad about themselves. If Willow Creek endorses something, it is OK even if in reality it is borderline occultism.

    When a new youth pastor was appointed, my wife looked at the address and wondered if he was already living with his wife-to-be before getting married. We don’t know and never found out the answer to that, but you shouldn’t even have to pose the question, it ought to be unthinkable.

    My objection to the ‘nothing but love’ I quoted earlier is not because I’m a miserable old Pharisee who wants to remove this from the bible or de-emphasise it as the aim of Christian living, but because in the UK in particular talking about a God of love has resulted in a society that paraxodically despises him and presumes that if he exists all will be well. After all, he loves everyone. The love of God is not, actually, something the bible talks about very much. Huge swathes of the text don’t mention it at all!

  149. @ Ken:

    I’ve seen the ill that can happen when love or peace is defined in terms of conflict avoidance. I’ve spent a lot of time listening to abused women tell their stories, and so much of the time the theme running through them is that those around them just wanted them to take the abuse for the sake of peace. So you get this call for peace and love to allow for abuse to take place as long as it is hidden from the public eye. This even bring us (amazingly) back to the original topic of this thread- the church in Australia was more about avoiding conflict than dealing with legitimate issues.

    In fact, I am someone who has a tendency to avoid conflict at all costs. I don’t like to be at odds with people, and I don’t like to fight. BUT, I know that the Gospel calls me to more, because I’ve seen that if you avoid the fights that need fighting, the oppressed never see justice and real peace is never realized. If I am truly to be a person of love and peace, I cannot find it in the name of avoiding all conflict, but by actually building peace and acting in a loving way. That’s a lot harder to do, and something I work at.

  150. @ Ken:

    “The love of God is not, actually, something the bible talks about very much. Huge swathes of the text don’t mention it at all!”
    +++++++++

    I disagree. There are tons of them. They’re just not everywhere.

    Seems to me those huge swathes of text are in the ‘chronicling history’ (past or future) genre. Lovelovelove simply wasn’t the point or the purpose.

    Here’s what I think: going on and on about love is boring.

    it’s too much of a good thing (to the audience, & certainly the writer). And it’s not reality. Stories (fictional and factual accounts) about love (even our own relationships) go all over the place — love talk is minimal. “Love” is understood. It’s challenged. It’s doubted. It’s stretched. It’s illustrated in the greater story through many different happenings, some of them confusing, antagonizing, sad, painful.

    And occasionally there are verbal expressions of it that mean the world.

    (I mean, loaded with meaningfulness)

  151. Jeff S wrote:

    Pastoring is the only profession I know of where marriage is a pre-requisite, so that is why there is extra pressure on these men beyond what any non-pastoring man or woman would have.

    Not sure what you mean, but that seems to presuppose that the men are motivated by getting on the career track of a pastorate here. I thought that the original point of the post was that men *are* abdicating their responsibility while the single women are stepping up.

    The other thing is that these young men have absolutely no recognition at all of the impact that the young women are absorbing from the rigged system: they are not allowed to teach/preach at home, they face the same pressure to marry to be valuable as young men, their biological clocks are ticking, and overseas postings are more dangerous for women.

    I saw the commenter as totally disregarding an entire point of view and just whining and making excuses. I think the underlying problem is that they don’t believe the propaganda put out by their own system, and they are acting accordingly. The real goal is not to serve but to have a sinecure.

  152. Jeff S wrote:

    In fact, I am someone who has a tendency to avoid conflict at all costs. I don’t like to be at odds with people

    If it’s any comfort, you are not alone!

    My besetting foible if not sin is to confuse meekness with weakness. I think being non-assertive can be a positive virtue, but not where a failure to intervene would lead to others being harmed. I don’t know about you, but I still sometimes cringe at the very thougth of confronting someone with what they are doing wrong.

    I’ve not really had much to do with domestic violence problems in (or outside) church, more often people getting into things that will damage them, like inner healing therapists or similar. But you can meet very strong opposition if you try to counter this kind of thing, however ‘gracious’ you attempt to be.

    Isn’t it extraordinary how much resistance there is in churches to trying to clear up things that have gone wrong, whether physical violence or abuse or false damaging doctrines or practices*. You would think that Christians of all people would want to get all this out into the open and try to deal with it, rather than cover it up.

    * I don’t mean nitpicking over obscure secondary things here, but more serious deviations from NT practice.

  153. Lydia wrote:

    Simple: the YRR movement. “missions” in the SBC is now church planting in the USA (mostly in the South where there is a church on every corner) for 20 something seminary grads to walk into and be the leader. Another area of missions in the SBC is for the YRR to infiltrate existing churches and teach them the true Gospel.

    Wow, that is so true!

  154. @ Lydia:

    “Simple: the YRR movement. “missions” in the SBC is now church planting in the USA (mostly in the South where there is a church on every corner) for 20 something seminary grads to walk into and be the leader. Another area of missions in the SBC is for the YRR to infiltrate existing churches and teach them the true Gospel.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    stating the obvious here, but it seems to me they’re co-opting “missions” for their own self-interests:

    to create salaried jobs for themselves
    to feed the industrial food chain
    to pump life into their industry
    so they can continue to have jobs
    so they can continue to have control & power
    & for sentimental reasons

    and all the silliness of “lead/leading/leadership” colored glasses. All the men are pumped up with this bravado stuff and they need a context to be able to exercise it. Foreign cultures are not all that rewarding in the bravado department.

  155. Ken wrote:

    After all, he loves everyone. The love of God is not, actually, something the bible talks about very much. Huge swathes of the text don’t mention it at all!

    I think you are getting at the problem of God is *only* love which does occur here, too. But I’m going to disagree that the Bible does not talk about God’s love very much. Viewed from the perspective that “God is love” and Jesus coming to earth was motivated by God’s love for us, then I think that God’s love is woven through the entire Bible. The problem is what is left out that God is also about, like holiness, for example.

  156. @ Gram3:

    My understanding is the men do just fine setting themselves up for a career in pastoring- it’s mission work overseas where they aren’t stepping up.

    So a young man fresh out of college who wants to be a pastor is shooting himself in the foot if he takes some time overseas first. He’ll come back likely single and unable to get a job.

    Or at least that was my take on that specific commentor.

  157. @ Jeff S:
    Yes, that’s my point. They presume that they will serve God here rather than overseas. And it still neglects the very salient fact, if one is a young woman, that giving up two years of her young twenties when *she* could be looking for a husband. Why is there a double standard? The young women are viewed as being expendable and those two years of her life is every bit as valuable, or even moreso, than a young man’s two years. I do not understand why this is not glaring, except that the time and life of a young woman is simply not valued.

  158. @ Jeff S:
    OK, I’ve been doing some grandmotherly activities and thinking about why that commenter got me so riled up. And it is because that thinking created a big problem for me as a woman some years ago, and it wasn’t anything to do with ministry. It had to do with a situation that required all hands on deck, but a Male or two decided to abandon his post because he had other Important Things to do, so I had to fulfill all the tasks, *even though it meant that I was giving up what I thought was important* in order to do something which was even more important. But the thing is, my “sacrifice” was deemed of no value, and a male sacrificing his desire or ambition was unthinkable. Because Important Male. Because Entitled Male. I could give some details that are so unbelievably ironic, also.

    That’s what is creating the problem. It is at least two-fold. First is male entitlement to an Important Authoritative and Comfortable Position. That is the realm of service reserved exclusively for males. There is a perceived opportunity cost for them to go overseas, and they have counted that cost and described it on that thread. The corollary to that is that women must go overseas to exercise the gifts that God has given them. A second corollary is that an Entitled Male who goes overseas to “serve” feels cheated because he only gets to “serve” as a driver for females who are doing the work of ministry. This is the old double-bind and double-standard and woman-blaming that we see in the conservative church.

    The second part of this is that the women are going, but the opportunity cost for the women is calculated at zero by these Entitled Males, and the reason for that is that underlying all of that is a zero valuation for being a wife and mother. On top of that, there is no value imputed to the lost years of the women’s lives and all that entails WRT their attractiveness (lost market value) to Entitled Males once the females get back to the States. There is actually a huge opportunity cost for these women, but that cost is invisible to Entitled Important Males because women are essentially invisible and only valuable to the extent that they further the Entitled Males’ interests.

    This should be obvious, and it is very, very ugly in principle and in practice. It never occurs to these Entitled Males that they would balk at living under such a system where women made all the rules and they were rebellious if they raised an objection. It disgusts me because I’ve had to bear the consequences and then, on top of that, be lectured by a young Entitled Male about how I needed to overlook the deficiencies of the othe Entitled Male and just basically do my job, their jobs, and also facilitate whatever involvement they cared to offer when it was convenient for them to do so.

    I’m sorry to get so heated, but like Mrs. Aubert, it never hits home until it hits home. Things will never get better until people start examining the underlying pathology and address that.

    The second

  159. Jeff S wrote:

    I’ve seen the ill that can happen when love or peace is defined in terms of conflict avoidance. I’ve spent a lot of time listening to abused women tell their stories, and so much of the time the theme running through them is that those around them just wanted them to take the abuse for the sake of peace. So you get this call for peace and love to allow for abuse to take place as long as it is hidden from the public eye. This even bring us (amazingly) back to the original topic of this thread- the church in Australia was more about avoiding conflict than dealing with legitimate issues.

    Yes! And the ones who focus on the angry God who punishes sin only focus on certain types of sin. They would never see their own authoritariansim, controlling behavior or power grabs, as sin. Does CJ see his shepherding empire he built as built on sin? Of course not. But boy, living together before marriage would be cause for excommunication at SGM.

    In someone like CJ’s world, victims mentioning their abuse was “gossip” and a horrible sin but his protecting the molesters (and telling victims they are the same sinners) was not sinful but what God wanted them to do.

    They simply have no moral authority.

  160. elastigirl wrote:

    stating the obvious here, but it seems to me they’re co-opting “missions” for their own self-interests:
    to create salaried jobs for themselves
    to feed the industrial food chain
    to pump life into their industry
    so they can continue to have jobs
    so they can continue to have control & power
    & for sentimental reasons
    and all the silliness of “lead/leading/leadership” colored glasses. All the men are pumped up with this bravado stuff and they need a context to be able to exercise it. Foreign cultures are not all that rewarding in the bravado department.

    That is it. I would add one more. Most Christian celebs use a church venue to catapult their celebrity status. The church pays for the conferences, you have time to write and social network and sometimes the church even pays to send him places overseas to fact find about “church planting” there etc. (That part rarely comes to anything but it is so spiritual and a free trip)

  161. @ Gram3:

    The golden theme of “rescue” all through scripture is nothing but love.
    I think some have a skewed or more pop culture definition of love. Love is not what we feel. It is what we do. (I know, many view that as works salvation which is sad)

  162. Gram3 wrote:

    It disgusts me because I’ve had to bear the consequences and then, on top of that, be lectured by a young Entitled Male about how I needed to overlook the deficiencies of the othe Entitled Male and just basically do my job, their jobs, and also facilitate whatever involvement they cared to offer when it was convenient for them to do so.

    I saw this all the time evangelicalism. Another entitled male leader would tell the women: Why not be wronged for the cause of Christ. (by another Christian who is paid to be a Christian? How does that work?) Or they are told that by doing it instead they are being more pious and Holy. (ARen’t they worried about the less pious and holy one making a living off Jesus?)

    There was always a “shaming” effect on the woman instead of looking at what is fair and just and at both as equals. To me, it is right up there with corrupt scales. God does not like it.

  163. Lydia wrote:

    I know, many view that as works salvation which is sad

    Boy, I sure hope not 🙁

    I run in Calvinist circles and I don’t know anyone who would regard love being something we do as works salvation.

    DC Talk had it right: Luv is a Verb 🙂

  164. @ Gram3:

    I’m totally with you on the comment about the guy not wanting to drive females around, etc. The whole tone of a lot of the comments was very dismissive of the work that women can do. The framing of the who article was male-centric. A female-centric article would have been “look at all these wonderful women stepping up to do God’s work!”

    My only was suggestion was that the other guy (not the guy complaining about having to serve women) who commented about churches requiring pastors to be married was making a pretty valid point that churches who require pastors to be married contribute to the problem of men staying home rather than serving abroad. Of course, they are also contributing to the problem of women being forced to go abroad if they want to serve by not hiring women at home to do the work they’ll send them to do abroad.

  165. @ Jeff S:

    And I *do* understand that a woman who sees her ultimate vocation as being a wife and mother is giving up just as much opportunity as a man wanting to be a pastor does by serving abroad.

  166. Lydia wrote:

    Don’t you know exceptions are made for uneducated adult men in third world countries? Here is how you do it.

    I have asked before on this blog, in months past, if American gender complementarians would be fine with women missionaries from other nations preaching to American men.

    When U.S. gender comps feel it’s OK for women to preach, lead, or teach men in nations outside the USA, they are in effect communicating that gender comp teachings only apply to American Christians.

    So, American Christian gender complementarians are making nationality a criteria in regards to preaching, teaching, holding authority, and leading, and not really gender, and not the Bible.

    (They claim to follow the Bible on gender and gender roles. They obviously do not, as they are not consistent with their own beliefs. They seem to feel it’s acceptable to bend what they consider “biblical rules” about gender in some cases, which makes their entire view of gender bogus, among other reasons.)

  167. Gram3 wrote:

    Oh, and the one listing all the excuses for why there are multiples of single women for every single man was hilarious or pathetic or both. They can’t go because Dating and Marriage is Important to a Single Man in His Early Twenties, So They Must Stay Here to Serve the Church. Like single women are not giving up some prime marriage and dating years when they go and serve! Seriously, how vain and blind can young men be?

    Christian men do not date and marry, certainly not in their 20s. Many single Christian women over 25 who want to be married have noticed that – they get asked out more by Non Christian men than by Christian ones.

    That is one factor of a million why I (who was formerly all Christain) and wanted marriage am still single past the age of 40. I suspect that the guys saying that in the thread are using that as an excuse as to why they won’t go on missions.

    In my case, I would be honest and say I was never interested in missions. I do not even like to go on vacations or car trips out of state in the United States. I do not like travel, staying in hotels, etc.

    I would be up front with that and admit it, not try to wiggle out of things by saying, “Oh I need to stay in the USA so I can date men and get married.”

  168. @ Gram3:
    Age might be at play, as well. I have heard of gender comp churches that will permit women to lead and teach males, but there is usually a cut off age, where once the boy reaches 12 (or whatever arbitrary age is chosen), then the women are not allowed to teach the males any longer.

    So the message that sends, IMO, is that it’s okay to allow easily-deceived, stupid, dim witted women to teach false doctrine to young boys, but we have to protect adult men at all costs from those same women.

    You would think it would be the opposite because boys (and girls) tend to be more trusting and naive to being led astray than adults.

  169. @ Jeff S:
    I think we are talking about separate issues. The *fact* is that women are valued at zero despite all the talk about equal value and worth and so forth.

    WRT the young guys who refuse to go, why is what they are possibly giving up more than what the young women are giving up? The same churches that require married pastors require, in effect, for women to get married.

    I don’t think you are getting my point or I am not communicating. The young males are giving up far less than the young females. Why is it so much more urgent for the young males to stay home in a favorable marriage pool but it is not urgent for the young females whose fertility and market value declines every year. Every one of those females is giving up more than any of the Entitled Young Pastors-to-Be.

    I’m sorry, but this just gets me more angry and brings up a lot of junk. I’m sorry that I’m not communicating the problem better. I think a relative over-valuing of male is so baked into church culture that it is all but invisible to any who have not had it come crashing down in their heads, and this particular thing can’t come crashing down on your head. Ever. Unless you are in a female-normative church culture.

  170. @ Gram3:

    I think we are talking about separate issues as well- and I agree with what you are saying. The sacrifices women make are not valued and they should be.

  171. @ Jeff S:
    Why don’t these Entitled Young Pastors-to-Be look for wives among the women going to serve overseas who are demonstrating their character? It is because these Entitled Young men feel equally entitled to the widest possible selection of females. It is hypocrisy, and it sickens me that no one pointed it out or even thinks about it or even cares about it.

    I think God is shaming every last one of these Entitled Young Men, but they are too arrogant to see it. God is calling young women to go and serve other young women who are trapped in male-dominant cultures. The irony is thick, but these so-called Pastors-to-Be cannot see it. They should be ambassadors for women’s freedom and liberation in these environments instead of whining about what they are giving up. They betray what they are really about.

  172. Gram3 wrote:

    The second part of this is that the women are going, but the opportunity cost for the women is calculated at zero by these Entitled Males, and the reason for that is that underlying all of that is a zero valuation for being a wife and mother.

    Perhaps in that particular case, but overall, in Christian culture, women who never marry and who never have children are treated like failures or losers – ask me how I know.
    There is usually an over-emphasis upon marriage and having children to an extent that Southern Baptists vilify adult singleness and remaining childless.

    I’m not so sure I agree that ladies lose their attractiveness over time… that is more a message that secular advertisers send, and some sexist Christian men.

    I have been told a time or two by Christians on other sites that my chances of marrying now that I am over 40 is about nil because I am supposedly an ugly, old bag – but these people have no idea what I look like.

    Of course, most men on dating sites on all ages only want to date 20 year old women. So there is some sort of bias going on there.

  173. Gram3 wrote:

    But I’m going to disagree that the Bible does not talk about God’s love very much.

    I’ve been listening to Pawson on this theme, but don’t have the statistics handy. It’s not an attempt to devalue the idea of the love of God, but to get it in perspective.

    For example, the love of God is not mentioned in Acts at all, which means it was never included in any of the ‘gospel presentations’ contained there. Hell wasn’t mentioned either, btw. I don’t think there is any verse that specifically says God loves unbelievers.

    The last thing a nation like Britain needs to hear about at present is a God of love, who is tolerant and non-judgmental and frankly rather harmless. The country has deliberately and increasingly aggressively rejected its Christian tradition and heritage. The notion of a God who is to be feared has all but disappeared, even in the church. As far as the latter is concerned, I fear the charismatic movement has something to answer for in this regard, overdoing the happy-clappy bit somewhat.

  174. Jeff S wrote:

    who commented about churches requiring pastors to be married was making a pretty valid point that churches who require pastors to be married contribute to the problem of men staying home rather than serving abroad.

    I’ve posted about that problem before. Churches are prejudiced against singles and will not allow single adults to serve as preachers or as Sunday School teachers.

    See this article, for example:
    Unmarried Pastor, Seeking a Job, Sees Bias
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/us/22pastor.html?pagewanted=all

    Baptist Christians, and other sorts of Christians, have turned marriage into a requirement for church service, for being taken seriously, for salvation for lots of things. It’s remarkable.

    I guess Jesus wasted his time dying on the cross for humanity’s salvation, when all people need to do to take care of that is get married. I guess God is not as smart as Al Mohler and other Southern Baptists.

  175. Gram3 wrote:

    young females whose fertility and market value declines every year.

    Ouch. I’m over 40 and would still like to marry eventually.

  176. (Gram3, if you see this post, I left you- and I think Lydia- some other posts farther up the page, if you would care to scroll back up and look for them.)
    Gram3 wrote:

    Why don’t these Entitled Young Pastors-to-Be look for wives among the women going to serve overseas who are demonstrating their character? It is because these Entitled Young men feel equally entitled to the widest possible selection of females. It is hypocrisy, and it sickens me that no one pointed it out or even thinks about it or even cares about it.

    One reason I find this funny or strange.
    Growing up, I would sometimes read these books or magazines about Christian living that my mother would buy.

    These materials would every so often have a testimony from some Christian woman who said she met her husband while serving as a missionary in some other nation.

    The inference in these Christian articles I saw is that all single women should use that approach if they want to marry (it never appealed to me personally because I hate to travel).

    Single, Christian women who desire marriage are presented with two or three approaches on how to get married in most Christian content I’ve seen over my life.

    One approach says you must throw yourself into volunteer work at your church and serve other people, and that is how you will meet your spouse.

    I did read one story with an American lady missionary who wanted to marry. She felt she would meet Mr. Right while serving in China, or where ever she went, but she never married.

    I do find it sad and funny that the young men in that Baptist thread are not considering the young missionary ladies as possible spouses, because in a lot of Christian material I have seen, women are taught that serving, or being missionaries, is how they will meet a spouse.

  177. @ Ken:
    There needs to be a balance, that is for sure.
    On a personal level, it can also be damaging to emphasis one aspect of God’s character over the other.

    My mother was a very sweet Christian lady who seemed to view Jesus and God as syrupy-sweet, kindly old grandpa types. She ignored all the passages in the Bible of God’s anger, or Jesus strongly rebuking people.

    She raised me to emulate the soft, gentle, kind side of Jesus. I was never taught how to deal with conflict but to be a big doormat.

    As such, that left me wide open over my youth and adult years to being bullied, harassed, and taken advantage of.

    I really do Christians would portray a more balanced view of God, and not stress his loving side over his judgemental, wrath side, nor vice versa.

    I’ve met Christians who swap it around and downplay God’s love and hype up God’s assertive side, and they are not pleasant people to talk to or be around, they tend to be very angry, un-loving, they won’t cut people any slack, etc.

  178. Ken wrote:

    The country has deliberately and increasingly aggressively rejected its Christian tradition and heritage.

    Ken, I have had some interesting discussions with my British friends about this issue. They have a totally different perspective than you do about “Christian Heritage”. They see it as something that was stuffed down their throats as kids even in school when they had religious instruction classes. (they are in late 60’s). They see it as their country, while increasingly tolerant over history, has a state sanctioned church.

    They reject the “heritage” because they see it as only “tradition” and not necessarily truth. I wonder if you have run across that thinking.

  179. Ken wrote:

    The last thing a nation like Britain needs to hear about at present is a God of love, who is tolerant and non-judgmental and frankly rather harmless.

    That’s what I thought you probably meant. I don’t see how there can be a cross without both justice and mercy or a God without both love and holiness if we go by what is revealed.

  180. Ken wrote:

    For example, the love of God is not mentioned in Acts at all, which means it was never included in any of the ‘gospel presentations’ contained there.

    You don’t see love as implicit in His sacrifice and resurrection (New Life)? IOW: His actions were love.

  181. @ Ken:

    “For example, the love of God is not mentioned in Acts at all, which means it was never included in any of the ‘gospel presentations’ contained there. Hell wasn’t mentioned either, btw.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    perhaps it was understood. perhaps it was inferred in the moment, but the writer of Acts was only hitting the highlights. or perhaps it was indeed communicated but in the letter to O Theophilus the writer merely captured the essence of what happened.
    ——

    “I don’t think there is any verse that specifically says God loves unbelievers.”
    ++++++++++

    “For God so loved the world that He….”?
    —————-

    “The last thing a nation like Britain needs to hear about at present is a God of love, who is tolerant and non-judgmental and frankly rather harmless. The country has deliberately and increasingly aggressively rejected its Christian tradition and heritage. The notion of a God who is to be feared has all but disappeared, even in the church.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    perhaps it is indeed the tradition and heritage that are being rejected, not so much God himself. unfortunately, God is often guilty by association. Love is what changes people. God’s supernatural love is what changes people exceedingly, abundantly above.

    I can’t see introducing God like this (see picture below) as being helpful at all.
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/lysander2/3856024043/

    (I was glared at and stared down by Jesus just before getting an ice cream cone a few steps away on my visit to Canterbury.)

  182. @ Daisy:
    Sorry, Daisy, that’s not expressing my view of the value of women. It is just an acknowledgement of the way that women are viewed by our culture–as a perishable commodity. As I’ve said, what is true of you is true of some young women that are very special to me. I am truly sorry if what I said hurt you. Truly.

  183. Daisy wrote:

    Of course, most men on dating sites on all ages only want to date 20 year old women. So there is some sort of bias going on there.

    Yes, that is true. And I agree that the culture does not properly value women as people. That’s what I’m trying to speak out against.

  184. @ elastigirl:
    You know, Mrs. Aubert was asked to join the board presumably because of her bookkeeping/accounting skills. IOW, the other members thought she had something valuable to contribute to their board’s operation and function. As long as she performed her service the way they wanted her to, all was well. But as soon as she threw the flag, suddenly the value of her skills dropped to zero, and her services were no longer required.

    Which makes me wonder actually why they wanted her to join the board in the first place. Was it actually to use her gifts and skills to help the board fulfill its responsibilities? If so, then her input regarding possible wrongdoing would have been valued. If, OTOH, it was just to keep up appearances of the board fulfilling its responsibilities, then this is exactly what we would expect. How can one avoid the conclusion that they were using her?

  185. Jeff S wrote:

    In fact, I am someone who has a tendency to avoid conflict at all costs. I don’t like to be at odds with people, and I don’t like to fight. BUT, I know that the Gospel calls me to more, because I’ve seen that if you avoid the fights that need fighting, the oppressed never see justice and real peace is never realized.

    One of my favourite quotes comes from William Wilberforce: ‘You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know’.

  186. Gram3 wrote:

    Which makes me wonder actually why they wanted her to join the board in the first place. Was it actually to use her gifts and skills to help the board fulfill its responsibilities?

    Gram 3,
    I worked out very early in the piece that it was to help the minister get what he wanted. After I organised a fund-raiser that was very successful he really pushed to get me on the Board. I was only on the Board for 10 minutes and I knew he was up to no good. Seems ironic now and about the only thing that makes me laugh about the whole ordeal.

  187. Daisy wrote:

    Of course, most men on dating sites on all ages only want to date 20 year old women.

    Meh, they’re just looking for someone their own mental age.

    Daisy wrote:

    I have been told a time or two by Christians on other sites that my chances of marrying now that I am over 40 is about nil because I am supposedly an ugly, old bag – but these people have no idea what I look like.

    One of my heroes, Colleen McCullough found the one who rocked her boat and partnered with the love of her life at age 47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_McCullough
    It’s not for anyone else to speak their own romantic fears into your life.

    You’ll be right Daisy – I do believe that if you really want to meet somebody then you will, but he needs to know that you exist, and I do think you need to come to Australia and meet some ‘real men’ (Haitch ducks for cover, as she realises it sounds like Mark Driscoll is moving to Australia with that statement). And who knows, you may meet someone of your own nationality outside of your country…

  188. Gram3 wrote:

    but it is not urgent for the young females whose fertility and market value declines every year.

    This got me thinking (I appreciate you’re not giving your opinion here, but that of society). It’s not just men who contribute to this harsh opinion, it’s women also. I recently was working in a cubicle where the female manager and a male colleague discussed right next to me how “hot” the new temp was (she was very attractive and dressed well). Just as disturbing was not just the comments but that they were said right next to me and I was invisible. It felt like dark ages stuff, but no, this is now. As is this incredible piece of media:
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/senior-surgeon-gabrielle-mcmullin-stands-by-advice-for-female-doctors-to-stay-silent-on-sex-abuse-20150307-13xzog.html

  189. Sounds like the HRCC. When leadership holds the keys to the kingdome it is time to move on or get the locks changed. This woman has given it the old college try…and *then some*. Maybe it is time to move on and let the Lord take over.

  190. Lydia wrote:

    They have a totally different perspective than you do about “Christian Heritage”.

    I wouldn’t want to overdo the loss of Christian influence in Britain either. The country never was ‘Christian’, but it was formerly more influenced by the gospel and general Christian tradition. I do think it has used a lot of that capital up, but I’m not claiming the country has yet got to the stage of being nothing but a bunch of pagan heathen.

    But in the breakdown of family life which is now rife, the immorality, the general greed, and materialism and obsession with shopping, you see the fruits of moving away from Christianity. A vacuum has been created, and all sorts of odd things are filling it, including pagan things.

    It is though getting harder to make an effective Christian witness, and tolerance is getting a bit thin on the ground. If this trend continues, believers are going to find themselves under ever more pressure to compromise. The dear old Church of England (in which I became a Christian and from which I have benefitted a lot) is often very compromised. Unbelievers hold in in contempt. It might be the established church, but is only really there to provide the religious bit for state occasions. It was never established with a view to bringing the word of God to bear on the country’s manifest sinfulness and moral rebellion against God!

  191. james wrote:

    Maybe it is time to move on and let the Lord take over.

    Sometimes I wonder why the Lord allows these things to occur in His church. The Lord is in charge and always has been. For me it boils down to the innate sinfulness of man. Christians usually do not behave all that differently than those outside the faith. We can give examples of great Christians but we can get great examples of those who are not Christians.

    The longer I am at this game, the more I realize that we Christians have been forgiven of our sin but we are still functionally sinners. And, for the 6 years we have been doing this blog, some of the most difficult sins to observe are those that are done in the name of God by those who profess to be his church.

    Yesterday, I learned that on 21% of atheists divorce and the divorce rate of Hindus are much lower. For all of the evangelical blather about protecting traditional marriage, we don’t do a good job of that. And don’t get me started on reporting of child sex abuse in churches.

    Well, its Monday morning after Daylight Savings Time. Perhaps I will be a bit more chipper later n the day. Thank you for your comment. It got me thinking this morning.

  192. @ elastigirl:
    I had a suspicion I would get some comeback on my comments on stopping preaching a God of love to the godless British!

    What I didn’t say is as important as what I did. I’m not saying there is no sense in which God loves the general unbeliever. Since we all started out that way, there would be no hope for any us if this were literally true.

    But if the gospel as preached in Acts didn’t mention the love of God, then should we? It isn’t so much that God doesn’t love people, it is that for them to experience it in any meaningful way the great barrier between them and God has got to be removed. They need forgivenness and righteousness to be given them. ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life’ is not the gospel, although it is not wholly untrue. God’s love is not shown in his feelings towards us, but by what he did for us, the focal point being the cross.

    The NT is always balanced: Note then the kindness and the severity of God. Most of my Christian life the kindness has been almost the sole attribute anyone wants to talk about. But without going all hell fire and brimstone as a reaction, his severity also needs to be taught, particularly towards unbelief, or we will end up with a false view of God and a distorted gospel.

    Preaching a God of love to a society that rejects God can and does lead to presumption; that unbelief can never lead to anything terrible. In the real world, it is not God who is in the dock and needs to answer the questions of unbelievers; it is the unbeliever in the dock who needs to answer the questions posed by God. And the question God is posing is do they want to be reconciled to him, to end their moral autonomy and rebellion? And their chief sin is the one thing they don’t want to recognise as sin: unbelief.

    Once they have been reconciled by putting their faith in Christ, then teach the love of God – and experience it too. Isn’t the baptism in the Spirit – pentecost – about the love of God towards us? Knowing it rather than just knowing about it?

    I am very far from wanting to dismantle what the bible says about the love of God. But to talk about it with unbelievers as something prímary is to put the cart before the horse.

  193. @ Ken:
    I just don’t follow your reasoning here, and think it is entirely posdible that you are, as elastigirl said, missing the point re. Acts and other NT books. It is much like people who get all wound up about the fact that God is never mentioned in the book of Esther – because i believe it’s pretty obvious that that is a narrative device,mactually intended to point out the writer’s overriding sense of God’s presence throughout the book.

  194. @ Haitch:
    I know I should be shocked. Over here, we have female secondary school teachers soliciting sex from their students. Doctors, teachers, and pastors should be the most trustworthy, and when they are not, it is hard to understand. It’s a power and entitlement mentality that people are available for personal use.

    The SBCVoices comment thread brought the underlying attitudes toward women into the light, IMO. I’ve heard that the young women going as missionaries in this program will now have to raise half their support. That, I suppose, is seen as the fix for the shame that the men should be feeling but do not. If we eliminate the program, then we will eliminate the evidence that SBC women are ready to go to dangerous places while the men stay home on eharmony reading their theology books.

    For all the braying that they do about protecting women, it is abundantly clear that they are not at all concerned with the women who are without Christ and without hope and living under plenty of patriarchy and abuse overseas. After all, they might have to do something unmanly like be a driver to women who are ministering to the least of these.

    Really, I don’t see why these men are so blind to their pride and why they are so hard-hearted.

  195. @ Ken:
    Also, i really wishyou could be a little more friendly toward “unbelivers,” because your use of the word is evidence of an Us vs. Them mentality that you might not be aware that you have.

    Who, exactly, rescued the wounded man in the ditch in Jesus’ parable in Luke? Answer: someone who was most emphatically not part of the “Us” of that day’s society. Putting that in contemporary terms, Jesus might cite a Muslim who is (secretly) gay, Pakistani and a Qur’anic scholar.

  196. Ken wrote:

    I am very far from wanting to dismantle what the bible says about the love of God. But to talk about it with unbelievers as something prímary is to put the cart before the horse.

    Actually, every unbeliever is different and learns about God in different ways. I actually did need to hear that God loves me and that Jesus did love the world and gave his life as ransom for many. It was after understanding these facts that I had a desire to know and love God my Father on his terms.

    If love is your cart, then I don’t agree that it is necessarily wrong to put the cart before the horse. I also don’t believe that there is some ‘formula’ for coming to know and love God.

  197. Ken wrote:

    God’s love is not shown in his feelings towards us, but by what he did for us, the focal point being the cross.

    That is the best way to talk about God’s love which is not a feeling kind of love but rather a being and doing kind of love. God demonstrates his own love for us by Christ dying for us *while we were still sinners.* The love of God comes while the unbeliever is still in unbelief.

  198. @ Ken:
    Personally, i do not accept your view of “the severity of God” as accurate. But then, i believe in substitutionary atonement, *not* in penal substitution. I also do not believe that dtians are some kind of latter-day chosen people. If anything, most of the NT makes it emphatically clear that Christ died for all, that God’s mercy and love are for all, and that there are no longer any barriers (cf. the “dividing wall of hostility” in Ephesians 1) between God and human beings.

    Or, in the words of another NT writer, mercy triumphs over judgement. (Which might well be using the triumphal parades of Roman generals and their legions as a refernce point.)

  199. @ Gram3:
    Speaking of how women are valued, I wonder if anyone else has noticed how homeschooled girls of high school age are devalued in many evangelical and Reformed churches. I am not going global and saying everyone does this but, a lot of people who send their kids to public, private, or Christian schools seem to think that homeschooled girls are prime targets for paid babysitting during the day during women’s Bible studies, brunches, etc. as if the girls are not really being taught and as if they do not really have a commitment to education. I find it very sad. I see them viewed a lot of times as expendable, second-class girls/women. Anyone else notice that?

  200. Bridget wrote:

    Actually, every unbeliever is different and learns about God in different ways.

    I agree. But the over-emphasis on God being loving has I think led to a distorted view of God; despite that, hearing about the love of God in a society that is starting to forget the meaning of the word love might for some individuals be exactly what they need to hear.

    I’m talking in generalities. The whole seeker-sensitive approach is based on a gospel of persuading people to believe there is a loving father and all they need to do is to realise just how much he loves them. I’ve spent a few years in churches with this emphasis, and it doesn’t seem to lead to real conversions or much change. There is a very real danger of creating a God whom we want to exist: a psychological God who loves us unconditionally and who makes few if any demands. His prime purpose is to build up our self-esteem and make us feel good about ourselves.

    If you want an example of this approach to evangelism, the Alpha Course from what I can remember of it goes a long way down this road.

  201. Ken wrote:

    The NT is always balanced: Note then the kindness and the severity of God. Most of my Christian life the kindness has been almost the sole attribute anyone wants to talk about. But without going all hell fire and brimstone as a reaction, his severity also needs to be taught, particularly towards unbelief, or we will end up with a false view of God and a distorted gospel.

    So Ken would you say you favor a carrot and stick approach instead of the all carrot approach you see as being the trend nowadays? From my understanding and reading of the Bible, I can’t fault your interpretation if that’s it. It is certainly one of the ways to have a consistent viewpoint for the sovereignty of your God.

  202. Godith wrote:

    I see them viewed a lot of times as expendable, second-class girls/women. Anyone else notice that?

    Hard to say. It might be due to the flexibility of scheduling that homeschooling affords and a safe way for the girl to earn some money. But I don’t know a bunch of homeschooling families with girls old enough to babysit, so I don’t have much info to go on.

  203. numo wrote:

    @ Ken:
    Also, i really wishyou could be a little more friendly toward “unbelivers,” because your use of the word is evidence of an Us vs. Them mentality that you might not be aware that you have.

    I haven’t heard a Christian person use this language for a very long time, I only hear it from the mouths of extreme faith Muslims when talking about the ‘kafir’. I’ve heard ‘unchurched’ and it sounds less condemnatory to me.

  204. @ Haitch:
    It’s used a lot by evangelicals in the US. Apparently some in the UK (who have likely been very much influenced by Americans, I’m thinking).

    And yes, it’s the same as “kaffir.” (I’m guessing that can be transliterated more than one way, so…)

  205. @ Haitch:
    But… I have seldom seen or heard anyone in the US using “unbelievers” outside of their own circle.

    otoh (to my shame), I had to work hard to expunge it from my own vocabulary, post-getting the boot from the euphemistically-named That Church.

  206. Haitch wrote:

    ‘unchurched

    I actually have terrible associations with this word, as in, strongly condemnnatory. otoh, it’s definitely *not* quite the same thing as calling someone an infidel.

    But the principle is the same, including the refusal to recognize other religions and their adherents as worthy of any kind of respect. Which, I’m guessing, boils down to this = humans like to believe they are part of a Special Group That is Better Than All Other Groups. Could be the golf buddies you hang out with, could be your local bridge club, could be church (or temple, or synagogue, or…).

  207. @ Haitch:
    Case in point re. usage by US evangelicals here.

    * It probably goes without saying that I do not agree with the views of the writer I’ve just linked to, but I’m saying it anyway.

  208. re: use of the word “Unbeliever” – numo wrote:

    But… I have seldom seen or heard anyone in the US using “unbelievers” outside of their own circle.

    I see I must be mixing in the wrong circles !

    I agree as to ‘unchurched’ too, it’s just as alienating, but I heard a lovely person I know use it, so it kind of stuck with me.

    One of the best things about being on the ‘outside’ is that I have a broader group of friends who I don’t judge as being ‘in or out’ or see as potential converts. They are my friends, period.

    I feel I am better at looking at where the heart lies now, that’s what I judge and where I look at when I’m engaging with someone.

  209. PS Got to run to work now, but I’ll dig a bit further into the Hawaiian leprosariums/Molokai later.

  210. @ Haitch:
    Molokai, as you probably know, is where Father Damien lived and died. Once you got a Hansen’s diagnosis and were sent to Molokai, you could not come back. He contracted Hansen’s Disease after going there to try and help the people who were living there (mostly in absolutely hideous conditions).

  211. Haitch wrote:

    One of the best things about being on the ‘outside’ is that I have a broader group of friends who I don’t judge as being ‘in or out’ or see as potential converts. They are my friends, period.

    Yep!

  212. james wrote:

    Sounds like the HRCC. When leadership holds the keys to the kingdome it is time to move on or get the locks changed. This woman has given it the old college try…and *then some*. Maybe it is time to move on and let the Lord take over.

    I think the Lord left before I did. I do not like this ‘let go and let God’ in a lot of ways it can be a cop-out for Christians. I believe I was called to that local Presbyterian Church to expose what was going on in the wider Church now if I just walk away as so many do how is that going to see change come about. The battle continues and it is back in the hands of the Church if nothing happens then I will give it one last try with the Government. At least I now have an abridged version of my book I can pass on to the media.

  213. numo wrote:

    Also, I really wish you could be a little more friendly toward “unbelievers,” because your use of the word is evidence of an Us vs. Them mentality that you might not be aware that you have.

    I’ll happily explain the use of the term unbeliever.

    i) It’s used (albeit rarely) in the bible, and doesn’t have to be pejorative. Christians are designated as believers; hence those who are not Christians are not believers, and don’t claim to be.

    ii) More recently in engaging with atheists and agnostics, the former in particular are very keen on defining themselves as having an absence of faith in God or gods. They are most insistent on the absence of faith idea over against claiming there is no God. Fair enough. Hence absence, no, faith, belief simply means they are defining themselves as ‘un-believers’. I am merely using their own designation of themselves.

    As for them and us, there is no shortage of this mentality on the part of certain unbelievers. It’s very much a ‘we have Science and Reason, and you (morons) have Faith (= believing something for which there is no evidence or despite evidence against it) and Superstition’.

    I think it essential when dealing with this way of thinking to keep a sense of humour, to be patient and unfailingly nice, to admit when you don’t know, and above all not to react to being bated. If you manage this, and it’s not easy, it is possible to win a certain amount of respect, even from hardened atheists. Many have a online persona that is different from the real person.

    It seems to me I’m having a job here to avoid coming across as pharisaical when I’m trying to state things plainly without intending offence. There is a balance between thinking being ‘in your face’ and blunt is virtuous in its own right, and watering it all down and being nuanced to the point of effectively having nothing worthwhile to say.

    The bible does have some clear and unequivocal things to say about the human condition, that we generally don’t want to hear, and there is a point where you have no choice but to be plain spoken. Surely an honest diagnosis of a real problem is better than being fobbed off with what you want to hear?

  214. @ rhondajeannie:
    Hi Rhonda Jeannie, are you having fun reading all the segues on your page? heh, it’s all good and very typical, it’s something I enjoy about TWW.

  215. numo wrote:

    Molokai, as you probably know, is where Father Damien lived and died. Once you got a Hansen’s diagnosis and were sent to Molokai, you could not come back. He contracted Hansen’s Disease after going there to try and help the people who were living there (mostly in absolutely hideous conditions).

    Hi Numo, yes heard of Molokai and Father Damien. It’s on my ‘to do’ list to visit sometime. My bookmarks have let me down, but if I ever find the place I (think) I was referring to, I’ll post it. In the meantime there’s this cheeky piece – some of the comments, groan. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mathewguiver/head-to-molokai-immediately#.piJ09L68vo

  216. Haitch wrote:

    Hi Rhonda Jeannie, are you having fun reading all the segues on your page? heh, it’s all good and very typical, it’s something I enjoy about TWW.

    Yes I am and it is good to know people are discussing ‘Spiritual Abuse’ and not sweeping it under the carpet as has been done in years gone by.

  217. Hey Rhonda, it’s your friend from Twitter, Casey from the states. I could say quite a bit here but I’ll try to surmise: In the US, we keep Church/State separate which after reading this, I’ve never been more greatful for. As you know I’m a Reformed Calvinist and apart of the PCA Church here in America. The Conservative Presbyterian Churches here in the states are PCA (Presbyterian Churches in America) of which Dr. R.C. Sproul is a leader within, RPC (Reformed Presbyterian Church) and lastly OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church). Now these three denominations are in agreement theologically-doctrinally but differ in worship style and minor non-essentials of the faith.
    What you seemed to have dealt with is NOT AT ALL PRESBYTERIAN NOR CHRISTIAN nor anything that a born again believer and follower of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ) would have done unto you! I apologize on behalf of anyone who claims to be “Presbyterian”. Please have mercy upon us, forgive us, and hold not this transgression upon us. I’m truly sorry for what they have done unto you my Sister in Christ! May The Father, through The Blessed Son, by His Holy Spirit bring them all to justice, conviction, repentance bearing fruit and seeking consolation and restoration with you, if for anything but peace.
    Romans 15.13

    Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

    Sincerely,
    @caseysean77

  218. Thank you Casey, I know that not all Presbyterians act like this. I think the Presbyterian Church of Australia needs a good shake up and some of these old Ministers and Elders who have been in the same churches year after year (they have life tenure) need to take a look and see that Christians and non-Christians expect better from their denomination.

  219. Life tenure?! That is insane! The only existing tenure in the states is when someone with a doctorates degree is given one by a committee, usually a distinguished Professor but not necessarily the case always. @ rhondajeannie:

  220. Casey on Part 1 on the Blog Post I wrote about a ‘so-called’ cult that was supposedly hiding in the Presbyterian Church of Victoria (Aust). This is part of the comment I made:
    ‘But what is interesting in Morag Zwartz’s book ‘Fractured Families’ on page 90 she writes ‘……to avoid the unprecedented act of a minister being removed under the code…………..’ I see this as a real concern, the word ‘unprecedented’ sets off huge alarm bells’.