Complementarians or Eternal Female Subordinationists? Why I Still Don’t Get It.

"These people do not know that while Barak trembled, Deborah saved Israel, that Esther delivered from supreme peril the children of God … Is it not to women that our Lord appeared after His Resurrection? Yes, and the men could then blush for not having sought what the women had found." –Jerome, after criticism for dedicating his books to women link

http://www.visionforum.com/about/default.aspx
link

I love blogging. There are so many good thinkers out there and I am thrilled when they choose to come to our blog and share their thoughts with us. I never know which blog post will resonate with out readers. Last week's post The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: If You Can’t Explain It to Me, You’ve Got a Problem garnered over 500 comments which I truly didn't expect. So, I decided to continue on with the discussion.

Courtney Reissig, a Neo-Calvinist and self-styled complementarian, wrote a post for Her.Meneutics called Amen to Women in Politics. As I read the article, it became clear to me that the complementarian position is not clear. This post helps to explain why I believe that position will become less and less influential within the Christian community as whole. It certainly is not supported by the secular society which looks at the Christian community's attempt to explain this the same way they look at that Duggar family getting ready to do a TV show on how to counsel child sex abuse victims.

As insane as it sounds, the couple are said to be pitching a new show that will center on their counseling victims of sexual abuse — like their daughters, Jill and Jessa.

Understanding the history of the development of the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son during the last century

This is the crux of the matter. If you do not understand what is being pushed here, you will not understand why the notion of comp theology is on the big screen. The real problem lies with what came first-the chicken (female subordination) or the egg (the subordination of Jesus?) In 2006, Ben Witherington wrote a post discussing the historical development of this doctrine during the 20th century. The Eternal Subordination of Christ and of Women.

In the later part of the twentieth century the doctrine of the Trinity captured the attention of theologians more than any other doctrine, and this interest has not waned. At no time in history, since the theologically stormy days of the fourth century, has there been so much discussion on this topic. Books on the Trinity by Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox theologians continue to be published. 

The co-equal nature of the Trinity vs. the hierarchical nature of the Trinity.

He says that this interest exhibited itself in a strong affirmation of the co-equal nature of the members of the Trinity which led to an understanding that humans, too, are co-equal in relationship.

it is no surprise to find that some of the best contemporary expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity understand the Trinity as a charter for human liberation and emancipation

However, during this same period, there was an equal push by some evangelicals to perceive the Trinity as a hierarchy.

Paradoxically, in this same thirty-year period in which the co-equality of the divine persons has been powerfully reaffirmed and the implications of this teaching for our human social life recognized, many conservative evangelicals have been moving in the opposite direction. They have argued that the Trinity is ordered hierarchically, with the Father ruling over the Son. The Father is eternally “head over” the Son just as men are permanently “head over” women. In this model of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than being a charter for emancipation and human liberation, becomes a charter to oppose social change and female liberation.

Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (1994) is the key to the development of hierarchy.

This was summed up by Wayne Grudem in a book which has profoundly affected evangelical thinking.

This new teaching on the Trinity came to full fruition in 1994 with the publication of W. Grudem’s, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan, 1994). Two chapters in this book outline his doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son in function and authority. The impact of this book on evangelicals cannot be underestimated. Over 130,000 copies have been sold and the abridged version, Bible Doctrine (ed. J. Purswell; Zondervan, 1999), with exactly the same teaching on the Trinity and women, has sold over 35,000 copies.

However, Witherington disagrees that Grudem's assumptions have a strong basis in history as he suggests.

 These words disclose the key issue; that is, the Son is eternally set under the authority of the Father. Grudem insists that this understanding of the Trinity is historic orthodoxy (cf. his latest book, Evangelicals, Feminism, and Biblical Truth [Multnomah, 2004] 405-43). It is, for him, what the creeds and the best of theologians have maintained throughout church history. 

This hierarchical understanding of the Trinity has now almost won over the conservative evangelical community. Most evangelicals seem to believe this is what the Bible and “the tradition”—that is, the interpretive tradition—teach. However, I am also an evangelical, but I am convinced the opposite is the truth. The Bible (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:13; etc.) and the interpretative tradition summed up in the creeds and Reformation confessions speaks of a co-equal Trinity where there is no hierarchical ordering. 

In Grudem's camp, the subordinated role of women is the battle of our age.

The issue is not really the Trinity at all. What has generated this novel and dangerous doctrine of the Trinity is “a great cause,” the permanent subordination of women. For some evangelicals “the woman question” is the apocalyptic battle of our age.

They are convinced that the Bible gives “headship” (“leadership,” in plain speak) to men. If this principle were abandoned because of cultural change the authority of the Bible would be overthrown and the door would be opened to homosexual marriages, the ordination of practicing homosexuals, and believe it or not, the obliteration of sexual differentiation.

To bolster support for this “great cause” the doctrine of the Trinity has been redefined and reworded to give the weightiest theological support possible to the permanent subordination of women. 

Witherington carefully outlines the faulty reasoning.

What has to be noted in all this is the circular nature of this reasoning.

1. A novel theology was first devised to theologically ground the permanent subordination of women based on the argument that men and women are equal yet differentiated by their God-given, unchanging roles; and then
2. the wording and ideas used to develop this novel case for the permanent subordination of women were utilized to develop a novel doctrine of the Trinity that spoke of the Son as equal, yet eternally subordinated in role or function; and then
3. this novel doctrine of the Trinity was quoted to theologically justify and explain the permanent role subordination of women.

If this line of reasoning is correct, then this means that the doctrine of the Trinity has been reformulated in terms of fallen male-female relationships to support what was already believed: women are permanently subordinated to men. Instead of correcting sinful human thinking, the primary doctrine of the Christian faith, the doctrine of the Trinity, has become a theological justification for such thinking. In the end, the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than being seen as a charter for human liberation, has become a charter for human oppression. 

Ontological versus functional equality

Those in Wayne Grudem's camp do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in terms of the nature of his existence. He is co-equal in that regard. He is subordinate only in the fact that he is submissive to the Father in his function. In their line of thinking, this makes it OK.

The definition of subordination

It is my opinion that the complementarian crowd mess up in this area. They appear to believe that by merely making Jesus different in function, then the Trinity is still coequal. However, this does not play well in reality. Let's take a look at the definition of subordination. Here is the one from Merriam Webster.

Full Definition of SUBORDINATE

1
:  placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position :  inferior <a subordinate officer>
2
:  submissive to or controlled by authority 
3
a  :  of, relating to, or constituting a clause that functions as a noun, adjective, or adverb

Here are some synonyms for subordination.

​Inferior, minor secondary, submissive subservient, unequal

Here are antonyms.

First class, important, main, primary

It is obvious that the Subordination of the Son folks came out the gate already behind. Words matter. And these words are particularly difficult to downplay.

CBMW promotes the idea that women will be subordinate to men in eternity.

The following statement would be amusing if it didn't sideline women. It appears that they don't know much about the new creation but they most certainly know that women will be subordinate forever. End of discussion.

 There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident, though, that “God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood.”52 There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain. The social fabric of gender-based distinctions of roles was weaved in a pattern that accords with the prelapsarian decree of the Creator. In the new creation, that fabric will not be discarded or destroyed. The stains will be removed and rips mended. The fabric will be cleaned and pressed. But the pattern established in God’s “very good” creation will remain.

Let's call it what it is: eternal female subordination.

 I want to give special thanks to TWW reader, Leila, who came up with a better term for complementarianism

Here’s one that’s better because it annoys the heck out of hardcore comps. “Female subordinationist.” 

I have no idea why it would annoy the heck out of them because that is precisely what they are proposing if they understand the definition inherent in subordination.

So why promote women in politics? 

I am afraid that I do not get female subordinationist, Courtney Reissig's, *rah rah* piece on women in politics. I continue to hope to see a woman in the White House before I go home to eternal subordination to the likes of Wayne Grudem, CJ Mahaney, et al., I believe that the sidelining of women in government, business, and the church has hurt each of those entities as well as out society. Secular society is changing. So is the church. At the same time there has been a full court press to develop doctrines to keep over 50% + of the church from sharing their wisdom and experience with the rest of the church.

Here is what she had to say.

While the numbers of female officials in the US are slowly edging up, their voices have long been rallying for social good and change. Throughout history, women fought for protection from harsh factory conditions. They have defended rights for pregnant women and mothers. They stood alongside men in efforts to abolish the slave trade. Today, they continue their work to bring hope to a society in desperate need of redemption and restoration.

It is not good for the man to be alone, God said (Gen. 2:18). We all benefit from the work and voices of female leaders, who stand alongside men to bring change to a broken world.

However, that change is only for anything that is not involved with the church.

She claims that being a stay at home mother is excellent preparation for being a political leader. However, she shows naivety when she discusses a number of women who have not fulfilled that role in any traditional way.

As a complementarian, some may be surprised that I applaud female leadership in the public sphere. While I believe that leadership in the church rests on qualified, male pastors, I don’t carry that belief into the culture because I don’t think the Bible does. Many fellow complementarians are with me on this point. As women like Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton pursued the presidency in recent elections, evangelicals noted that while Scripture clearly speaks directly to spiritual leadership in the home and church, it does not make the same kind of clear statements on women in governmental leadership. Additionally, many point out the examples of women leading as queens and judges in the Bible.

I should be one of those who get it. I have stayed at home full time.Yet, I am so supportive of those who have not. Each of us are called into different paths.

Reissig pushes Nikki Haley as a model female governor. Yet Haley does not represent Reissig's believe in homemaking. Here is Haley's career path. 

Haley worked for FCR Corporation, a waste management and recycling company,[16][17] before joining her mother’s business, Exotica International, an upscale clothing firm, in 1994.[18] The family business grew to become a multi-million dollar company.[18]

Haley was named to the board of directors of the Orangeburg County Chamber of Commerce in 1998.[19] She was named to the board of directors of the Lexington Chamber of Commerce in 2003. Haley became treasurer of the National Association of Women Business Owners in 2003 and president in 2004.[19] She chaired the Lexington Gala to raise funds for the local hospital.[18] She also serves on the Lexington Medical Foundation, Lexington County Sheriff’s Foundation, West Metro Republican Women, President of the South Carolina Chapter of the National Association of Women Business Owners, Chairman for 2006 Friends of Scouting Leadership Division campaign and is a member of the Rotary Club in Lexington.[20]

Now, let's take a look what would happen if a Christian woman of Haley's experience showed up in your average, female subordinationist church. She would not be allowed to teach a Sunday school class on the Christian and politics. Instead, they could have the 29 year old guy who read a book on it teach. Why? Women are not allowed to teach a mixed class. Does that truly make any sense?

As Christian woman participate and lead industry, the military, social welfare programs, participate in think tanks, manage large groups of people, teach courses in psychiatry, psychology, disease prevention, etc., it is going to become more and more difficult to sideline them in church and say "Take care of the 2 year old class while the men make the important decisions for the church."

Everybody except those who believe in the subordination of women get it. Men are the leaders of the church and the experience of women does not make any difference. That makes no sense to most people.

Because I said so

I made a point in explaining to my kids why they could or could not do things. Other mothers would use the "Because I said so" mantra. "Because I said so" does work with intelligent, thoughtful people. Years ago, I discovered a problem in a church which I believe dealt poorly with some boys who were molested. Having some experience in dealing with child abuse, I tried to intervene. The elders rejected our concerns. One elder attempted to blame one of the molested boys, saying that he should have know better.

I have watched those church leaders and others screw up in handling child sex abuse, domestic violence, etc. I am firmly convinced that women on those elder boards would have made a difference. The men were more concerned about their dadblasted *authority* then they show for those who were wounded.

I find it amusing when a group of men come up with theories about the way life is going to be in heaven. Its kind of like John Piper telling us why bridges collapse. They have no proof; merely a set of proof texts and utter trust in their own imagination. Such proof texts sideline 50%+ of the Christian population. What if they are wrong? 

So, I look forward to anyone out there who thinks they can explain to me why a woman with a vast amount of experience and sensitivity should sit quietly and listen to some guy who read a book and listened to some sermon. 

Comments

Complementarians or Eternal Female Subordinationists? Why I Still Don’t Get It. — 1,591 Comments

  1. You win because I hit publish when I was proofreading. Do me a favor and reread it now. I have corrected a bunch of mistakes!

  2. As Christian woman participate and lead industry, the military, social welfare programs, participate in think tanks, manage large groups of people, teach courses in psychiatry, psychology, disease prevention, etc., it is going to become more and more difficult to sideline them in church

    That’s why John Piper doesn’t want them in any position where they could impose themselves upon a weak man.

  3. Dee said,

    I never know which blog post will resonate with out readers. Last week’s post The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: If You Can’t Explain It to Me, You’ve Got a Problem garnered over 500 comments which I truly didn’t expect.

    I might be responsible for about 450 of those comments, sorry. This topic bothers me. 🙂

  4. “So, I look forward to anyone out there who thinks they can explain to me why a woman with a vast amount of experience and sensitivity should sit quietly and listen to some guy who read a book and listened to some sermon.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    for cushion and padding around the male ego. so they’ll want to come to church and feel good about themselves. enough to get involved.

    yeah….

    however, most of the men I know are above this kind of insecurity. so I wonder… why do CBMW & co. have such a low estimation of men?

  5. I’ve gone to complementarian-ish churches (of varying degrees) my entire Christian life. Some have paid lip service to it, while others made me feel like I was living in the 50s. But regardless of how complementarians label themselves, or apply (or don’t apply) its teachings, I find the theology itself insulting.

    It insults my intelligence by claiming that women can have “separate but equal” roles (!) in the church and still be treated with dignity. Please. I wasn’t born yesterday.

    It insults my wife (and millions of other women) by saying–in the nicest Christian way possible–“you’re second class”.

    It insults me–as a man–because it assumes that I’m so insecure in myself and in my masculinity that I need a woman under my thumb in order to boost my ego and to make me a “real man”.

    And now with this talk about ESS…are they really going to mess with a doctrine so sacred just to uphold a secondary doctrine like gender roles in the church? Tampering with heresy, if you ask me.

  6. @ elastigirl:

    “So, I look forward to anyone out there who thinks they can explain to me why a woman with a vast amount of experience and sensitivity should sit quietly and listen to some guy who read a book and listened to some sermon.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    ok, I read the question better. I have no more clever answer than she has every reason not to.

    she and anyone can accomplish great things and have great fun taking ownership of her own spirituality instead of leasing it out to someone else to manage for them. (especially 29 year old men)

  7. Witherington carefully outlines the faulty reasoning.

    What has to be noted in all this is the circular nature of this reasoning.

    1. A novel theology was first devised to theologically ground the permanent subordination of women based on the argument that men and women are equal yet differentiated by their God-given, unchanging roles; and then
    2. the wording and ideas used to develop this novel case for the permanent subordination of women were utilized to develop a novel doctrine of the Trinity that spoke of the Son as equal, yet eternally subordinated in role or function; and then
    3. this novel doctrine of the Trinity was quoted to theologically justify and explain the permanent role subordination of women.
    +++++++++++++++++++

    I HEREBY CHARGE YOU, CBMW, WITH EISEGESIS. Most egregiously and male-supremely done. Please respond to the charge.

  8. The first reader comment under Reissig’s piece s a classic:

    I support the encouragement and pushing-forward of the roles and values of females. As long as they are not at the “head” of anything. A matriarchal dominance would be unbiblical, no matter how secularly qualified they are. It would only point to the brokenness of man.

    No one can tell whether “JK” is serious or not. Which is exactly how it should be.

    Poe wins.

  9. @ roebuck:

    Great article, especially in the wake of the last post. I hadn’t realized the whole nature of the Trinity/ESS thing had been so contested and deliberated over the past few decades. ESS seems very much invented to subordinate women. Grudem et al. are way out on a limb, and don’t seem coherent at all. The whole comp thing seems deranged from a truly Biblical perspective – very forced and artificial…

  10. Dee you wrote: ‘So, I look forward to anyone out there who thinks they can explain to me why a woman with a vast amount of experience and sensitivity should sit quietly and listen to some guy who read a book and listened to some sermon’.

    You should sit quietly and listen so you can fully understand his interpretation and then you can say ‘actually you are wrong’. And then you can use your vast amount of experience and sensitivity to proof it.

  11. Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women.

  12. I find it amusing when a group of men come up with theories about the way life is going to be in heaven.

    I think it’s Piper, but it could as easily have been Grudem. I’ve just spent 20 minutes googling, and couldn’t find it, but I know I’ve seen one of these two guys pontificate on how the Bible “clearly teaches” than men are to be preeminent, not women. They use that very word. The gist of their teaching is that men are to be in the spotlight and women in the shadows. Anything that puts women in a respected spotlight somehow takes away from men and is not God’s design. Barf.

  13. The only way to promote eternal subordination of women is to take a few passages and extrapolate into eternity, because it’s not stated explicitly anywhere. That’s a dangerous way to interpret Scripture whether dealing with issues regarding the sexes or any other doctrine.

  14. Ken wrote:

    Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women.

    The earthly / temporary subordination of women is bad too.

  15. Those in Wayne Grudem’s camp do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in terms of the nature of his existence. He is co-equal in that regard. He is subordinate only in the fact that he is submissive to the Father in his function. In their line of thinking, this makes it OK.

    They use the same argument for women – that women are not ontologically subordinate, only functionally subordinate. Author Rebecca Merrill Groothius rebuts this beautifully in her book, “Good News For Women” (1997).

    Because a woman’s traditionally inferior status follows necessarily from the single fact of her essential, female nature, her status is itself a function of her “being”; it is determined by what she is, not by what she can do. A woman’s inequality, therefore, pertains not merely to her “function,” but to her essential “being.” The insistence of traditionalists that a woman’s inferior function has no bearing on the valuation of her essential nature contradicts the clear implications of the woman’s role. (p 53)

    In functional subordination, an inferior function does not necessarily reflect an essentially inferior being, because the subordination can be transcended when the subordinated person’s abilities have outgrown the limitations of the role, or when the particular function has been accomplished. … Female subordination, on the other hand, is not based on what a person can do, but solely on what a person is; it is not temporary, but permanent; it is not limited to the task at hand, but comprehensively covers all areas of a woman’s life. Therefore, it is not a functional but an ontological subordination, and necessarily indicates an inequality not merely of a woman’s function, but of her essential female being. (p 55)

  16. Ken wrote:

    Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women.

    Ken, to gain a better understanding of how evil this is, substitute the word “blacks” for “women.”

  17. Ken wrote:

    Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women.

    Start with Creation. Where is the hierarchy? Not in Genesis 1. Nope. God gave dominion to both men and woman.

    27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

    28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

  18. rhondajeannie wrote:

    You should sit quietly and listen so you can fully understand his interpretation and then you can say ‘actually you are wrong’. And then you can use your vast amount of experience and sensitivity to proof it.

    I have been listening to these guys most of my life. Finally, it is nice to be able to speak and they can’t turn off the power to the microphone.

  19. Gus wrote:

    That’s why John Piper doesn’t want them in any position where they could impose themselves upon a weak man.

    “A weak man” like himself?

  20. Leila wrote:

    The gist of their teaching is that men are to be in the spotlight and women in the shadows. Anything that puts women in a respected spotlight somehow takes away from men and is not God’s design. Barf.

    It’s the Zero-Sum Game: Since there’s only so much to go around, the only way to get more for ME is to take it away from YOU.

  21. Leila wrote:

    I’ve seen one of these two guys pontificate on how the Bible “clearly teaches” than men are to be preeminent, not women.

    Do me a favor-keep looking for the comment and let me know when you find it. I would love to do a post on it.

  22. Leila wrote:

    Ken wrote:

    Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women.

    Ken, to gain a better understanding of how evil this is, substitute the word “blacks” for “women.”

    Including the quote from a 1950s trailer-trash Ku Kluxer:
    “If I can’t be better than a N—–(black), who I got to be better than?”

  23. Leila wrote:

    hey use the same argument for women – that women are not ontologically subordinate, only functionally subordinate

    I find tha to be baloney!

  24. In SF litfandom, there used to be a phrase “You’re a Fan. Death will not release you (from fandom).”

    This brand of comp tells women “You’re a woman. Death will not release you from Eternal Male Supremacy.”

  25. Leila wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women.
    ===============
    Ken, to gain a better understanding of how evil this is, substitute the word “blacks” for “women.”

    I thought maybe he meant to say he does NOT believe in it – but maybe he does? When I replied to him above, I was thinking he forgot to put the “not” in there.

    Jesus taught there is no marriage in the afterlife, and the Bible does not explicitly say that never married or divorced women have to submit to any man, so I don’t see how these guys can assume women will submit to men in the great here-after.

    Also, the preoccupation with female subordination and marriage in the afterlife by these guys is MORMONESQUE.
    (When your brand of Christianity is aping Mormonism or Islam, it should make you reconsider what you’re saying might be wrong…)

  26. dee wrote:

    I have been listening to these guys most of my life. Finally, it is nice to be able to speak and they can’t turn off the power to the microphone.

    Cheering here!

  27. Eternal female subordination reminds me of Mormonism in many ways. Its the only organization that I know of (except Islam) that designates roles for women after death. Mormonism is known for doing this, could the Neo-Cals draw more from Mormonism than Christianity? Honest question…they seem to be pushing theology that way.

  28. I have had no problem in the past calling CBMW heretics. I think that is empirical fact. But even if their nonsensical re-imagining of the Trinity were correct, how can they leap from there to some kind of model for human relationships? Forget the “missing major premise” fallacy – these people are missing the whole syllogism!

  29. I have been set free from bondage by the free gift of salvation purchased by the blood of Jesus. Why would I willingly submit to live in bondage at the very convoluted thinking of complementarianism? Been there, done that. Never again.

    I appreciate the clear thinking of this post’s commenters as it relates to this topic. Well done in my book.

    The unbiblical contortions and massaging of this “doctrine” is both discouraging and dangerous.

  30. Well there is a way to construct eternal subordination of the Son to the Father without threatening the union of the trinity, but it requires adopting Karl Barth’s trinitarian theology, and many of those same guys probably regard Barth as a heretic.

    https://dogmatics.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/in-god-subordination-is-not-deprivation/

    BTW, many experts on trinitarian theology such as Stephen R Holmes, a Baptist theologian from the UK, understand the trinity as only being marginally relevant for the discussion on human relationships (Holmes speaks as an egalitarian).

    It’s also notable that both egalitarians and complementarians utilize social trinitarian models, which are seriously questioned by many theologians as being tritheistic. Social trinitarianism is the idea that the unity of the trinity consists of the three person’s relationships as opposed to the one divine essence as conceived in traditional trinitarian theology. It also seems to me that social trinitarianism sees the will of God as located in the three persons as opposed to the one divine essence as in traditional trinitarian theology though I may be wrong there.

  31. “There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident, though, that “God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood.”

    Wouldn’t it be hilarious if there isn’t going to be any sexual differences in the new creation? Oh, the looks on their faces!

  32. dee wrote:

    Leil

    dee wrote:

    Leila wrote:
    I’ve seen one of these two guys pontificate on how the Bible “clearly teaches” than men are to be preeminent, not women.
    Do me a favor-keep looking for the comment and let me know when you find it. I would love to do a post on it.

    Male PRIORITY! Not preeminence. Priority. Thanks to Jamie Carter’s comment, above, that’s what I was struggling to remember. See the material that Jamie linked above.

  33. Daisy wrote:

    I might be responsible for about 450 of those comments, sorry. This topic bothers me.

    As well it should! I would have been there along with you, Daisy, but I was traveling over the weekend. Female subordination does nothing for me. It’s not the way I was raised. My conservative father would likely reach out from eternity and shake me good if he saw me getting involved in something like that.

  34. This quote, via baptistnews.com, is from the article that was posted on the CBMW website last year, until Julie at Spiritual Soundingboard made a little fun of it and they evidently took it down.

    “Complementarity is not just an accommodation to the less-than-perfect conditions that prevailed during the first century,” Walton wrote. “Rather, it is a divine principle weaved into the fabric of God’s order for the universe.”

    “Given, then, that relationships between those married on earth will in some sense remain in the new creation, it remains for us to inquire regarding the nature of those relationships,” he wrote. “To put it more directly, will husbandly headship and wifely submission still obtain in the new creation?”

    Walton continued, “Because the new creation is, fundamentally, a return to the divine order that prevailed before the fall, it follows that male headship will remain in the new creation.”

    Subsequent to the creation story, he said, “the principle of headship and submission in male-female relations is clearly affirmed in the New Testament.”

    “Surely within the context of biblical teaching on the church there would be an unambiguous repeal of the principle of male headship if, in fact, its end reflected the divine ideal,” he said. “Such is simply not found. There is every reason to believe, then, that male headship will continue as the divine order for male-female relationships.”

  35. Oh yeah.

    Just thought I’d mention this.

    Mark Driscoll is now living somewhere here in the Valley of the Sun. (That’d be Phoenix.) Now the area is huge. He could be living somewhere, like north Phoenix or Anthem, which are respectively 40 and 50 miles from where I live.

    Here’s the proof.

    http://us9.campaign-archive2.com/?u=47300b0fe157a2befdf85490a&id=a62d1021c0&e=9d6e35669e

    He says he’s not starting a church yet. Right. Yeah. Sure.

    If he plants anywhere Scottsdale east, I will be in his face. It will be my spiritual discipline. In the meantime, I will keep up with my physical therapy (somehow I managed to cause tendinitis in my right shoulder)!

    I wish Driscoll would have set up his church in Boston. I just got back from a trip there. Not that I would ever wish Driscoll on anyone, but the Bostonians wouldn’t put up with his nonsense.

  36. @ Jamie Carter:

    Trying to figure out who wrote that article. The author’s name is not prominently posted anywhere.

    And then there is this from the conclusion of the article:

    “Male and female, while fully equal as the image of God, are nonetheless distinct in the manner of their possession of the image of God. The female’s becoming the image of God through the male indicates a God-intended sense of her reliance upon him, as particularly manifest in the home and community of faith.”

    These are head banging words. They are not found in scripture.

  37. Ken wrote:

    Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women
    .

    My first husband died in an auto accident. I married again. So, which male superior will I be subordinate to eternally??? Will thet take turns subjugating me, based on the length of time I was married to each man?

  38. @ Ivan:
    I saw one blogger who said something like: God made man complete with male and female characteristics and spirits. When he separated the rib from Adam, he permanently divided female from male in every way.
    I asked the blogger which Bible verse said that. He told me that even if it is not written, it is his personal belief.

  39. @ Bridget:
    I also saw it listed elsewhere as having been written by Bruce Ware, as a part of Wayne Grudem’s book: Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood. I would guess that the blogger didn’t do her homework.

  40. @ Jamie Carter:

    The link goes directly to the CBMW site, so I don’t think the person who sent it to you left anything out. CBMW would be responsible for not citing the author. The article is tagged to Bruce Ware at the CBMW site so I’m assuming he is the author.

  41. “At the same time there has been a full court press to develop doctrines to keep over 50% + of the church from sharing their wisdom and experience with the rest of the church.”

    Or if they do, it’s filtered through men. For some reason.

    I’m getting the same truth either way – why, if women are actually equal, do I need to have truth filtered through a man for me to hear it in person? It’s nonsensical. God is not a God of nonsense. His commands are logical and follow reason. The only commands that are arbitrary are the rituals of communion and baptism. An I wrong here?

  42. elastigirl wrote:

    Please respond to the charge.

    They do not respond substantively to women, with the exception of English Ken living in Germany and possibly one or two others. Not in the churches I’ve been apart of, not the men who have bought into this, and not the guys who are so adamant about it here and elsewhere. They don’t respond because they do not respond to their inferiors. Their actions betray what they really believe about women being “equal in dignity, value, and worth.”

  43. Patti Smith once sung, “Jesus died for somebody’s sins / But not mine.” [Gloria, from the album “Horses.”] As a woman, it seems to me these female subordinationists don’t think Jesus death was efficacious in setting women aright–ever. Smith’s words are truer than she knows.

  44. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Forget the “missing major premise” fallacy – these people are missing the whole syllogism!

    No kidding. And if you try to inform some of these guys about basic logical reasoning, you can get yourself disciplined. Yes, that is how brittle they are. That’s why I am convinced that the vast majority of the ones in paid staff positions simply do not care about whether what they are teaching is true or not. They are interested in maintaining barriers to entry. They are clerical guild-members.

  45. The Athanasian Creed stresses the unity of the Trinity and the equality of the persons. It ascribes equal divinity, majesty, and authority to all three persons. All three are said to be “almighty” and “Lord” (no subordination in authority; “none is before or after another” (no hierarchical ordering); and “none is greater, or less than another” (no subordination in being or nature). Thus, since the divine persons of the Trinity act with one will, there is no possibility of hierarchy-inequality in the Trinity.

    ONE WILL – Athanasius fought against the Arian heresies that denied the all three Persons of the Holy Trinity shared the same will.

    If anything like the modern version of ESS had ever been encountered by Athanasius, he would have roundly condemned it as being influenced by the Arian heresies.

  46. Gram3 wrote:

    They are clerical guild-members.

    Never forget, TWW is the home to E Church @ Wartburg. The Deebs are in control of this guild and, for a small love offering, will give you the position of choice. Slightly larger love offerings are necessary for all positions above elder. You, too, can be not only a member of our guild but a ranking member.

  47. Christiane wrote:

    If anything like the modern version of ESS had ever been encountered by Athanasius, he would have roundly condemned it as being influenced by the Arian heresies.

    I will try to get some links to see how they tap dance around this one. It starts with the ontological equality which they claim is what was being denied by Arius. Then they step, hop, and slide over to functional hierarchy and try to maintain a straight face.

  48. dee wrote:

    mirele wrote:
    Smith’s words are truer than she knows.
    Darn good comment!

    Thanks! I would really like to ask these female subordinationists why any woman should want to be part of their organizations if we’re always going to be second class? Why?

  49. Lael wrote:

    This quote, via baptistnews.com, is from the article that was posted on the CBMW website last year, until Julie at Spiritual Soundingboard made a little fun of it and they evidently took it down.

    That’s why I say that when the Patriarchs/Comps are consistent, they are ridiculous. They make foolish statements that are completely in accord with their doctrines, but they have to disappear them so that we won’t notice how silly they are. Maybe we can start a list of shark-jumping statements that have gone missing from these eminent scholars and great theologians.

  50. GovPappy wrote:

    Or if they do, it’s filtered through men. For some reason.

    In most churches, there is no formal way for a woman to have input into leadership decisions. The men claim they hear from their wives. However, it has been my experience that the wives of authority driven males are usually rather silent since they were chosen for their ability to put up with the nonsense.

    A couple of the wives of former pastors spoke in whispery, almost baby like voices which made me wonder how much Xanax they were taking.

  51. Bridget wrote:

    Trying to figure out who wrote that article. The author’s name is not prominently posted anywhere.

    Well, it sounds like Bruce Ware which means it could also be Owen BHLH who both believe in the derivative image of God nonsense. Or any of the guys at 9Marks who promote Ware’s view.

  52. Jamie Carter wrote:

    He told me that even if it is not written, it is his personal belief.

    If Piper can do it and Grudem can do it and Ware can do it and Dever can do it and all the other Gospel Glitterati can do it, then why not? It’s not like they are serious about what they say about the authority of the Bible.

  53. dee wrote:

    GovPappy wrote:

    Or if they do, it’s filtered through men. For some reason.

    In most churches, there is no formal way for a woman to have input into leadership decisions. The men claim they hear from their wives. However, it has been my experience that the wives of authority driven males are usually rather silent since they were chosen for their ability to put up with the nonsense.

    A couple of the wives of former pastors spoke in whispery, almost baby like voices which made me wonder how much Xanax they were taking.

    The missus and I talked about this recently – these doctrines have the secondary effect of further driving the sexes culturally apart. The average woman will tend to just let the men study and make the decisions (after all, homemaking is not a lark and is a full time job). The average man will usually default to not really asking the wife for honest input, and the divide gets bigger, exponentially. Things like the Billy Graham rule (if I’m thinking of the right thing) and such don’t help either.

  54. dee wrote:

    It starts with the ontological equality which they claim is what was being denied by Arius.

    They seem to know what every Christian theologian “really” meant 🙄

  55. dee wrote:

    You, too, can be not only a member of our guild but a ranking member.

    That would make John Piper uncomfortable, and I definitely would not want to do that.

  56. From the main body of the Post:

    “…I find it amusing when a group of men come up with theories about the way life is going to be in heaven…”

    You’re not the only one, I find it grotesquely funny. I have no desire to go to their ‘heaven’. It is my fervent hope that the resurrected afterlife can be different for different folks.

  57. Muff Potter wrote:

    From the main body of the Post:

    “…I find it amusing when a group of men come up with theories about the way life is going to be in heaven…”

    You’re not the only one, I find it grotesquely funny. I have no desire to go to their ‘heaven’. It is my fervent hope that the resurrected afterlife can be different for different folks.

    Me 3. Walter Bishop had wise words for this situation: “Why must you be so small-minded!”

    Whatever God has in mind for the afterlife, it will be perfect, perfect for us. Beyond that I don’t care to speculate.

  58. mirele wrote:

    Thanks! I would really like to ask these female subordinationists why any woman should want to be part of their organizations if we’re always going to be second class? Why?

    Based on my own experience during college, I would say many of them are actually true-believers. I knew of women in my college fellowship who were enthusiastic of the whole womanhood thing promoted by CBMW, and they seemed to mean it. This seemed to be strictly the upperclasswomen though, the lowerclasswomen never seemed to share that enthusiasm and the whole manhood/womanhood thing seemed to dye out after the 1st or 2nd year (my memories of that fellowship were wholly positive actually).

    All in all, I think it’s out of a sincere attempt to follow the Bible as they interpret it. I think many of the men are the same and are not trying to hold onto power or anything (it wasn’t until after college that I discovered that egalitarian interpretations were just as compelling).

    A (female) supervisor from work actually attended Capital Hill Baptist Church for a while. She eventually left, and one reason was because the women there (much younger than her) were pushing a strong line on women staying at home instead of working outside the house. She was freaked out by that teaching and she is conservative as heck theologically and socially.

  59. Ivan wrote:

    mirele wrote:

    A (female) supervisor from work actually attended Capital Hill Baptist Church for a while. She eventually left, and one reason was because the women there (much younger than her) were pushing a strong line on women staying at home instead of working outside the house. She was freaked out by that teaching and she is conservative as heck theologically and socially.

    Interesting. And disturbing.

  60. Dee quoting BW3: If this line of reasoning is correct, then this means that the doctrine of the Trinity has been reformulated in terms of fallen male-female relationships to support what was already believed: women are permanently subordinated to men.

    It’s even weirder than that. Ware’s reasoning in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is that we “know” that the Son is subordinate to the Father because human sons were/are subordinate to fathers. Therefore, father/son language teaches subordination within the Trinity. The Persons of the Trinity are ontologically equal but with eternal functional subordination that is due solely to their identities as Father and Son and where hierarchy of authority is the only thing which distinguishes Father from Son. Therefore, males can be functionally eternally in authority over females while females are ontologically equal. So, we are supposed to understand the Trinity via fallen human models of relationship and from that we are to understand male and female relationships as being fundamentally hierarchical. Somehow the relationship of human fathers and sons determines male/female relationships via the speculative connection to relationships within the Trinity. It is nonsense. Adult females are not sons. But their words are so slippery that you have to parse them carefully to see what they are actually saying.

  61. Ivan wrote:

    A (female) supervisor from work actually attended Capital Hill Baptist Church for a while. She eventually left, and one reason was because the women there (much younger than her) were pushing a strong line on women staying at home instead of working outside the house. She was freaked out by that teaching and she is conservative as heck theologically and socially.

    Thankfully there is a special dispensation for seminary wives who are permitted to work to put hubby through. Every legalistic system must have its loopholes. If you fly Emirates during Ramadan, you will understand why so many Muslims vacation during Ramadan. There is a travel dispensation, and it is remarkable how much traveling is necessary during Ramadan just like it is amazing how much wife employment is OK while hubby is in seminary.

  62. If a woman is ontologically equal but required to be functionally subordinate, then she is being told to dishonor God by not doing her best with what God gave her. And if in heaven as it is on earth, one can only imagine how women might manage to sin there.

    Likewise, if God constantly and purposely under-utilizes an aspect of himself, he is not respecting his own being; therefore he is imperfect and in needs of addressing his lack of self-care.

    These men demand that both women and God neglect parts of themselves merely because they want to feel more important than they are.

    Time to grow up, boiz.

  63. Ivan wrote:

    I saw one person suggest that men were the sum of humanity and the image of god par excellence. And this was a doctoral student at a top theology program

    I assume he sees the Sum of Humanity and Image of God every time he looks in a mirror?

  64. Eagle wrote:

    Mormonism is known for doing this, could the Neo-Cals draw more from Mormonism than Christianity? Honest question…they seem to be pushing theology that way.

    We’ll know when they go polyg.

  65. GovPappy wrote:

    Whatever God has in mind for the afterlife, it will be perfect, perfect for us. Beyond that I don’t care to speculate.

    Also it will be wonderful beyond our imagination, so I imagine as much as I possibly can, just to push the envelope. 🙂

  66. Muff Potter wrote:

    I have no desire to go to their ‘heaven’. It is my fervent hope that the resurrected afterlife can be different for different folks.

    Well, it is a big universe, and if the new heavens are renewed heavens, we will probably need to go a loooong way before running into them.

  67. Gram3 wrote:

    It’s even weirder than that. Ware’s reasoning in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is that we “know” that the Son is subordinate to the Father because human sons were/are subordinate to fathers. Therefore, father/son language teaches subordination within the Trinity. The Persons of the Trinity are ontologically equal but with eternal functional subordination that is due solely to their identities as Father and Son and where hierarchy of authority is the only thing which distinguishes Father from Son. Therefore, males can be functionally eternally in authority over females while females are ontologically equal. So, we are supposed to understand the Trinity via fallen human models of relationship and from that we are to understand male and female relationships as being fundamentally hierarchical. Somehow the relationship of human fathers and sons determines male/female relationships via the speculative connection to relationships within the Trinity. It is nonsense. Adult females are not sons. But their words are so slippery that you have to parse them carefully to see what they are actually saying.

    Mapping human relations back on to trinitarian relations is pretty sloppy since trinitarian relations are not the same as human ones. That also means that the logic behind using ESS to justify complementarianism is circular since they could only derive ESS by mapping human relations onto trinitarian ones.

  68. It’s enough to make your head spin. I watched the “New Horizons” NASA probe coverage. Both men and women on hand to celebrate an amazing feat of human engineering. Certain religious groups would deny 50% of our population the right to create and be part of such an achievement. Think of all the human potential lost throughout the ages to such backward thinking. Now we start to move forward into the 21st century and these clowns continue to try and drag us back to the bronze age! I’m sorry to all who believe the bible is completely inerrant but context is everything. The old testament is a document of which parts may date back to Sumerian times (one of the earliest civilizations). The New Testament is from the 1st century. Some of the writings just don’t fit, no matter how hard you try! Fundamentalists of all stripes (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) try to harken back to the “golden age”. Sorry, there’s no gold back there, just bronze. Thank God there are more of today’s women made of steel.

  69. Daisy wrote:

    Dee said,

    I never know which blog post will resonate with out readers. Last week’s post The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: If You Can’t Explain It to Me, You’ve Got a Problem garnered over 500 comments which I truly didn’t expect.

    I might be responsible for about 450 of those comments, sorry. This topic bothers me.

    That’s ok, Daisy. I have been so busy that I haven’t had a chance to comment. So I am sure that you covered what I would have posted; so I will assume responsibility for 225 comments.

  70. Nancy2 wrote:

    Ken wrote:

    Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women
    .

    My first husband died in an auto accident. I married again. So, which male superior will I be subordinate to eternally??? Will thet take turns subjugating me, based on the length of time I was married to each man?

    Hmmmm. I think that very question was posed to Jesus. The widow of multiple men, “whose wife will she be?” Whose female subordinate? To which husband will she belong? Which man gets to be her head for eternity?

    I just do not understand why Jesus’ answer to that question doesn’t serve as the death blow to ESS. In heaven there will be neither marriage nor giving in marriage. She isn’t anybody’s subordinate wife in eternity. I’m sure comps and ESS have done some beautiful pretzel twisting to explain that simple answer away, but because ESS folks usually claim to be literalist and originalist, I’d find it entertaining to watch them explain how Jesus did not really mean what he originally said.

  71. “Now, let’s take a look what would happen if a Christian woman of Haley’s experience showed up in your average, female subordinationist church. She would not be allowed to teach a Sunday school class on the Christian and politics. Instead, they could have the 29 year old guy who read a book on it teach. Why? Women are not allowed to teach a mixed class. Does that truly make any sense?”

    This made me laugh because it is so. true. But, Dee, you have forgotten that the book the 29 year old guy read so that he could teach *could* have been written by Haley and the class could benefit from her thoughts as long as she wasn’t the one actually speaking! As long as she is not there in person “exercising her authority” it is A-ok–at least with Piper. This is a link to an audio that is a hoot. The gist: A woman can write a Bible commentary and a man can learn from that because “women do have thoughts” (Yes, indeedy!) that can benefit men. However, she is not there in person, like a “drill sergeant” “pressing her authority” into the men. Ahem. So apparently, it’s her presence that is the issue. Or perhaps hearing her spoken word? Reading her words in a book doesn’t give a guy that “pressed into” kind of vibe that hearing her words spoken by her in person would do. http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/do-you-use-bible-commentaries-written-by-women

    This makes me wonder where the line is. I wonder if an audio is okay? Or a video? When do the men get that “pressed into” feeling from her authority?

    (As an aside, I will observe that at least the Neo-Cal complementarians are somewhat egalitarian with respect to the 29 year old guy teaching. They will expect him to teach the older men in the church who are not “with” the new paradigm things like how to do leadership. “You’ve served on the board of deacons numerous times before the Neo-cal pastor took over and you serve on the board of a Fortune 500 company. We think you have leadership potential (aren’t you honored?) , so we’re inviting you to the gospel TM leadership class taught by the new 29 year old associate pastor! ) “

  72. @ Ivan:
    Indeed it is sloppy reasoning. I could teach a great class on reasoning by using examples of bad reasoning from these Ph.D./PhD theologians. But, it sounds truthy and pious, so people who desire to please God will buy into it, and the ones who profit from the system will continue to sell it.

  73. About 26 years ago, I told my New Testament professor, Gordon Fee, about my attending a Brethren church with friends. There, if a woman did not have a head covering we were given small paper doilies to place on our heads (I am not making this up). Mine kept falling off. Out of curiosity, I looked up the passage about head covering in I Cor 11 and found that it mentioned it in the context of “when a woman prays or prophesies,” in a public worship setting. Well, in that church, women were never allowed to pray or prophecy!

    I will never forget Gordon’s response to my story. He said, “Those are people who take the Bible literally, but not seriously.” I have used this countless times in the years since.

  74. Dee quoting from CBMW:

    There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident, though, that “God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood.”52 There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain. The social fabric of gender-based distinctions of roles was weaved in a pattern that accords with the prelapsarian decree of the Creator. In the new creation, that fabric will not be discarded or destroyed. The stains will be removed and rips mended. The fabric will be cleaned and pressed. But the pattern established in God’s “very good” creation will remain.

    I think this must be Ware. He starts by saying what he doesn’t know and then proceeds to tell us that, actually, he *does* know a lot of things that aren’t actually revealed in the Bible. The flowery “fabric” language made me think it was Owen BHLH, but the “I don’t know” followed by pure speculation that sure sounds like he knows and that we need to believe it, too. And, of course, he offers no real textual evidence for his confident assertions. “Prelapsarian decree” makes him sound like he must know what he is talking about.

  75. Gram3 wrote:

    the “I don’t know” followed by pure speculation that sure sounds like he knows and that we need to believe it, too.

    …makes me think it is Ware.

  76. Gram3, I have never read Ware, but when you stated that he uses human father-son submission as an argument for ESS, it made my brain hurt. It’s such a violation of Scripture. The New Testament, nowhere makes the analogy, and instead uses the idea of sonship not to subordinate, but to EXALT CHRIST and to EXALT all those who believe in Christ:

    (I know you know these texts, but I hope they prove useful to others here to show just a glimpse of the whole tenor of Scripture)

    Jesus speaks of himself as the Father’s Son, who does all that the Father shows him, “that all may worship the Son even as they worship the Father; He who does not worship the Son, does not worship the Father who sent him.” (John 5)

    John 1 and Philippians 2 are pertinent here. What is striking is that in the entire NT, Christ’s humility and submission are always for us — in order to save us and bring us to God. Colossians 1 speaks of Christ as the firstborn over all creation, because he created all things — here Christ’s sonship is understood in terms of his being heir of all creation, and of his bringing us into his inheritance with him.

    And, of course, Romans 8, Paul speaks of our relationship to God as “sons” to show that in Christ, we are no longer slaves, but are actual heir of Christ in the same way that the oldest sons were heirs to the family fortune.

    That’s why Ephesians 2 and the entire book of Galatians are so emphatic that that we do not lose our freedom as children of God because of those who preach a different Gospel. In Ephesians, it’s vain philosophies and human traditions about Sabbath and Festivals, in Galatians it’s about adding law requirements such as circumcisions, and today it’s female subordination, even insulting the very Son of God with their ESS heresy.

    It’s as if these men have no fear of God. Haven’t they read Galatians, 2 Peter, Jude, and 2 Cor 11 about the final end of people who promote a false Christ, a false Spirit and a false Gospel? Why is it not clear to them that the bondage they promote endanger their own souls? I agree with others: Their “straining at gnats while swallowing a camel” would be laughable if it were not such serious blasphemy that stumbles and ensnares good people.

  77. Patriarchy at least had the support of tradition but this eternal subordination of women and even Christ himself is just bizarre. This is now cult territory, complete with the authoritarian culture.

  78. To answer your question of basically why such asinine practices abound, at least in certain circles, and especially with the neo cals, I think it could have much to do with peer pressure and the threat of loss as much as anything. For these practices to change, leadership has to lead the way, and that’s going to be a problem. My pastor was ordained by a fairly prominent conservative calvinist who harps all over headship/submission and gender comp ideology. So,if you train at that seminary, all your pastor buddies hold to this as well. So let’s just imagine you as a pastor start to question that position and actually consider an egalitarian view. What’s going to happen? Your mentor will probably chastise you for your “unbiblical” view and all your pastor friends too. So, even if your mind changes on that issue, you might keep your thoughts to yourself and tow the line of gender comp. It really makes me sick that these gender issues have now been made to be some sort of basic tenet of the faith such that there is no freedom to disagree. This and the embracing of YEC as fundamental to the faith are why I basically don’t like attending church anymore. If you don’t think “correctly” about men and women or how old the earth is, then it gets spun that you don’t respect “Biblical” teaching.

  79. Sorry if this is cutting across the flow of comments, but I was arrested by the above quote of a phrase that CBMW have coined … “prelapsarian decree of the Creator”. DECREE??? I had to scratch my head for a bit, until the penny dropped. They have coined another word which utterly destroys the TRUE meaning of a powerful egalitarian phrase. How many of you here, cringe as I do over their word “helpmate”? This is their invention of a “prelapsarian decree”!! Actually, cringe is far too soft, it really makes my blood boil how their eisegesis has heinously redefined ezer kenedgo to mean “subordinate assistant who fills man’s need for companionship”!!

    Some months back I took on several Comp commenters on an open forum over their biased redefining of several Hebrew words. I pooled my thoughts here, if you are interested.

    Ezer Kenedgo, Alone, Desire and For

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OkxLLwRJkm-KfQ6ct3tIrTcACPrKxMRUPtl7N6g6GAs/pub

    While I’m here, I’ll pass on some other research that utterly overturns the Comp position and completely silences or enrages them in equal measure.

    Sixteen NT Instances where Women Teach and Lead Men

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbWJH8gXol809nCCCR4vtc7VtDWfTyumQEaSQGMUoEA/pub

    Even if only one is valid, that is in enough to overthrow the Complementarian’s interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12. Taking the ‘one another’ and ‘each one’ references alone are 5 indisputable verses!

    Please add anything of use to your arsenal!

  80. After reading volumes of CBMW and Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood with all it’s logical fallacies several years ago, I had the thought that the CBMW crowd just figures that if they keep writing such “big” work, people will just think they know what they are talking about so they won’t bother to really read their stuff. It reminds me of when my driver’s ed. class back in the 70s realized the instructor wasn’t reading the content of our workbooks but just thumbed through the pages to make sure they were filled. So we wrote any kind of drivel answer to questions we didn’t even read. Needless to say, I failed the written driving test the first time around. The only reason so much is written for egalitarianism now is because CBMW keeps finding new ways to twist logic, and we have to keep straightening it out.

  81. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Gus wrote:

    That’s why John Piper doesn’t want them in any position where they could impose themselves upon a weak man.

    “A weak man” like himself?

    You nailed it.

  82. Those who like to use BHLH (“bless his little heart”): Some of these CBMW people fall into a further category: BHIBH — bless his itty bitty heart or itsy bitsy heart. Some of these people’s hearts are at the extreme end of small, almost disappearing altogether!

  83. Well, let me come clean on the ‘eternal subordination of women’. There was an element of (British) humour in the comment. That said, if and when women are being treated by churches as third class citizens, I would not make light of that, and I certainly hope I haven’t upset anybody.

    I happen to have recently read 1 Cor 15. This deals with the gospel and it’s hope, that we will be resurrected from the dead. Now before this happens, Jesus is himself the King of the kingdom of God, and rules and estabilishes his lordship.

    Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
    For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

    Then death is finally destroyed. Everything is then actively and manifestly under the lordship of Christ:

    “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.

    The only exception is God the Father. The last act in the drama is when Christ himself is subject to the Father:

    When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.

    Now my point is, the church is already included in the ‘all things’ subject to Christ – the verb is our old friend hupotasso to bring into rank or order, submit. This is true now of the church as the bride of Christ, those who freely acknowledge the lordship of Christ and live faith-full lives for him. He is the head, the church submits. It will one day be true of the principalities and powers, and the most militant atheist around. Every knee will bow.

    Hence, Christian women will be subordinate to the Father for all the coming ages i.e. eternally, the men will be subordinate to the Father in precisely the same way, the kings of the earth and all their glory as well, and since I can’t think of any scripture to say this arrangement ever ends, the Son too will go on being subject to the Father.

    It’s a pity that submit has become a dirty word, as in the context used here it has no connotation of being demeaning. In fact none of its uses in the NT is demeaning. Jesus himself – God the Son – is not proud but on the contrary willing to take the role of servant.

    It’s a comforting thought that there will be no blogging or discussions about this in the new heavens and the new earth, as every single one of us will finally have been straightened out on the subject, and all and any restraints currently imposed upon us because we live in a fallen world will have been removed!

  84. __

    Have these 501(c)3 religious Complementarians subordinated their females in their midsts and now they are going after their children?

  85. Bill M wrote:

    Patriarchy at least had the support of tradition but this eternal subordination of women and even Christ himself is just bizarre. This is now cult territory, complete with the authoritarian culture.

    And the SBC is going to follow right along…..sad, but true….

  86. @ Sopwith:
    501(c)3??? My church, as well as many others, is worried that the government will do away with its tax exempt status. Personally, I think the comp/patriarch churches should have to pay property taxes on the women they own!!!

  87. @ Carole Ryan:
    Thank you for highlighting some very important things. Reading Ware can make your brain hurt because you want to scream for the unrelenting manipulative language to stop. I don’t think he could write a page without saying “clearly” or “Does it not stand to reason that… Followed by something that is not reasonable at all from the evidence he presents.

  88. If the complementarians female-subordinationists in our midst feel bad after reading so much criticism of their theology, at least they can at least take consolation in the fact that they are not alone.

    There is a large number of religious movements that define what a man can do and a woman can’t. So they’re in good company:

    – the wahhabi clerics of Saudi Arabia
    – Iran’s revolutionary guards
    – some of the more unsavoury parts of ultra-orthodox Judaism
    – some parts of Hinduism that still wants to abort females and burn widows.

    I’m sure this will come as great comfort to the likes of John Piper, Bruce Ware, and their wannabe clones to be in such good company.

  89. Carole Ryan wrote:

    I will never forget Gordon’s response to my story. He said, “Those are people who take the Bible literally, but not seriously.” I have used this countless times in the y

    This is great! And I have certainly appreciated his scholarship in the books of his I have read.

  90. Roger Olson has written a new book that will be available next week titled ‘Counterfeit Christianity: The Persistence of Errors in the Church.’ He would have preferred the title to have been ‘Heresies Ancient and Modern: The Persistence of Errors in the Churches.’ One of the chapters is titled ‘Contesting the Trinity: Subordinationism, Modalism, and Tritheism.’

    The back cover reads: “Historic heresies didn’t die or fade away. Each generation has its own. Modern-day versions continue to plague churches and undermine the good news of Jesus.”

    In a blog post on February 5, 2015 Olson said: “…the doctrine of the Trinity … is constructed out of revealed truth and constitutes necessary reflection on revealed truth in the light of heresies (subordinationism, adoptionism, modalism, tritheism, etc).” There is little doubt where this scholar of the history of the church stands on the matter of subordinationism in the Trinity. If the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son is heresy then its derivative doctrine of Eternal Subordination of the Female must also be heresy.

  91. @ Nancy2:

    Nancy2…Mormonism actually solves this problem because polygamy is practiced and believed in the afterlife. Maybe Wayne Grudam should start secret temple rituals so you can be sealed to your spouse for all eternity! 😉

  92. @ Eagle:
    Sealed to my spouse for all eternity …. there’s a little problem there. My first husband died in an auto accident nearly 25 years ago. Would I be “sealed” to both of my husbands???? I’ve love to talk to the Mormons about that! BTW, my first husband was a non-practicing Catholic, my current husband is an SBC Baptist. If I’m subjugated to both of them in heaven, that’s going to give heaven a whole new definition! LOL?

  93. To be fair, there are some complementarians (Michael Bird, John Stott) who support women’s ordination on Biblical grounds. And I know some who would like to affirm women’s ordination, but can’t because of the way they read 1 Tim 2:11-15. These people are definitely not patriarchalists or misogynists. I’m sure they would embrace women’s ordination in a heartbeat if they discovered that the Bible does allow for women’s ordination. So I don’t think it is necessarily because of a desire for power that drives all of them. I speak as someone who has become more and more convinced that women can be ordained.

    BTW, Stephen R. Holmes, a British Baptist theologian and authority on the Trinity, examines the use of the Trinity for the support of complementarianism. His conclusion: it is a fail.

    http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507

  94. From the CBMW article:

    Man is a human being made in the image of God first; woman becomes a human being bearing the image of God only through the man. While both are fully and equally the image of God, there is a built-in priority given to the male that reflects God’s design of male-headship in the created order.

    The article also says that while man reflects God’s glory, woman reflects MAN’s glory. And that woman was created explicitly to be man’s helper.

    Woman, it seems, cannot be conceived of as an entity in her own right. She only exists THROUGH man. Without man, she is nothing.

    So these guys beleive they are Next to God in the hierarchy. ‘Prioritised’ by God. Special, reflecting God’s image. Given their own little subordinates (women) specially created to give THEM glory?

    Wasn’t pride the sin that caused Lucifer to fall?

  95. May wrote:

    The article also says that while man reflects God’s glory, woman reflects MAN’s glory. And that woman was created explicitly to be man’s helper.

    The article didn’t say this by any chance?

    For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

  96. dee wrote:

    So, do you advocate head coverings for women? The text seems to indicate that it might be a good idea.

    LOL, I remember reading the comments section of a blog post on why women don’t have to wear head coverings today. You had all these men who called out the writer for simply reading his own ideas into Scripture instead of simply allowing the Bible to say what it says (women should wear head coverings). I got a good laugh out of it and was also disturbed.

  97. May wrote:

    Man is a human being made in the image of God first; woman becomes a human being bearing the image of God only through the man. While both are fully and equally the image of God, there is a built-in priority given to the male that reflects God’s design of male-headship in the created order.

    This is an entirely circular statement. We might just as well say that Man is created in the image of God only through dirt/dust which clearly has a built-in priority given to it since all things are composed of the elements. God created the elements first and then created everything else through the elements, so I guess they are at the head of God’s created order and we should honor the headship of the elements.

  98. @ Ken:
    Are you the Ken who wrote that women are eternally subordinate? If so, was your tongue in cheek or do you really believe that?

  99. Carole Ryan wrote:

    About 26 years ago, I told my New Testament professor, Gordon Fee, about…

    Carole, I am officially envious. Fee is a as close as I get to having a hero. I would love to have taken that class.

    CBMW, the Seminary and Mohler and Mahaney in Louisville, the Creation Museum, and Nancy’s Jezebellic church in southern KY… What is it about Kentucky?

  100. @ Ivan:
    Ivan, I agree with you that some are not maliciously hanging onto inequality. My husband was one who just never thought that deep about it. He just parroted whatever he had been taught. I didn’t even know he had any thoughts about the subject for most of our marriage. I was shocked when six years ago I began to be dogmatic with him over my egalitarianism because he innocently said, “well, doesn’t the Bible say that only the man was created in the image of God? I hit the roof! After calming down, I asked him to just think over everything I had been saying about equality and think over everything he knew about inequality; and simply from his own heart point of view, which one made more sense? He chose egalitarian. Jesus used common sense reasoning when He taught. Also, a strange one-way subjection for certain people at certain moments for certain purposes was not the norm in the Bible. I think of the things that God asked of people before they were healed, or the temporary submission to civil authorities like Paul at the end of his life.

  101. Ken wrote:

    The article didn’t say this by any chance?
    For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

    This is sort of kinda interesting considering the entire passage. It is from Phillip Payne’s (Man and Woman, One in Christ) notes on 1 Corin 11:

    “Paul begins v. 11 with the standard word for “breaking off a discussion and emphasizing what is important” (BDAG 826 c). In every occurrence in Paul’s letters, “Nevertheless” (πλήν) points to the matter of his central concern, and in each case it indicates a change in perspective. “But woman is not
    separate from man, nor is man separate from woman in the Lord.” Verse 11 expresses the theological basis for Paul’s judgment in 11:5 that women as well as men may pray and prophesy in the church.”

    Ken, It could be that your understanding of “kephale” is the problem so you are viewing the man/woman relationship within a Western understanding of “head”.

    More notes from his scholarship concerning “kephale” as source:

    “10 key reasons favor interpreting “head” (κεφαλή) as “source” rather than “authority.” (115–39)
    • The standard Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible hardly ever uses the word “head” (κεφαλή) when the Hebrew word for “head” meant leader. (119–21)
    • It is simply not true that “authority over” was a well-established meaning of “head” (κεφαλή) in Greek literature. (121–23)
    • “Source” is an established meaning for “head” (κεφαλή) listed from the earliest Greek lexicons to the present. (123-28)
    • The items listed in 1 Cor 11:3 are not listed in a descending or ascending order of authority, but they are listed chronologically: man came from Christ’s creative work, woman came from “the man,” Christ came from God in the incarnation. (129)
    • “Source” fits better than “authority” as the meaning of κεφαλή in “the Christ is [ἔστιν] the “head” 3(κεφαλή) of every man” (1 Cor. 11:3). (129–30)
    • “Source” fits better than “authority” as the meaning of “head” (κεφαλή) in “the man [with an article] is “head” (κεφαλή) of woman.” (130–31)
    • “Source” fits better than “authority” as the meaning of “head” (κεφαλή) in “God [with an article] is the “head” (κεφαλή) of the Christ.” (131–36)
    • This passage discusses disgraceful head-covering practices in worship, not hierarchical roles. The only reference to authority affirms the woman’s authority. (141–87)
    • This passage says nothing about man’s authority but rather affirms woman’s authority. Paul recognizes her authority to pray and prophecy in 11:5, her authority over her own head in 11:10, and her equal standing with man in 11:11–12. (181-98)
    • Much early Greek commentary on 11:3 specifically interprets κεφαλή to mean “source.” Cyril of Alexandria’s De recta fide ad Arcadiam et Marinam 52.63E: “The source [ἀρχή] of man is the Creator God [τÙν ποιήσαντα Θεıν]. Thus we say that “the head [κεφαλή] of every man is Christ,” because he
    was made [πεποÛηται] through him and brought forth to birth.… And the head [κεφαλή] of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh and has him as her source [ἀρχή]. Likewise, the head [κεφαλή] of Christ is God, because He is from Him according to nature.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Saint Basil, Athanasius, Eusebius, Photius, Ambrosiaster say “head” means “source.” (136–37)
    7. Verse 3 lays out the underlying logic for the whole passage: Men in the church should show respect to Christ (their source since He created them) by not repudiating the way He created them as men. Therefore,men should not display long effeminately styled hair. Women should show respect to man since woman had
    her source in the man, Adam (repeated in v. 8, 9,12). Therefore, women should not symbolize repudiation of their marriage vows by letting their hair down loose. (115–17)

    This is a bit different than how I understood the “hair” issue but worth looking into culturally of the time. Payne said busts and such from that period always show men with short hair. That is different from what I understood but worth looking in to. Payne is interesting as he spent about 20 years researching all of this before he wrote his one book.

    More and more I am catching on to the fact that we do not think like 1st Century people and it really can color our understanding.

  102. @ GSD

    I don’t know if it’s still in SGMs membership material, but I thought it strange how they quoted and respected Gordon Fee on his Holy Spirit theology but wouldn’t listen to him on his egalitarian doctrine. It made me angry because using his name on their Holy Spirit teaching part made people think that Fee was complementarian, too. Now I believe that SGM just slyly used Fee’s reputation.

  103. May wrote:

    The article also says that while man reflects God’s glory, woman reflects MAN’s glory. And that woman was created explicitly to be man’s helper.

    A couple of thoughts on this:

    It was not exactly commonplace for men to think of women as relecting any “glory” in the 1st Century. :o)

    As to the “helper” interpretation much scholarship is out there repudiating such a ridiculous understanding of Ezer. (God is referred to as an Ezer, btw) But an interesting point was made recently on what had to go into naming ALL the animals. If read literally, would this have taken years, for example? But the result was that when Adam saw the formed Eve he literally broke out in a sort of hymn. And lets face it, with their charge from God, it would all have been impossible without BOTH of them. They were supposed to work together.

  104. @ Nancy2:

    Nancy2 there are Mormon females who still get sealed to Joseph Smith in the Temple. And that is with Joseph Smith dying in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1844. So yes its possible! 😉

  105. GSD wrote:

    CBMW, the Seminary and Mohler and Mahaney in Louisville, the Creation Museum, and Nancy’s Jezebellic church in southern KY… What is it about Kentucky?

    Easy answer: Mohler. People have no idea how much power he has in those circles.

    As to Fee: For those who just cannot bring themselves to pick up a bible anymore, I highly recommend Fee’s “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth” as a new starting point.

  106. Ken wrote:

    May wrote:
    The article also says that while man reflects God’s glory, woman reflects MAN’s glory. And that woman was created explicitly to be man’s helper.
    The article didn’t say this by any chance?
    For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

    No the article is not just quoting Paul, it’s deriving it from the creation account and extrapolating that women can ONLY reflect God’s glory THROUGH men. I’m afraid the Bible doesn’t say that. Nor does the Bible say that woman’s primary role is to be men’s ‘helper’. But that’s what the CBMW is saying.

  107. @ Lydia:

    This thought hit me one day while reading the headship passage: what sense does it make for a woman to cover her head because she is the glory of man if the man is supposed to be uncovered because he is the glory of God. I think Paul was knuckle-knocking on the leaders heads to think about their illogical reasoning for women’s covering.

  108. Ken wrote:

    Hence, Christian women will be subordinate to the Father for all the coming ages i.e. eternally, the men will be subordinate to the Father in precisely the same way, the kings of the earth and all their glory as well, and since I can’t think of any scripture to say this arrangement ever ends, the Son too will go on being subject to the Father.

    I don’t think you will find any scripture that says what you are looking for because they understood “father/son” totally different than we do. Right down to “sitting at the right hand”. These sorts of metaphorical illustrations would have meant something totally different to them. In John 5 it says the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus because he was making himself equal to the Father. How was he doing that? He claimed to be doing His business. It is interesting to approach it from that pov. The understanding of that time was that doing business with the son was exactly like doing business with the father. It also helps us understand some parables better.

  109. @ Patti:

    Good point. 1 Corin 11 is one of the most abused and misused passages around from trying to prove hierarchy to ESS. Without the complicated historical context it can be twisted to try and prove all sorts of unChristlike practices in the Body, male/female relationships and redefine the Trinity.

  110. Ken wrote:

    It’s a pity that submit has become a dirty word, as in the context used here it has no connotation of being demeaning. In fact none of its uses in the NT is demeaning. Jesus himself – God the Son – is not proud but on the contrary willing to take the role of servant.

    I do not see it as a dirty word at all. I see it as a totally misunderstood word. As far as relationships are concerned, it does not work at all if only one party is submitting in the way it is meant in scripture for relationships. Mutual submission, one to another, is the most beautiful representation of Christlikness in relationships.

  111. @ Leila:

    Thank you for printing that quote from ‘Good news for women’ by Rebecca Groothius – it looks like a sensible and good read.

  112. May wrote:

    And that woman was created explicitly to be man’s helper.

    The word in the creation narrative describing Eve as a helper to Adam is the same word that is used to describe God as a helper to David. That term clearly is misinterpreted if it is used to suggest a subordinate relationship!!!!

  113. Ivan wrote:

    allowing the Bible to say what it says (women should wear head coverings)

    It seems strange to me that Paul would be concerned about a scarf on the head of a woman while teaching that circumcision is of no importance!!!!! I suspect a bit of tongue in cheek humor there.

  114. Living in the Neo Calvinist, ESS and Gender hierarchy Mecca, whenever I see or hear the word, “ontological” from any pastor/teacher, my eyes now glaze over because I know what is coming. :o)

    If my nature of being/existence is so different from how I am to “function” how in the world can I function? It is like living in total cognitive dissonance. In my view it is Greek Pagan Dualism with a fish slapped on it.

  115. Arce wrote:

    It seems strange to me that Paul would be concerned about a scarf on the head of a woman while teaching that circumcision is of no importance!!!!

    LOL! Good point!

    But Paul says in vs 16, “We have no such custom”

  116. @ Patti:
    I always got a ‘one of these things is not like the other’ vibe because of the different treatment of women compared to the rest of them:
    Father (no covering) < Christ (no covering) < Man (no covering) < Woman (covering requried)
    I really don't believe that they believe it when they say things like 'God transcends gender' They view him as perfect maleness and therefore without a covering.

  117. Ken wrote:

    It’s a pity that submit has become a dirty word, as in the context used here it has no connotation of being demeaning.

    Submission is only demeaning when people teach that God created one class of people expressly to be Submitters and another class of people expressly to be Authorities over the Submitters, and everyone’s assigned class is irrevocable and essential to their nature. That is demeaning and dehumanizing to the extent that it removes agency from the females in our present discussion. In other contexts it was dark “races” who were deemed to be ordained Submitters. We now think differently about that. What is also demeaning is to teach that all women are rebellious and usurpers of male authority if they resist such teaching while all men who embrace such teaching are not grasping for authority (the female’s personal agency) that is not theirs. It is sinful for the female but virtuous for the male to grasp for authority in this system which is nothing but sin dressed up in clerical regalia.

  118. @ Jamie Carter:
    I asked some female friends from the Middle East what covering means. What they told me is that a woman must cover her hair because her hair is considered a sexual part of her body. If she uncovers her hair in public, it is considered an extremely shameful act which would require her male relatives to take action in order to restore honor to the family. These ladies, who are quite Westernized, said that it would be something like a woman going to the center of a mall and stripping except that males would not be required to take action. Hair does not carry the same significance in our culture, so it doesn’t seem important one way or the other. In that culture, however, it would have brought shame on the woman and her family if she uncovered in public. In Christ’s household she has the *right* to uncover her hair, but she also has the *responsibility* to act wisely and to lay down her *right* in service to the honor of Christ and her husband. The idea of not bringing shame on the name of Christ is a recurrent one with Paul.

  119. @ Gram3:
    Exactly – that’s why he used honor/shame language. It would have been all to easy to say: “this is a command, not I, the Lord says …” but He didn’t. There’s a little word – “if it be a shame …” In this day and age, it is not shameful for a woman to have her hair uncovered in public in any setting. But my friends at the Head Covering Movement always say that it’s a commandment because of the created order. They’re just not happy unless all women are wearing head coverings. My friends at The Headcovering Movement are trying to get all Female Subordinationists to push for head coverings in their churches so that there’s less inconsistency with their teachings: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/christian-covering-videos/inconsistent-complementarianism – they called it their ‘battlecry’. They do have a small following, but I think the best way to deal with the logical fallacies involved is to point out the issues their interpretation presents non-traditional families and families with non-believers.

  120. @ Arce:
    Greek society was a shame-honor culture. For women to not cover their heads (it may have just been married women however) would have been dishonorable. So Paul is proscribing head coverings to prevent shame from being brought upon the Corinthians. It may also have been to affirm gender distinctions though gender distinctions do not necessarily imply female subordination.

    An alternative explanation is that Paul is simply quoting men in the congregation who are advocating for head coverings only to refute them. It seems well argued, but I’m not really convinced by it. You can read about it there:

    http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7515

    A more extensive treatment of the argument is given on Scot McKnight’s blog (Jesus Creed).

  121. Velour wrote:

    That’s ok, Daisy. I have been so busy that I haven’t had a chance to comment. So I am sure that you covered what I would have posted; so I will assume responsibility for 225 comments.

    🙂

    mirele said

    UNITED STATES on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 09:34 PM said:
    Daisy wrote:
    I might be responsible for about 450 of those comments, sorry. This topic bothers me.
    —–
    As well it should! I would have been there along with you, Daisy, but I was traveling over the weekend. Female subordination does nothing for me. It’s not the way I was raised. My conservative father would likely reach out from eternity and shake me good if he saw me getting involved in something like that.

    I hope your trip was good.

    Gender complementarianism is nothing but sexism couched in religious jargon.

  122. @ billie:

    They don’t take into account women who never marry. I’m in my 40s and still not married.

    I’ve read about Christian women who have died in their 50s, 60s, who never married.

  123. Ken wrote:

    It’s a pity that submit has become a dirty word, as in the context used here it has no connotation of being demeaning.

    You’re not the one being told you’re a second class citizen on earth and in the afterlife due to some inborn trait you cannot change. If churches taught the opposite, that these passages are saying that husbands must submit to wives and cannot hold positions of leadership due to being men, you too would find this objectionable.

    Also, most Christians (especially the gender comps) define and understand words such as “submit” to mean “second class,” or “subject to,” as in, husbands are rulers in authority over wives, or men in general are rulers over all women.

  124. Pingback: Linkathon! » PhoenixPreacher | PhoenixPreacher

  125. Gram3 wrote:

    I asked some female friends from the Middle East what covering means. What they told me is that a woman must cover her hair because her hair is considered a sexual part of her body. If she uncovers her hair in public, it is considered an extremely shameful act which would require her male relatives to take action in order to restore honor to the family.

    “Take action to restore honor” as in Honor Killing?

    Something about an Honor/Shame culture. Unlike Guilt (which requires only one), Shame requires at least two — one to do the deed, and another to find out. (“You need only one for suicide, two for murder, but at least three for blackmail.” — Fr Brown) This leads to the following two-liner, which is behind a lot of headlines from the Middle East:

    1) If nobody finds out about my Sin, I Am Not Shamed.

    2) Dead Men Tell No Tales.

  126. Gram3 wrote:

    Submission is only demeaning when people teach that God created one class of people expressly to be Submitters and another class of people expressly to be Authorities over the Submitters, and everyone’s assigned class is irrevocable and essential to their nature.

    Isn’t that the definition of a CASTE system?

  127. Sopwith wrote:

    Have these 501(c)3 religious Complementarians subordinated their females in their midsts and now they are going after their children?

    Funny you should mention this because more and more women (Christian ones too) are either opting out of childbearing altogether or delaying it, which is why some quarters of Christendom have been screaming at the young uns to marry and marry now and have 45 kids.

    I guess such Christians think they only way they can save churches from the massive exodus and decline in membership numbers is by procreation of current members, rather than engaging in the lost and unsaved populations around them, to make converts. (Because they might involve actual work and effort.)

    The complementarian author Courtney Reissig, whom Dee quoted in her O.P. about cheering on women taking on careers in politics, just last summer, wrote another editorial kind of brainwashing or scolding Christian women who put off having children until they get to their 30s.

    Reissig wrote an editorial for a Christian publication basically saying it’s kind of wrong or bad for women to pursue education or career in their twenties, rather than marry or have kids.

    Of course, like many Christians who harp on these topics, she assumes that all or most women are intentionally delaying marriage or child birth, but there are some women who cannot find a male partner. They would like to marry or have children but are unable to do so.

    Anyway, here Reissig is this year editorializing how great it is for women to hold positions of secular leadership in the work world, but just last year she wrote another page saying women should be S.A.H.Ms (Stay At Home Mothers) (while they are in their 20s at least. I’m not sure if she would extend their to their 30s and beyond).

    If memory serves me on her older editorial, she thinks being a SAHM is God’s numero uno desire and sole or greatest intent for all women every where. So I’m not quite grasping her 2015 editorial cheering for the idea of women holding political careers. That seems to conflict a tad with her 2014 pro-SAHM page.

  128. Gram3 wrote:

    It is sinful for the female but virtuous for the male to grasp for authority in this system which is nothing but sin dressed up in clerical regalia.

    In the first Lord of the Rings movie, the vocal music in the background when the Ringwraiths are invading the inn at Bree translates as this:

    “We deny Iluvatar.
    We grasp for ourselves Power and Glory.
    Now we come! The Nine! Lords Immortal!”

  129. Patti wrote:

    It made me angry because using his name on their Holy Spirit teaching part made people think that Fee was complementarian, too. Now I believe that SGM just slyly used Fee’s reputation.

    Just as the guy who wrote the Malleus Malefacarium slyly used the reputation of a well-known cleric of his day by including his name as co-author.

  130. @ Gus:

    Excellent points. There is a lot of parallels between gender complementarian (CFS, Christian Female Subordinationism) views and teachings and what other world religions teach or believe about women.

    It’s funny that the CFSs can tell people that Christianity is a distinct faith because it teaches that God had to reach down to people, that people cannot merit salvation, while all the other religions of the world believe one has to work one’s way to God.

    This is one major thing that makes Christianity unique, CFSs would probably say. And they seem proud of that.

    Yet they turn around and promote or agree with some of the very same beliefs about women that other world religions do.

    The message of Christ is supposed to liberate people, not hold them under the same bondage and stereotypes that the rest of the world already is beholden to.

  131. In the Complementarian gospel of the future kingdom, in both the parables of the Minas and the Talents, Jesus omitted to say that he could only reward male servants with responsibility for much, by setting them over cities … of male and female subjects. Also the sisters are excluded from ruling the nations, unless they are Amazons. Tut, tut, Jesus!

  132. Ivan wrote:

    These people are definitely not patriarchalists or misogynists.

    Sounds like an off-shoot of Benevolent sexism – it’s sexism with good intentions and sexism still at the basis. It’s sexism with a smile rather than sexism with a sneer.

    The friendlier form of sexism is just as damaging to women because the results are the same as good old fashioned blatant sexism.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/life/benevolent-sexism-men-who-open-doors-for-women-can-be-as-sexist-as-those-who-are-rude-to-them-study-finds

  133. @ May:

    They are so fixated on creation order (God created the male first) that they ignore the passage by Paul in the NT which mentions that all men after Adam have come from and through women, including the Messiah.

  134. @ Nancy2:

    Sorry Nancy2. You can’t live forever on another planet at all. You have to be married to Mormon man to get into Mormon heaven. That’s the only reason their women put up with polygamy.

  135. dee wrote:

    I will try to get some links to see how they tap dance around this one. It starts with the ontological equality which they claim is what was being denied by Arius. Then they step, hop, and slide over to functional hierarchy and try to maintain a straight face.

    This would be an excellent post dee! Define their terms, cut through the philo-speak and reduce to simplest form what they mean so that folks can decide for themselves whether or not they’ve ditched Athanasius’s manifesto. I too would be interested in the tap dance and veesel-vurds they use to get around / and / or claim that they’re only affirming what the Church has always believed about the Trinity.

  136. @ Gram3:

    In regards to the CFS (Christian Female Subordinationists) tendency to get into this thing about how women are supposedly a derivative of man because woman was taken from the man’s rib.

    I find it terribly sad they choose to filter all these sorts of things through this lens of male superiority and hierarchy, when I think God’s intent was the exact opposite.

    I think by making the first woman out of the man’s rib (and other things spoken of in the text, such as the first man was all alone even with the animals, until God brought Eve to him), God was showing men (and women) that both genders are equal and interdependent.

    Men and women are supposed to help each other out in life – not one gender submit and serve the other. There’s supposed to be a solidarity there, not trying to argue that one gender has power over the other.

    I think God making Eve out of Adam’s rib was a sign that the two are one (made of the same stuff, etc), not that Eve is in second place because she was created from (and-or after) the man.

    Gender complementarians really have to go out of their way to mess up some very beautiful ideals and parts of the Bible and what God did, and God’s intent. It’s sad (also insulting and frustrating).

  137. billie wrote:

    I just do not understand why Jesus’ answer to that question doesn’t serve as the death blow to ESS. In heaven there will be neither marriage nor giving in marriage. She isn’t anybody’s subordinate wife in eternity.

    I agree. They sound like Mormons to me.

    It is interesting to me that there will be no marrying in heaven. So, what will come of our now unnecessary sexually distinctive organs? Could it be that we will not look the same in our new bodies?

  138. Ivan wrote:

    Mapping human relations back on to trinitarian relations is pretty sloppy since trinitarian relations are not the same as human ones.

    I absolutely agree with you.

  139. Muff Potter wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I will try to get some links to see how they tap dance around this one. It starts with the ontological equality which they claim is what was being denied by Arius. Then they step, hop, and slide over to functional hierarchy and try to maintain a straight face.
    This would be an excellent post dee! Define their terms, cut through the philo-speak and reduce to simplest form what they mean so that folks can decide for themselves whether or not they’ve ditched Athanasius’s manifesto. I too would be interested in the tap dance and veesel-vurds they use to get around / and / or claim that they’re only affirming what the Church has always believed about the Trinity.

    I have done some checking with folks I know who attend Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches about whether their churches embrace ESS. If the statement that ESS is “what the church has always believed,” then those churches should also believe it, correct? Protestants and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox all believe the Nicene Creed (minus the fililoque issue) for instance. And in the case of the fililoque, we know exactly when that divergence happened. Both the Catholic and EO churches, of course, have strong respect for tradition. Neither church has any concept of ESS in its understanding of the Trinity according to the people I asked and in fact some were immediately aghast and called it heresy. It is an interesting point that Protestants who claim they can read the text and discern the one and only specific correct way to read any text also appeal to tradition and the church fathers on ESS. Those churches who, on the other hand, have always taken into account tradition and the church fathers, who trace their origins to the time when the church was one, have apparently somehow missed ESS in those early church teachings.

  140. May wrote:

    No the article is not just quoting Paul, it’s deriving it from the creation account and extrapolating that women can ONLY reflect God’s glory THROUGH men. I’m afraid the Bible doesn’t say that. Nor does the Bible say that woman’s primary role is to be men’s ‘helper’. But that’s what the CBMW is saying.

    I don’t go to church anymore. I’ve never married.

    So I’m curious as to how these gender comps expect never married, non-church going adult women to reflect God’s glory, if she has no men in her life, and they say men are necessary for this?

    Not that I buy into the premise to start with.

  141. Patrice wrote:

    If a woman is ontologically equal but required to be functionally subordinate, then she is being told to dishonor God by not doing her best with what God gave her.

    They are wrong about function not being equal to worth.

    How many of them would be thrilled if their son decided to be a janitor. Better yet, why aren’t there many blue collar workers on elder boards. Aren’t they usually *successful* men? They mouth the believe but they don’t really practice it.

  142. May wrote:

    Thank you for printing that quote from ‘Good news for women’ by Rebecca Groothius – it looks like a sensible and good read.

    That was a book I mentioned in the last thread on this topic. I sent a copy of it to a gender comp friend of mine who kept trying to debate this topic with me, but I wasn’t interested, so I sent him that book.

    He claimed to have read it, but I could tell from his comments and accusations against the author he had not. He finally copped to it and said no, he had not read the book, only the back cover of it.

    He just assumed that the author was influenced by secular feminism, so he did not bother to even crack the book open and read it.

    (And no, she was not influenced by secular feminism.)

    I used to have a copy of that book, but it got lost in my last move.

  143. Jack wrote:

    Thank God there are more of today’s women made of steel.

    Great comment Jack and I concur, but I would argue that the women who’ve succeeded in the venue you describe are made of titanium, which will outlast the strongest steel alloys in harsh and corrosive environments.

  144. Gram3 wrote:

    Submission is only demeaning when people teach that God created one class of people expressly to be Submitters and another class of people expressly to be Authorities over the Submitters, and everyone’s assigned class is irrevocable and essential to their nature. That is demeaning and dehumanizing to the extent that it removes agency from the females in our present discussion. In other contexts it was dark “races” who were deemed to be ordained Submitters. We now think differently about that. What is also demeaning is to teach that all women are rebellious and usurpers of male authority if they resist such teaching while all men who embrace such teaching are not grasping for authority (the female’s personal agency) that is not theirs. It is sinful for the female but virtuous for the male to grasp for authority in this system which is nothing but sin dressed up in clerical regalia.

    So very well put! This was in part what I was trying to say above but you said it so much better than I did.

    I’m still amazed by the gender comp guys who show up in this thread or the last one who don’t see how or why women could or would find gender complementarianism insulting and demeaning.

    I remember Stephanie Drury at “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” had her husband David man-splain this issue to other Christian men with this analogy of like (I don’t have the quote handy, but it was something like),

    “What if I said ‘I have a black friend who is really talented and good at picking cotton and maybe even told my black friend, “I bet you excel at picking cotton’.”

    Someone might think they’re giving a black American a great compliment by saying that, but it’s really an insult and condescending (and still racist), even if well-intentioned.

    The comps keep wanting to tell women:
    —–
    “Oh, you guys being in second place and submitting to all men is not REALLY an insult. Stop taking it like it’s an insult!

    “We think you’re inferior and should submit, and not by anything you’ve done, but just by sheer fact you were born a certain way; but we mean it in the most loving and godly way possible.

    “And men should be servant-leaders anyhow. If men are leading you lovingly, why, all this talk of you being under men should not be a problem for you!”
    —–
    Men who honestly believe that are so very tone deaf on this.

  145. Gram3 wrote:

    Are you the Ken who wrote that women are eternally subordinate? If so, was your tongue in cheek or do you really believe that?

    Yes, it was, and several here have spectacularly missed the point of what I was getting at. Perhaps I should have said that women, like men, will be ‘eternally subordinate’ to the Father as in 1 Cor 15, and left it at that!

    The current wifely submission/husband being head Eph 5 etc.arrangement is for this life only. Precisely what the new heavens and earth will be like has imo not been revealed. I suspect it will be more than what God intended in Genesis 2.

  146. Daisy wrote:

    I’m still amazed by the gender comp guys who show up in this thread or the last one who don’t see how or why women could or would find gender complementarianism insulting and demeaning.

    Perhaps some of us have known and learnt from Spirit-filled Christian women who haven’t found this concept remotely insulting or demeaning.

    I must qualify this by saying I personally have hever heard women being put down or told they are inferior with regard to this subject. I can understand anyone reacting against that if that is what they have been told.

  147. Daisy wrote:

    Men who honestly believe that are so very tone deaf on this.

    Easy to be tone-deaf when you’re personally benefiting from it.

  148. dee wrote:

    They are wrong about function not being equal to worth.
    How many of them would be thrilled if their son decided to be a janitor. Better yet, why aren’t there many blue collar workers on elder boards. Aren’t they usually *successful* men? They mouth the believe but they don’t really practice it.

    From
    “Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not be Ordained Clergy”

    Under point two:

    2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, change the oil in the church vans, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
    ————-
    How many gender comps do you think would go for that reasoning?

  149. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Easy to be tone-deaf when you’re personally benefiting from it.

    Yep, yep, a million Yeps on that!

    If the men telling me I should not be offended or insulted by how gender comps treat the topic of “submission” were themselves the target of such teachings, you can bet they would change their tune in a heartbeat.

    It’s easy for them to preach it at me and tell me I should be okay and happy with it, since it’s not affecting them.

  150. @ Alison Rowan:

    “Sixteen NT Instances where Women Teach and Lead Men

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbWJH8gXol809nCCCR4vtc7VtDWfTyumQEaSQGMUoEA/pub

    Even if only one is valid, that is in enough to overthrow the Complementarian’s interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    and subtle messages in children’s sunday school materials. (although it was blinking fast in code blue to me)

    some years ago my kids brought home handouts from their sunday school class. they were learning about who paul was. This week: Priscilla and Aquila

    The big illustration on the handout was of 2 individuals sitting at a rectangular wooden table (in 1st century garb, of course).

    The Paul guy was listening attentively with bright dot eyes and a major arc of a smile.

    The other male character of the story (Aquila) was siting at the head of the table, feet apart, gesturing wildly, dot eyes and upturned crescent moon smile indicating all manner of enthusiasm.

    The female character of the story (Priscilla) was standing off to the side, putting flowers in a vase, body closed and compact, curved-line eyes either downcast or closed. With a small slightly upturned minor curve of a smile, indicating contentment and out-of-the-way quietness.

    5 points for anyone who can tell my son and 2 daughters what’s inaccurate and wrong with this picture. (Since they don’t seem to hear my voice anymore)

  151. Ken wrote:

    It’s a pity that submit has become a dirty word, as in the context used here it has no connotation of being demeaning. I

    Submitting to authorities can be demeaning depending on the authority. The Jews submitted to the authority of the Nazis and died in concentration camps.

    But you would say that real authority is not like that. I would beg to differ. I have seen many churches in which the pastor is hardly the chief among servants. The same goes for elders. Take a look at all of those lovely Calvinists in the news. Servants? Really? They appear to be more like admirals in rowboats to me. I have seen two pastors who are like servants. Neither of them are affiliated with this crowd.

    Secondly, function is a matter of value in many instances. A general in the army is considered of more value for his function than the guy sweeping the floor. This is how it plays out in society-for better or worse. Jesus got it. He reached out to the marginalized precisely because he knew they were beaten on by the Pharisees.

    Today’s churches are the same. The elders are made up of *important* people in society. The people with money are looked at with favor. Do not tell me that the woman in charge of cleaning the nursery toys is looked upon, in reality, as equal in function to Tim Keller. It’s baloney and everyone knows it.

    The problem is the function. Women are left out of the important decisions made by the more important men in the church. They know they are less important, no matter what theoretical “equal in value” theology is thrown around, usually by men who are in charge of running departments of theology.

    So, I don’t by the reality of what you are saying. I don’t see it so it makes no sense to me.

  152. Daisy wrote:

    “And men should be servant-leaders anyhow. If men are leading you lovingly, why, all this talk of you being under men should not be a problem for you!”
    —–

    I try to keep to scripture only when I am arguing with a Complentarian. I have been burned every time I mention how I was hurt under the complentarian ideal. They disregard my extensive research on the subject and say the only reason I am rebelling is because I am wounded and bitter.

  153. @ Daisy:

    “The complementarian author Courtney Reissig, whom Dee quoted in her O.P. about cheering on women taking on careers in politics, just last summer, wrote another editorial kind of brainwashing or scolding Christian women who put off having children until they get to their 30s.

    Reissig wrote an editorial for a Christian publication basically saying it’s kind of wrong or bad for women to pursue education or career in their twenties, rather than marry or have kids……

    Anyway, here Reissig is this year editorializing how great it is for women to hold positions of secular leadership in the work world, but just last year she wrote another page saying women should be S.A.H.Ms”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Alright, Courtney Reissig, I sure would like to know what you really think. Is it square, it is circle, or is it square circle? i’ll even take polygon or kidney-shaped….

    I would also like to ask you who put you up to writing these things? you do realize you’ve contradicted yourself in one short year. consider the fact that the impression you give is that you are a sock puppet for CBMW.

    I hope for better things for you.

  154. Patti wrote:

    They disregard my extensive research on the subject and say the only reason I am rebelling is because I am wounded and bitter

    It goes the other way, you know.

    I got into an on-line conversation with a man who has a book out against domestic violence. He was all about protecting women and nurturing and all. But he still held on firmly to male headship.

    After a great deal of debating if finally came out that he had been abused by his mother and that’s why he hates abuse against anyone and wanted to bring attention to it and solve it. But he was blind to the fact that he had a fear that he displayed in some of his comments. He wanted women to submit to and trust men. But he feared female leadership. He didn’t want to be the one put in the positions to be potentially abused but he thought women shouldn’t have a problem with being in that position.

    Since that conversation I’ve seen this fear in many men. I’ve seen that these men are motivated by fear, perhaps even more that power. That fear is all over Piper. Men like him can only think in black and white terms. You are either the leader or the follower. They can’t trust women and fear the notion of ever being the follower of a woman. And they cannot conceive of the possibility of mutuality. Therefore the only remaining, acceptable option, where they are not the vulnerable one, is male-headship.

  155. Mara wrote:

    Patti wrote:
    They disregard my extensive research on the subject and say the only reason I am rebelling is because I am wounded and bitter
    It goes the other way, you know.
    I got into an on-line conversation with a man who has a book out against domestic violence. He was all about protecting women and nurturing and all. But he still held on firmly to male headship.
    After a great deal of debating if finally came out that he had been abused by his mother and that’s why he hates abuse against anyone and wanted to bring attention to it and solve it. But he was blind to the fact that he had a fear that he displayed in some of his comments. He wanted women to submit to and trust men. But he feared female leadership. He didn’t want to be the one put in the positions to be potentially abused but he thought women shouldn’t have a problem with being in that position.
    Since that conversation I’ve seen this fear in many men. I’ve seen that these men are motivated by fear, perhaps even more that power. That fear is all over Piper. Men like him can only think in black and white terms. You are either the leader or the follower. They can’t trust women and fear the notion of ever being the follower of a woman. And they cannot conceive of the possibility of mutuality. Therefore the only remaining, acceptable option, where they are not the vulnerable one, is male-headship.

    I agree. As I thought more about the Piper audio I linked upthread and his words about a woman “pressing her authority” into him, I began to wonder what his relationship with his mother was like…

  156. dee wrote:

    It is interesting to me that there will be no marrying in heaven. So, what will come of our now unnecessary sexually distinctive organs? Could it be that we will not look the same in our new bodies?

    Just think about how disappointed those Muslim martyrs would be to find no sexual organs in heaven! And a whole lot of Christian men as well — Driscoll and all of his sycophants.

  157. @ Ken:
    In a lot of ways it was invisible. In one of my churches, women were forbidden from collecting the offering plates and passing them from pew to pew, but nobody complained if a woman sitting in a pew handed the plate to the man right beside her. The difference is that was more visible for a woman to walk from the first to the last pew. That was their line – if it was a visible ministry, it was men-only. Which is why they didn’t mind that a woman was in charged of their soundboard because it was in the back of the room, but if the soundboard was in the front, then it would be man-only.

  158. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Take action to restore honor” as in Honor Killing?

    Yes, it might be that extreme. These ladies have been enormously helpful to me in understanding shame/honor culture which is something that does not come to our mind as automatically. Another thing I discovered is that they have no concept of a non-reciprocal gift. If I give them a gift, then they must reciprocate with a bigger gift. They have a lot of trouble with pure grace and acts motivated strictly from love or virtue being a result of love for God rather than fear of him.

  159. Arce wrote:

    dee wrote:
    It is interesting to me that there will be no marrying in heaven. So, what will come of our now unnecessary sexually distinctive organs? Could it be that we will not look the same in our new bodies?
    Just think about how disappointed those Muslim martyrs would be to find no sexual organs in heaven! And a whole lot of Christian men as well — Driscoll and all of his sycophants.

    Will the martyrs behave like the neutered cat in the photos????
    Now that would be a sight to behold!

  160. elastigirl wrote:

    5 points for anyone who can tell my son and 2 daughters what’s inaccurate and wrong with this picture. (Since they don’t seem to hear my voice anymore)

    I’ll take a shot at it. That drawing was communicating that women should let the men folk do all the thinking, teaching, and leading, and all the better if they do so real quiet like while engaging in Martha Stewart like activities.

  161. Daisy wrote:

    The complementarian author Courtney Reissig, whom Dee quoted in her O.P. about cheering on women taking on careers in politics, just last summer, wrote another editorial kind of brainwashing or scolding Christian women who put off having children until they get to their 30s.

    One big problem is that they have created a culture within the conservative church where young women who can think and who are fully capable must deal with young men who have been indoctrinated with an entitlement mentality toward the women. I know of more than one young woman who has washed her hands of guys in conservative churches. If they women do not marry the guys they are creating with their doctrines, then I think there will be an eventual decline in their numbers. A smart and secure man does not want a doormat robot. Or, as Gramp3 puts it, a synthetic silicone woman. That’s not exactly how he put it…In his estimation, these guys are stuck at roughly 11 years old. I thought it was about 14 but he says 11. So I submit to his judgment.

  162. Patti wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    Sorry Nancy2. You can’t live forever on another planet at all. You have to be married to Mormon man to get into Mormon heaven. That’s the only reason their women put up with polygamy.

    Doggone it! All my hopes have been dashed …… not.

    Disaster Alert:
    If you feel the ground shake tonight or see a mushroom cloud (or both) the epicenter/point of explosion will be in Southern Kentucky. I just found a John Piper book on my husband’s desk in the den.

  163.   __

    “A Receipe For Disaster?”

    hmmm…

    Dee,

      I am concerned that certain Calvinist houses of worship are not protecting the children who attend with their parents, as aprrently they have a track record of harboring pedophiles and that without warning. Now they are harboring those who would persue domestic violence and abuse their wives as well?

    Scary.

  164. @ Patti:

    I’d like to ask an even more searching question. “Why do we ASSUME this is Paul’s teaching in the first place?” I ask you all if Paul would really condemn himself and all Jewish men, when praying or prophesying WHILE WEARING THEIR TALLIT, (tribal prayer shawl) as dishonouring their own head … Or even worse, Christ! Would Paul REALLY teach that Christ wearing his tallit of Judah in the Temple or synagogue was dishonouring his own head, out even worse, God, Himself as his Head???!!

    Have you noticed that JESUS ALONE is described as “the express image and glory of God”, in Heb 1:3, not MAN? The light of the knowledge of the glory of God is in the face of … Whom? Errrr Man???

    Have you noticed that there SHOULD be a covering over all the glory” (Is 4:5) and that Moses covered the glory shining from his face with a head covering?

    Is Paul really THAT ignorant of the scriptures?? Wake up folks!! Paul makes it quite clear in v 16 that he is quoting one of the “contentions”, say the Roman faction taunting the Jewish faction in this notoriously bickering carnal church! (To a Roman, any Jewish man’s hair, including the Lord’s, would be “long”!)

    Have you noticed in 1 Cor 11:2, Paul is commending them for keeping what he DID pass on to them. But then in verse 3, comes a wonderful contrasting word, BUT, at the beginning of this entire section that in my mind is a cut and paste of various quotes of what they wrote to him about head coverings. This is not a far fetched suggestion since we all know he was enraged with the Judaizers who were trying to silence the women in chapter 14 and makes mincemeat of what he quoted of their argument. He may or may not have made his own comments here in chapter 11 in between their quotes, but to my mind there is a HUMUNGOUS question mark over this entire, passage that directly contradicts other scripture. To then hinge an entire, invented theology of such significance on this very loose bracket is absolutely unethical.

  165. Jamie Carter wrote:

    Which is why they didn’t mind that a woman was in charged of their soundboard because it was in the back of the room, but if the soundboard was in the front, then it would be man-only.

    “Out of sight, Out of mind.”

    Reminds me that next year when I’m on the East Coast to take that tour of Monticello. The one that points out how the buildings & landscaping on Jefferson’s estate/plantation were designed and arranged so the black slaves were completely invisible from Monticello itself and any (white) guests.

    Jefferson — the only true Cultural Imperialist among the Founding Fathers (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”) but man that guy had some serious blind spots. (As well as NO money sense.)

  166. @ Ken:
    Well, that’s a relief, but I wasn’t sure because I think there is more than one Ken. I agree about the eternal subordination of both males and females to God. Do you agree with the Female Subordinators that the submission described in Ephesians 5 is only one-way, or is it reciprocal in any way at all? IOW, is what follows Ephesians 5:21 informed at all, in your estimation, by 5:21 and its universality?

  167. Gram3 wrote:

    Another thing I discovered is that they have no concept of a non-reciprocal gift. If I give them a gift, then they must reciprocate with a bigger gift.

    So in their culture there is no such thing as “Hey, I thought you’d like to have this”, it’s always Tit for Tat plus compounding interest?

    (Is this Semitic Tribal Culture in general, or the one that the Koran locked in for all peoples for all eternity?)

  168. Ken wrote:

    Perhaps some of us have known and learnt from Spirit-filled Christian women who haven’t found this concept remotely insulting or demeaning.

    There were very many slaves in the ante-Bellum South who liked things the way they were and even fought for the Confederacy. Does that fact make slavery itself a good thing?

  169. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Ken:
    Well, that’s a relief, but I wasn’t sure because I think there is more than one Ken.

    There’s at least three on this blog alone.
    My real name is Ken; that’s why I started using a pseudonym.

  170. Gram3 wrote:

    There were very many slaves in the ante-Bellum South who liked things the way they were and even fought for the Confederacy. Does that fact make slavery itself a good thing?

    It makes the Confederate States of America a bit more complex than most people think.

  171. Patti wrote:

    They disregard my extensive research on the subject and say the only reason I am rebelling is because I am wounded and bitter.

    Yeay, they sang that song for me, too. Nevermind the facts and the texts. They do *not* have to listen because Male.

  172. Nancy2 wrote:

    I just found a John Piper book on my husband’s desk in the den.

    Maybe you could use Piper’s own words as a point of discussion. The Female Subordinators say a woman should ask her husband at home. OK, you could ask your husband to explain where Piper gets his ideas and where they are in the actual Bible. Ask your husband to walk you through the reasoning that Piper employs. Ask your husband to be a Berean. Maybe he will be!

  173. It is hard to put aside the idea that – transported back 175 years – Grudem, Piper, Ware and buddies would have had their Council of Biblical Slavery full of scholarly articles on how the Bible “clearly says” slaves should submit to their masters to present the lovely picture to the world of how Christ submitted to the Father.

  174. @ Alison Rowan:
    It was appropriate for the Mercy Seat to be covered before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. It was appropriate for Jewish men to cover their heads with their mini-tabernacles before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. After that, it was inappropriate because the covering Atonement had been accomplished and the sacrifice accepted. Therefor, by continuing to cover their heads as if the Atoning Sacrifice had not been made and accepted brought shame on their Head who is Christ. That is how it has been explained to me.

    Much has been made of contradictions within Paul’s writing, but I think that stems from a misreading of what he wrote and why. That does not establish whether he wrote any particular book, and I’m not trying to make a textual criticism point. When discussing what the Bible says with people who believe they take the authority of the Bible seriously and are usually Chicago-style inerrantists, it isn’t helpful or even necessary to introduce whether or not Paul is the author of any particular text. So, I approach the problem with their own presuppositions about the texts and go from there. Regrettably, it turns out that, in fact, they do not take the actual texts seriously. But at least I try. 🙂

  175. @ Alison Rowan:
    And you make a good point about what words are Paul’s original words and which ones are quotations of someone else’s words. Like Jesus said, You have heard X, but I tell you Y. Or 1 Corinthians 14 and the Absolute Prohibition on Female Speaking which I believe is Paul quoting their “law” and refuting it with an emphatic disjunctive. For some reason, some inerrantists and infallibilists do not acknowledge that the manuscripts we have did not have punctuation, and that the punctuation that appears in our translations is an interpretation itself.

  176. Or if they did, they find some justification for ignoring him. So how come they won’t question anything else? They seem to have a hermeneutic of convenience. Elastic enough to not appear to oppressive.

  177. muzjik wrote:

    Council of Biblical Slavery full of scholarly articles on how the Bible “clearly says” slaves should submit to their masters

    Well, the Southern Baptists had some and so did the PCUS (not to be confused with the PCUSA.) Old Light and New Light. There was a lot of really bad theologizing going on. After all, if Paul and Jesus did not abolish slavery, then it must not be sinful, right? It is very enlightening to observe the arguments that were once considered so rock-solid but which now sound ridiculous to us.

  178. Alison Rowan wrote:

    Thanks Gram3. Do all the Comps believe Paul wrote 1 Cor 14:34-5? Obviously not!

    IIRC, their explanations for it not meaning what it plainly says are about as convincing as their explanations for why 1 Timothy 2:15 does not mean what it plainly says. Plainly, a hermeneutic of “what the text plainly says” is selectively employed and only when it furthers their narrative.

  179. You replied before me … And I know we’re in agreement here along with everyone else who knows Jesus Blood paid for ALL of Eve’s penalty. Shame we have to wait for our resurrection bodies before the birth pangs cease. (But of course, our subordination won’t!)

  180. 1. I remember reading the paper where the “women submit in eternity” concept was laid out. What struck me was that a huge number of their supporting quotes were from C. S. Lewis. Now Lewis is fine, and said quotes were written beautifully because he was a gifted author. But just quoting Lewis agreeing with you about something, doesn’t make your position true by default (even if it plays well with American evangelicals who will pretty much accept anything if it has his name attached to it). If CBMW is really some new denomination in which Lewis speaks infallibly ex cathedra, they really need to advertise that fact so we all know where they’re coming from. (Though that would be dangerous for them because they REALLY wouldn’t like him on some other topics. See long-running debates about The Last Battle and universalism.)

    2. Basically no one (comp or egal) would care about ESS unless it was connected to gender roles. So probably the healthiest thing that could happen to the debate about this aspect of the Trinity, would be to take everyone’s toys away and sever it from gender roles forever. This won’t actually happen, of course. Unfortunately.

  181. I just opened a mission report from a Bible translator in Papua New Guinea we support that was a little too coincidental….from a lesson this week.

    “sakboe sikin mado! Nu onom te naki!” “Not just our ancestors! Us too!” One of the gals said this when _____ tried to explain that Satan didn’t just deceive Eve, but he deceived the Nagi’s ancestors too. Always cool when someone jumps the gun and makes the application to themselves before the teacher does! : )
    o “Eki nen tor kege!” He did bad all on his own. The gals were so thrilled to hear that Adam had not been deceived by Eve into eating the fruit. That he knew full well what he was doing. . .
    o “Do, naki? E ma kir ene geom do. E ma tor ke geom do!” “That’s not true is it? He didn’t eat the fruit. He didn’t do bad!” The guys on the other hand weren’t thrilled to hear this truth. Saying that they had always heard that Eve had deceived her husband, so he didn’t know what he was doing. Also, he never really ate the fruit, but rather the little piece that he did bite off got stuck in his throat and that is why men have Adam’s apples to this day.”

    I suspect that certain men in the US, like the native believers, would also not be thrilled by this truth. I wonder if CBMW has written anything about the origin of the Adam’s apple. 🙂

  182. Alison Rowan wrote:

    Or if they did, they find some justification for ignoring him. So how come they won’t question anything else? They seem to have a hermeneutic of convenience. Elastic enough to not appear to oppressive.

    That’s how I see it. What is interesting is to observe the very different ways in which they define what constitutes acceptable speech and unacceptable speech in the church. They cannot produce anything concrete, so they just go with what seems right or what they can get away with. IMO, for example, 9Marks says it is OK for a woman to read the Bible from the pulpit because they want to be able to appear somewhat open to women having a voice while actually denying her voice. Challies and his POV is much more honest, IMO, because he says no female voice from the pulpit ever. Apparently the real estate behind the pulpit is holy ground devoted to males.

  183. @ Abi Miah:
    I think that you need to use the word “Protestants” here in a qualified way. I am Lutheran (ELCA) and no, we do *not* believe in ESS. Neither do the folks in the Anglican Communion (well, there might be some who do, but they are a tiny minority).

  184. dee wrote:

    The problem is the function. Women are left out of the important decisions made by the more important men in the church. They know they are less important, no matter what theoretical “equal in value” theology is thrown around, usually by men who are in charge of running departments of theology.
    So, I don’t by the reality of what you are saying. I don’t see it so it makes no sense to me.

    Totally. It all sounds pretty but in reality, it doesn’t work and it is being demonstrated that women and stereotypical women’s role are not valued as much as men or men’s roles…

    No matter how gender complementarians try to spin it or sugar coat it.

  185. @ Gram3:
    I think there was a good deal of coercion and other manipulation going on, in terms of getting those few black Southerners who fought for the Confederacy to do so. Which is where the whole concept of “liked” comes in.

    Rec.: read Octavia Butler’s book Kindred, and then tell me whether you think “liked” has anything to do with it.

  186. Nancy2 wrote:

    My first husband died in an auto accident. I married again. So, which male superior will I be subordinate to eternally??? Will thet take turns subjugating me, based on the length of time I was married to each man?

    This is exactly what set up Jesus’ famous response to the Sadducees which absolutely obliterates the notion of eternal male/female genders or subordination. Of course Jesus said we will be like the angels, without marriage, and thus no need for male or female–unless the eternal complementarian crowd is proposing a curious sort of neutered male (or female) in eternity, which seems too obvious a joke to use in light of fake, cowardly he-men like Driscoll or, of course, people like John Piper generally.

    The problem, of course, is that Jesus said the very clear and unequivocal stuff about eternal gender roles and marriage, and this crowd has demonstrated that not only do they not care for what Jesus says, but in fact, it almost appears as if they hate it. Of course, Pharisees typically did.

  187. @ Gram3:

    Now we are touching a sacred cow, or rather golden calf that has received the worship of the church, just like the Nuremberg podium. The one standing there is six foot above contradiction!

  188. Patti wrote:

    I try to keep to scripture only when I am arguing with a Complentarian. I have been burned every time I mention how I was hurt under the complentarian ideal. They disregard my extensive research on the subject and say the only reason I am rebelling is because I am wounded and bitter.

    I actually think being wounded and bitter are some valid reasons to ditch gender complementarianism. If a teaching is causing women to feel that way, there might be something wrong with the teaching.

    When women left the company of Jesus and hearing him speak, did they feel bitter and wounded, or freed and uplifted? That should be a clue-bat upside the heads of gender complementarians.

    I’m not saying doctrine should always take a backseat to emotions, but it’s a red light indicator that something can be wrong with a doctrine.

  189. dee wrote:

    The problem is the function. Women are left out of the important decisions made by the more important men in the church. They know they are less important, no matter what theoretical “equal in value” theology is thrown around, usually by men who are in charge of running departments of theology.

    NO GURLZ ALLOWED.

    Like the gamers referenced in Gamergate.

  190. Hester wrote:

    1. I remember reading the paper where the “women submit in eternity” concept was laid out. What struck me was that a huge number of their supporting quotes were from C. S. Lewis. Now Lewis is fine, and said quotes were written beautifully because he was a gifted author. But just quoting Lewis agreeing with you about something, doesn’t make your position true by default (even if it plays well with American evangelicals who will pretty much accept anything if it has his name attached to it). If CBMW is really some new denomination in which Lewis speaks infallibly ex cathedra, they really need to advertise that fact so we all know where they’re coming from. (Though that would be dangerous for them because they REALLY wouldn’t like him on some other topics. See long-running debates about The Last Battle and universalism.)
    2. Basically no one (comp or egal) would care about ESS unless it was connected to gender roles. So probably the healthiest thing that could happen to the debate about this aspect of the Trinity, would be to take everyone’s toys away and sever it from gender roles forever. This won’t actually happen, of course. Unfortunately.

    Fact: Most of C. S. Lewis’ work, his most famous work, is FICTION!!!!

  191. GovPappy wrote:

    The missus and I talked about this recently – these doctrines have the secondary effect of further driving the sexes culturally apart. The average woman will tend to just let the men study and make the decisions (after all, homemaking is not a lark and is a full time job). The average man will usually default to not really asking the wife for honest input, and the divide gets bigger, exponentially.

    This is simply “divide and conquer” given a religious twist. A strong husband-wife relationship wherein each views the other as co-equals in Christ in every possible respect is an existential threat to cult leaders. If you wish to dominate others, setting up a fiefdom in which you may exercise your lust for sadistic control unchecked, the first thing you must do is separate husbands from wives.

    It is essential that you be as divisive as humanly possible–while calling anyone who questions your penchant for division “divisive”.

  192. You are not going to change the minds of Piper et al regarding subordination of women. If that is a deal breaker for you regarding church membership, I suggest that you seek out churches that truly do welcome women in all leadership roles. They run the gamut from Pentecostal Holiness to Baptist to mainlines such as Presbyterian, Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopalian.

  193. Gram3 wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    I just found a John Piper book on my husband’s desk in the den.
    Maybe you could use Piper’s own words as a point of discussion. The Female Subordinators say a woman should ask her husband at home. OK, you could ask your husband to explain where Piper gets his ideas and where they are in the actual Bible. Ask your husband to walk you through the reasoning that Piper employs. Ask your husband to be a Berean. Maybe he will be!

    My husband is one semester short of getting a degree from an SBC bible college. Scary! Beleive me, I’m about to milk Piper’s work, as well as I Cor. and a few other writings, until those cows drop dead from exhaustion. I might even go into the book of Numbers! If you’re going to play the subjugation card in a marriage, you might as well go for broke!

  194. I find it amusing when a group of men come up with theories about the way life is going to be in heaven. Its kind of like John Piper telling us why bridges collapse.

    I made the mistake of clicking down that link and actually reading Flutterhands Piper.
    The Christianese was so thick I almost needed a cutting torch.

  195. Daisy wrote:

    (When your brand of Christianity is aping Mormonism or Islam, it should make you reconsider what you’re saying might be wrong…)

    And when your brand of Christianity reminds people of “Just Like Scientology!”, that should also be a tipoff.

  196. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    But even if their nonsensical re-imagining of the Trinity were correct, how can they leap from there to some kind of model for human relationships? Forget the “missing major premise” fallacy – these people are missing the whole syllogism!

    1) Collect used underpants.
    2) ?????
    3) PROFIT!
    — The Underpants Gnomes

  197. Mara wrote:

    Since that conversation I’ve seen this fear in many men. I’ve seen that these men are motivated by fear, perhaps even more that power. That fear is all over Piper. Men like him can only think in black and white terms.
    You are either the leader or the follower.
    They can’t trust women and fear the notion of ever being the follower of a woman.

    I read a bunch of stuff a few months ago about verbal abuse, books and blogs.

    Years before, I read many books about workplace abuse too.

    The part about these guys being motivated by fear may be true, but one thing I was shocked to see in reading books about workplace bullying and verbal abuse is how some people view relationships (whether marriage, workplace, friendships) differently-

    That some people view relationships as being mutual and try to get along, while others view relationships as power struggles a “win or lose” situation.

    One book about verbal abusers talks about how verbal abusers have a “power over” mentality towards relationships.

    Verbal abusers, the author says, use abuse to stay in control of their partner. They are suspicious of their partner and view the partner as an enemy.

    The author calls that mindset and approach to relationships as living in “Reality 1,” if I remember her terminology correct.

    She says the rest of society lives in “Reality 2,” where relationships are equal and mutual, and you don’t try to control others, or beat them up to get your way, nor do you view your friend (or spouse, or co-worker, as an enemy to be wary of).

    I’m wondering if this very sad and warped way of approaching and viewing relationships (treating others like the enemy, viewing everything as “win / lose”, etc) is what drives some of the gender complementarians, and not, as they claim, the Bible, or concern over cultural moral decay.

  198. Abi Miah wrote:

    As long as she is not there in person “exercising her authority” it is A-ok–at least with Piper. This is a link to an audio that is a hoot. The gist: A woman can write a Bible commentary and a man can learn from that because “women do have thoughts” (Yes, indeedy!) that can benefit men. However, she is not there in person, like a “drill sergeant” “pressing her authority” into the men. Ahem. So apparently, it’s her presence that is the issue. Or perhaps hearing her spoken word? Reading her words in a book doesn’t give a guy that “pressed into” kind of vibe…

    So reading female words in print isn’t as threatening as actually hearing them, much less seeing the female speaking them.

    Flutterhands Piper sounds absolutely pee-his-pants TERRIFIED of anything without a Y chromosome.
    This is well beyond “gurl cooties”, this is approaching phobia.

  199. Mara wrote:

    That fear is all over Piper. Men like him can only think in black and white terms. You are either the leader or the follower.

    Now THAT is defining reality entirely as Power Struggle.
    (And history is full of those who have.)
    Hold the Whip or Feel the Whip, nothing in-between.

  200. Patti wrote:

    I think Paul was knuckle-knocking on the leaders heads to think about their illogical reasoning for women’s covering.

    Indeed Patti, sometimes knuckle-knocking is required to expose knuckle-draggers.

  201. @ Clay Crouch:
    Certainly not – but there are any number of people who aren’t as convinced by the materials and are looking into it. Sometimes asking one right question is enough to get these people to ask themselves: “Why am I unequivocally trusting the resources of CBMW when my own gut tells me that something about it is off?”
    We’re up against this: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” The lie is everywhere – but we’re speaking truth the ones who show even the smallest sign of listening.

  202. @ Gram3:

    A guy – I think from India? – wrote an article about a month ago explaining how in India it’s considered rude to say “Thank you” to friends or family.

    He had to learn to say “Thank you” when he moved to the USA. Once he got the habit here and went back to India, he slipped a few times and said “Thank you” to his dad and friends, all of whom were very insulted.

    I can’t find the same article, but here is a similar one (notice: the page has strong, adult language on it):
    https://thenextmiles.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/how-to-insult-your-indian-friends-say-please-and-thank-you/

  203. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    “Liked” is not a word I would use in this context.

    Compared to the available alternatives, slavery was preferred by *some* which does not in any way make slavery good or acceptable. Slaves who were born into slavery knew no other life, and their options, even if free, were severely limited and scary. The devil they knew was perceived to be better than the devil they did not know. That in no way makes slavery anything other than evil.

  204. With respect to Dee’s post. I think these “on the periphery” theological issues are more about how strongly the Propontis argue/pressure their position, and less about the clarity of their position. Theology has been around a Long time, and any “new” theology, is going to be on the periphery…. However, our culture always wants to be on the new “cutting edge”; heaven forbid we should teach/think any old fashion theology…

  205. @ May

    *** Man is a human being made in the image of God first; woman becomes a human being bearing the image of God only through the man.***

    Huh? God was Eve’s first and sole companion until God introduced her to Adam. The male adam, slept through God’s entire creation of the female adam. He was clueless. He didn’t even volunteer his rib in the first place. Eve is God’s creation in every way.

    All glory for the creation of both (and only) the female and male adam (from the same substance, as others have previously commented) goes to God: two persons (both like Him) who are one. Beyond phenomenal.

  206. Gram3 wrote:

    I know of more than one young woman who has washed her hands of guys in conservative churches.

    I agreed with the rest of your post, this was the part I wanted to comment on the most.

    I was brought up by my parents (who are conservative, traditional Christians) to expect to get a husband by attending a church. For starters, there aren’t and have not been, at any age range I’ve been in, many single men available in churches. I don’t know where all the single men are.

    That aside, I am no longer keen on marrying a Bible quoting, conservative Christian man anymore, and certainly not one who is into gender complementarianism, who believes in “male headship.”

    At this stage, knowing what I know about gender comp and how it affects marriage and men, and yes, I agree, a lot of Christian guys have big entitlement attitudes towards women (due in part to gender comp teachings), I have different criteria by what I am looking for in a spouse.

    Conservative Christian guys are not #1 on my list anymore.

    I take men on a case by case basis now when it comes to sizing up Husband Material / dating… not by what the man claims claim to believe (about God, etc), but by how the guy will treat me.

  207. Law Prof wrote:

    This is simply “divide and conquer” given a religious twist. A strong husband-wife relationship wherein each views the other as co-equals in Christ in every possible respect is an existential threat to cult leaders. If you wish to dominate others, setting up a fiefdom in which you may exercise your lust for sadistic control unchecked, the first thing you must do is separate husbands from wives.

    Oh, that is such a great point. And if you can convince one that the other is trying to undermine their authority and the other is a shirker by nature, then all to the better.

  208. @ Ardiak:
    The ‘image of God’ status was mysteriously transferred through the rib (though looking at various sources – it might not have been a rib exactly but rather a piece of his side) to the rest of the woman that God formed from it. If God had used a different pile of dust, they would have said that she was made from “other” dust or some such thing to come up with the same teaching just through a different excuse. He might have been asleep, but still she was made from a piece of him, without which, her image of God status would not be the same. Apparently, ‘image of God’ status is transferable, ‘priority’ isn’t.

  209. Daisy wrote:

    I was brought up by my parents (who are conservative, traditional Christians) to expect to get a husband by attending a church. For starters, there aren’t and have not been, at any age range I’ve been in, many single men available in churches. I don’t know where all the single men are.

    I could say the same about” where all the single women are”.

    Like they disappear through an interdimensional portal when they turn 18 and return years later with hubby & kidlets.

  210. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    This is well beyond “gurl cooties”, this is approaching phobia.

    I’ve wondered if the odd uneasy and inappropriate giggly demeanor doesn’t reflect something like a phobia. But I’m not a psychologist, so I have no idea. But it truly is odd the way he smiles/smirks inappropriately.

  211. Muff Potter wrote:

    Patti wrote:

    I think Paul was knuckle-knocking on the leaders heads to think about their illogical reasoning for women’s covering.

    Indeed Patti, sometimes knuckle-knocking is required to expose knuckle-draggers.

    Like the old joke about training a donkey where you first have to whack ’em on the head to get their attention.

  212. Patrice wrote:

    If a woman is ontologically equal but required to be functionally subordinate, then she is being told to dishonor God by not doing her best with what God gave her. And if in heaven as it is on earth, one can only imagine how women might manage to sin there.
    Likewise, if God constantly and purposely under-utilizes an aspect of himself, he is not respecting his own being; therefore he is imperfect and in needs of addressing his lack of self-care.
    These men demand that both women and God neglect parts of themselves merely because they want to feel more important than they are.
    Time to grow up, boiz.

    That plus this ‘So, I look forward to anyone out there who thinks they can explain to me why a woman with a vast amount of experience and sensitivity should sit quietly and listen to some guy who read a book and listened to some sermon. ‘ are so true. Now I know I’m just a bitter Usurpress who, as the leader of men in a work context, is actually the daughter of Beelzebub I have to say this: if men are supposed to be eternally ‘over’ women on both earth & later in heaven then why aren’t men MORE than they are? (obvious exceptions all consistent male commenters here). But seriously, I fail to understand in this case why men are so…well…equal in ability, speaking cognitively, intellectually, artistically, scientifically etc etc etc & so on. When the artificial divides of cultural roles are removed, why are men just…the same? Why not more? Why not obviously ‘above’ us women? How many of these Female Subordinationist men would most of us even respect if we just met them, person to person, in a non-church context? Is there anything about Piper, or CJ that would make us think they were worthy of veneration for any reason other than that they tell us so, or tell us the Bible tells us so? Why did God make our divinely appointed leaders so…ordinary?

  213. Nancy2 wrote:

    Beleive me, I’m about to milk Piper’s work, as well as I Cor. and a few other writings, until those cows drop dead from exhaustion. I might even go into the book of Numbers! If you’re going to play the subjugation card in a marriage, you might as well go for broke!

    Hi Nancy, what do you mean by this? That you are going to submit to your husband and your toxic church, even though you have doubts about complementarianism and Piper-esque theology?

    All I will say is: please don’t try to act out a role that goes against what you truly believe. It will only lead to heartache and bitterness.

  214. Daisy wrote:

    I’ve seen that these men are motivated by fear, perhaps even more that power. That fear is all over Piper. Men like him can only think in black and white terms.
    You are either the leader or the follower.
    They can’t trust women and fear the notion of ever being the follower of a woman.

    Exactly. Anyone read any newspaper editorials written in late Victorian and early Edwardian Britain – around the time when campaigns for female emancipation were gathering momentum?

    Two words: Hysteria and fear. These male custodians of privilege and power were literally petrified at the idea that women might be given political freedom and put into a position to eventually equal them, or God forbid, usurp them.

    Men have historically been afraid of women and have gone to extreme lengths to keep them subordinate. Accounts of history are littered with evidence of this.

  215. Law Prof wrote:

    This is exactly what set up Jesus’ famous response to the Sadducees which absolutely obliterates the notion of eternal male/female genders or subordination.

    I don’t know if it’s just me, but it seems like these churches tend to preach heavily from the epistles and ignore the gospel accounts of Jesus’ actual words and interactions..although the “fact” of the cross is prominent.

    My church included.

    Again, this may just be me, but I think it is nearly impossible to support the doctrine of Irresistible Grace in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

  216. @ Gram3:
    Again, i think “preferred” ismisleading – perhaps people were resigned to it, or some were. I cannot begin to imagine how deeply destructive our form of chattel slavery was to the human spirit – but the horrible contemporary manifestations of it, anf of Jim Crow, make it clear that it has long, deadly aftereffects.

    Which is one of the reasons i recommended Butler’s book – a quick read, but a profound one. Might clarify this discussion in a way i am unable yo.

  217. Gram3 wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    This is simply “divide and conquer” given a religious twist. A strong husband-wife relationship wherein each views the other as co-equals in Christ in every possible respect is an existential threat to cult leaders. If you wish to dominate others, setting up a fiefdom in which you may exercise your lust for sadistic control unchecked, the first thing you must do is separate husbands from wives.

    I can testify that this very issue has caused harm in my marriage and has doubtless impeded our joint service in God’s kingdom.

    Disclaimer: We still have what I consider to be a strong and healthy marriage.

  218. @ Gram3:
    I don’t think,it isnpossible for us to be able to imagine ourselves into the shoes of these folks. To have no rights, no boundaries over one’s body, soul, time, self – being, period. To have no control over anything, to never be treated as a human being.

    I do think it is very important to be careful in how we describe those who were subject to this horrible thing.

  219. Alison Rowan wrote:

    Wake up folks!! Paul makes it quite clear in v 16 that he is quoting one of the “contentions”, say the Roman faction taunting the Jewish faction in this notoriously bickering carnal church! (To a Roman, any Jewish man’s hair, including the Lord’s, would be “long”!) [etc]

    I just saw something similar discussed on another blog, here:
    Paul Subverts Male Authoritarianism
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/07/01/paul-subverts-male-authoritarianism/

  220. Daisy wrote:

    In regards to the CFS (Christian Female Subordinationists) tendency to get into this thing about how women are supposedly a derivative of man because woman was taken from the man’s rib.

    I’m way behind in reading comments, but when I got to this one, I thought I’d pass on Bushnell’s lesson on “The Fable of the Rib” here:

    http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%205.htm

    Also the Hebrew word for “rib” is used @30 times in the OT and always translated side or chamber. Evidently the “rib” fable has it’s origin in rabbinical lore.

  221. Daisy wrote:

    one thing I was shocked to see in reading books about workplace bullying and verbal abuse is how some people view relationships

    Daisy – I have often wondered how men would react if they were truly treated like servants by their employers/masters? 175-200 years ago, it was not considered “un-natural” for a employer to beat on a worker.

    1832 testimony of an English mill-worker:

    At what age did you first go to work in one? — Eight.

    Will you state the hours of labour at the period when you first went to the factory, in ordinary times? — From 6 in the morning to 8 at night.

    Fourteen hours? — Yes.

    Were you always in time? — No.

    With what intervals at dinner? — An hour.

    How far did you live from the mill? — About two miles.

    What was the consequence if you had been too late? — I was most commonly beaten.

    Severely? — Very severely, I thought.

    In those mills is chastisement towards the latter part of the day going on perpetually? — Perpetually.

    So that you can hardly be in a mill without hearing constant crying? — Never an hour, I believe.

    ~~~~~~~~
    Would these men who say the Bible “clearly commands” in Ephesians 6:5 that servants be obedient to their masters and submit, therefore, to physical abuse in the workplace?

  222. Ken wrote:

    Perhaps some of us have known and learnt from Spirit-filled Christian women who haven’t found this concept remotely insulting or demeaning.
    I must qualify this by saying I personally have hever heard women being put down or told they are inferior with regard to this subject. I can understand anyone reacting against that if that is what they have been told.

    I used to be a gender comp myself, Ken.

    I was a gender comp partly out of duty.

    I was told by conservative Christian culture that if I rejected the gender comp view, that I was not a real Christian, not taking God or the Bible seriously enough, was being influenced by secular feminism, etc.

    Ken wrote:

    I personally have hever heard women being put down or told they are inferior with regard to this subject.

    I can understand anyone reacting against that if that is what they have been told.

    Women being inferior and second class is implied and inherent in gender complementarian teaching, Ken.

    Gender comps do not have to come right out and state, “You women are inferior to men and second class,” but those views are embedded in gender comp itself and a lot of its assumptions. You remain blind to this.

    You think it’s okay to tell or teach women they are second class, limit what roles they can take part in, and must take a back seat to men, as long as it is stated in a loving, gentle way.

    Sexism is sexism and remains insulting, even if it’s presented with pretty bows and wrapping paper and done with a smile.

  223. Gram3 wrote:

    It is very enlightening to observe the arguments that were once considered so rock-solid but which now sound ridiculous to us.

    I’m already at that point now with 98% of the arguments I hear from gender complementarians about gender roles, women, men, marriage, etc.

  224. Gram3 wrote:

    Well, the Southern Baptists had some and so did the PCUS (not to be confused with the PCUSA.) Old Light and New Light. There was a lot of really bad theologizing going on.

    Gram3 – don’t I know it! But I will bet you the CBMW guys would deny up and down and 3 times sideways that THEY would have been those guys.

  225. @Jamie

    Weird. Only God can create in His own image. God, not the man, created woman. She ultimately belongs to Him.

    I read the text about the woman being taken out of man to mean that everything that was in Adam was in Eve, just different packaging. Adam even declared that God had created another person like him — “same bone, same flesh.”

    How could God “take out” of the male adam anything that was different, inferior, less than, or “other” than everything that God had put *in* him to begin with?

    That the female adam receives her standing before God from the male adam, rather than from God Himself, does not make sense to me at all.

    Even the account in Genesis is very clear, obvious and direct that God created Man – male and female — in His own image and likeness.

    “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let *them* have dominion”

    “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

    “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.”

    Everything God says about “Man” refers to both of them. That’s the way I read the text.

  226. On another note: God’s concept of “eternal subordination?” — Revelation 3:21

    “He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” Sounds really non-subordinate to me.

  227. Gram3 wrote:

    Challies and his POV is much more honest, IMO, because he says no female voice from the pulpit ever. Apparently the real estate behind the pulpit is holy ground devoted to males.

    Which is why when they have noted Christian women speakers, they swap out the heavy, wooden pulpit normally used by males, with a smaller, dainty more girly-looking table.

    (A young lady wrote about this on her blog, about her experience of having to attend mandatory weekly chapel services when she went to a gender complementarian Christian college, and they had a woman speaker one week.
    She said this was her epiphany that something was very wrong with gender comp.)

  228. @ numo:
    I agree. I believe that given the totality of the circumstances, people made the best decisions that they could make. The facts on the ground were horrible no matter what. But that is beside my main point to Ken which was that the bare fact that some people in an evil institution think it is acceptable does not make it not evil.

    As for whether or not there were, in fact, slaves who preferred the system as it existed to the very bad alternatives, people can research that question if they are interested. People accept all manner of bad situations because they believe that the alternatives would be worse, whether they actually would be or not. If that were not the case, abused women and men would not stay with their spouses.

  229. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Like they disappear through an interdimensional portal when they turn 18 and return years later with hubby & kidlets.

    Yep. The several times I’ve been to church the last about oh, ten years, there is a huge gap…

    There are young teen boys (obviously single), some 20 something college guys, and jump up to age 70s and older, and there are widowers.

    The only dudes my age, (when I was in my late 20s, my 30s, and now my 40s), that are in churches are ALREADY married and usually with a kid or two.

    I don’t know how the gender comp gurus expect Christian women to marry gender comp men when there are no men to marry. And for you, you didn’t see any single ladies when you went.

  230. Ken wrote:

    Perhaps some of us have known and learnt from Spirit-filled Christian women who haven’t found this concept remotely insulting or demeaning.

    I must qualify this by saying I personally have never heard women being put down or told they are inferior with regard to this subject. I can understand anyone reacting against that if that is what they have been told.

    Ken – let me tell you a fairly recent example of women being put down or told they are inferior…one that was the beginning of my realizing that my church was, perhaps, morphing into something I didn’t care for.

    The (smallish) youth group decided to have a student-led Bible study on Wednesday night. I initially thought this was a great idea but the reality of it was that 2 or 3 boys (my 14 yo was one) were emailed a lesson from the youth pastor on Tuesday evening to read on Wednesday evening. My son (having been raised by an “ornery” mother known for having opinions and a strong father who – although self-identifying as a “comp” – actually seeks out, listens to, and acts on his wife’s advice) asked the youth pastor if the girls would be “teaching” (reading the lesson) and he was told “no. They can’t because they’re girls”.

    Do you not think the teen-age girls who heard him say that felt “demeaned” and “inferior”.

  231. numo wrote:

    @ Abi Miah:
    I think that you need to use the word “Protestants” here in a qualified way. I am Lutheran (ELCA) and no, we do *not* believe in ESS. Neither do the folks in the Anglican Communion (well, there might be some who do, but they are a tiny minority).

    Sorry; I had not meant to imply all Protestants did (I am Protestant, too), just that it’s odd for those particular Protestants who believe in ESS and who also believe that they can sit down with their Bible and determine what a passage says without regard to church tradition to suddenly appeal to church tradition to support ESS. Does that clarify?

  232. @ Ardiak:
    I think the author of the article I posted was getting that something about the way that women was created was different from the way that man was created and that’s the basis for his teaching – according to his footnote: “This is not to say that, in principle, God could not have created female differently, perhaps independently from the male, and perhaps even as created first and existing (for a time, anyway) without the male. But the point is that this is not how God actually did create woman. Rather, he formed her as she is from the man (Gen. 2:23; 1 Cor. 11:8), and this is signified by the use of the masculine generic term áa„d£a„m in Gen. 5:2.” The problem is they’re so short-sighted that no matter what the Bible says, they’ll find a way to twist it to teach whatever they want.

  233. dee wrote:

    Secondly, function is a matter of value in many instances. A general in the army is considered of more value for his function than the guy sweeping the floor.

    Actually, you have just touched the tip of the iceberg. The general, when he goes home is just a civilian like everyone (I know that is simplifying things). He is the “same” as others. However, according to the comps, a woman is subordinate (and again subordinate means lesser or dependent) to men at all times. The comps try to get around this by saying that she is subordinate in the world but in God’s mind she is made in the image of God just like males are. Somebody mentioned, above, that this is like dualism. No, this is classical Platonic dualism. Women are inferior in our world, the world of forms, but in the mind of the Godhead they are equal. This is not even getting into Ware’s insistence that women will be subordinate for eternity.
    But wait, it gets worse. Grudem and Ware have the Son being subordinate to the Father. Since the Son is in the Godhead, where is the Son equal to the Father. That is even going beyond Plato. Thus you have the Godhead having the head honcho, the Father; his lieutenant, the Son; and I guess the gopher, the Spirit. So you have three beings with a hierarchical relationship, that have different wills (the Son submits to the Father’s will), with three different functions. I am afraid they have left classical orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. I do not see any other way than to describe this as tritheism. You have three different entities with different status, different wills, different functions.
    Thus to support their efforts to keep the female folk in their proper place, I believe that these guys are no longer teaching Christian doctrine, but something else. I am not sure what that is.

  234. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Abi Miah wrote:
    As long as she is not there in person “exercising her authority” it is A-ok–at least with Piper. This is a link to an audio that is a hoot. The gist: A woman can write a Bible commentary and a man can learn from that because “women do have thoughts” (Yes, indeedy!) that can benefit men. However, she is not there in person, like a “drill sergeant” “pressing her authority” into the men. Ahem. So apparently, it’s her presence that is the issue. Or perhaps hearing her spoken word? Reading her words in a book doesn’t give a guy that “pressed into” kind of vibe…
    So reading female words in print isn’t as threatening as actually hearing them, much less seeing the female speaking them.
    Flutterhands Piper sounds absolutely pee-his-pants TERRIFIED of anything without a Y chromosome.
    This is well beyond “gurl cooties”, this is approaching phobia.

    Did you listen to the link? It was very odd. As he’s describing a woman teaching a Sunday school class, he goes into this drill sergeant gruff voice. Really? There is something there. I can feel compassion for whatever is in his background because it’s obviously very powerful. Under those conditions, however, I think it is wise for a person to step back and essentially recuse themselves from making pronouncements in that unhealed area.

  235. May wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Beleive me, I’m about to milk Piper’s work, as well as I Cor. and a few other writings, until those cows drop dead from exhaustion. I might even go into the book of Numbers! If you’re going to play the subjugation card in a marriage, you might as well go for broke!
    Hi Nancy, what do you mean by this? That you are going to submit to your husband and your toxic church, even though you have doubts about complementarianism and Piper-esque theology?

    I am definitely not the submissive type. Push my buttons and I’m more of an Amazonian warrior, in spite of physical problems. All of my buttons have been pushed!!!! I will use what I can to “open” my husband’s eyes, and I’ll make our man gods at church look like the ignoramuses they are!
    All I will say is: please don’t try to act out a role that goes against what you truly believe. It will only lead to heartache and bitterness.

  236. This idea of comp doesn’t go over good in my family. I come from a large family of very strong Christian women. Two are ordained ministers, and one is a missionary. We have served in the church in every capacity. We have prayed for and ministered to the sick. We have worked wherever we are needed. We have worked along side with the man in building churches, doing the physical labor. Yes, I as a child helped lay flooring down in a church. We have gone on visitation. And the list goes on. But we also have strong men who work along side with the women. So don’t tell me or my family that we as women are subordinate. Just doesn’t cut it. I am the mild speaker here. But some of the others you wouldn’t want to mess with. We love our Lord our God with all our hearts, and that’s what matters.

  237. @ Will M:

    I think it was on the last thread (or was it earlier in this one?) I mentioned that I don’t like the gender comp analogies using the military, where they will say that a husband is an Admiral, who out ranks a wife, who is an Ensign.

    People get promoted in the military to higher ranks, or can attend officer training school and advance that way.

    A private or an ensign does not have to stay a private or ensign but can go higher in the ranks eventually. Comps don’t permit women to ever rise in the ranks, however.

    Just for kicks and giggles, I did a google search on military ranks and found this U.S. Army page, where, at the top it says,
    “THERE’S NO LIMIT TO A SOLDIER’S SUCCESS”
    http://www.goarmy.com/about/ranks-and-insignia.html

    There is a limit place on woman’s success in gender complementarian Christianity. Gender complementarians will tell women that they are a private or ensign for perpetuity.

    There is no chance of advancement for women in gender comp world. Never.

    And some want to keep it that way for women in the afterlife as well. It’s not enough to stick it to women in the here and now.

  238. @ Harley:
    Hi mom. You got it right. We are not gifted according to gender but according to the Father’s plan. And quite frankly women are capable of incredible strength. I’m at the airport waiting on a delayed flight – I can’t wait to get back to my husband. I guess I’m lucky that he appreciates me just as I am.

  239. muzjik wrote:

    My son (having been raised by an “ornery” mother known for having opinions and a strong father who – although self-identifying as a “comp” – actually seeks out, listens to, and acts on his wife’s advice) asked the youth pastor if the girls would be “teaching” (reading the lesson) and he was told “no. They can’t because they’re girls”.

    Let me get this straight by way of a snarky parody:

    Hank is a dullard and wouldn’t know doo-doo from shinola if he stepped in it.
    Helen is a talented young woman whose reading aloud skills are good enough for audio books. She’s also gifted with a penetrating insight that can quickly determine whether or not doo-doo is masquerading as shinola. She can’t read the lesson to the class solely because of the plumbing she received at birth? — And yet Hank will be picked simply because he’s a boy?
    It makes no sense and what’s worse, it implies that the Lord is a dullard too.

  240. Abi Miah wrote:

    Did you listen to the link? It was very odd. As he’s describing a woman teaching a Sunday school class, he goes into this drill sergeant gruff voice. Really? There is something there.

    I haven’t listened to it, but are you saying that when Piper does an impression of a woman speaking in that link that he takes on a drill sergeant tone?

    I find that funny, because most American women have been conditioned to be sweet and deferential including in their speaking habits, so a lot of women take on speaking ticks, like ending every statement so that it sounds like a question even if it’s not a question.

    People who study this have a term for these particular speaking habits of women. I forget what it’s called. Maybe tagging?

    A lot of women don’t want to be perceived as bossy or catty, so they speak very softly or phrase their commentary in such a way that they do not sound tough or challenging.

    A lot of women are coached in books and blogs about career management to stop speaking so demurely and using “hedge words” when speaking. They are not, however, told to bark orders in meetings or classes as though they are drill sergeants.

    Here’s a page that discusses this:
    http://www.austincc.edu/colangelo/1318/woodgender.htm

  241. May wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    This is simply “divide and conquer” given a religious twist. A strong husband-wife relationship wherein each views the other as co-equals in Christ in every possible respect is an existential threat to cult leaders. If you wish to dominate others, setting up a fiefdom in which you may exercise your lust for sadistic control unchecked, the first thing you must do is separate husbands from wives.
    I can testify that this very issue has caused harm in my marriage and has doubtless impeded our joint service in God’s kingdom.
    Disclaimer: We still have what I consider to be a strong and healthy marriage.

    Many years ago in a younger and enormously stupid manifestation of myself I played the ill-interpreted and unsupportable “submit” card on my clearly more intelligent and probably more spiritually sensitive wife. It did grave damage to our early years. We have a good relationship now in our middle age, but only because of her enormous patience which compelled her to put up with me rather than smothering me with a pillow like I deserved.

  242. muzjik wrote:

    I don’t know if it’s just me, but it seems like these churches tend to preach heavily from the epistles and ignore the gospel accounts of Jesus’ actual words and interactions.

    Problem is, they tend to preach heavily from a heavily-filtered version of the epistles, which must only be understood in light of the words of Jesus. Of course, not many leaders do that, because to do so would be to take away their authority, status, smug attitudes, personal glory and cash cow.

  243. Ardiak wrote:

    On another note: God’s concept of “eternal subordination?” — Revelation 3:21
    “He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” Sounds really non-subordinate to me.

    Especially in light of the fact that everything was created by Jesus Himself. Bible’s pretty clear on that point. The only subordination you see is us to Him, not Him to anything or anyone else.

  244. May wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    I’ve seen that these men are motivated by fear, perhaps even more that power. That fear is all over Piper. Men like him can only think in black and white terms.
    You are either the leader or the follower.
    They can’t trust women and fear the notion of ever being the follower of a woman.

    Exactly. Anyone read any newspaper editorials written in late Victorian and early Edwardian Britain – around the time when campaigns for female emancipation were gathering momentum?

    Two words: Hysteria and fear. These male custodians of privilege and power were literally petrified at the idea that women might be given political freedom and put into a position to eventually equal them, or God forbid, usurp them.

    Men have historically been afraid of women and have gone to extreme lengths to keep them subordinate. Accounts of history are littered with evidence of this.

    In states like Wyoming in the U.S. where there was such a shortage of women (there was 1 woman for every 6 men), Wyoming offered women the right to vote just to be able to attract more women in the 1800’s to their state.
    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wyoming-grants-women-the-vote

    Texas, influenced by Spanish law and its broad rights for women, gave women the right to own and manage property in their own names, their husband’s, to sue, etc. Our ideas of community property come from Spain’s laws.
    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/swh/summary/v110/110.3benavides.html

  245. Daisy wrote:

    Abi Miah wrote:
    Did you listen to the link? It was very odd. As he’s describing a woman teaching a Sunday school class, he goes into this drill sergeant gruff voice. Really? There is something there.
    I haven’t listened to it, but are you saying that when Piper does an impression of a woman speaking in that link that he takes on a drill sergeant tone?
    I find that funny, because most American women have been conditioned to be sweet and deferential including in their speaking habits, so a lot of women take on speaking ticks, like ending every statement so that it sounds like a question even if it’s not a question.
    People who study this have a term for these particular speaking habits of women. I forget what it’s called. Maybe tagging?
    A lot of women don’t want to be perceived as bossy or catty, so they speak very softly or phrase their commentary in such a way that they do not sound tough or challenging.
    A lot of women are coached in books and blogs about career management to stop speaking so demurely and using “hedge words” when speaking. They are not, however, told to bark orders in meetings or classes as though they are drill sergeants.
    Here’s a page that discusses this:
    http://www.austincc.edu/colangelo/1318/woodgender.htm

    Yes, he says that a woman teaching would somehow be like a drill sergeant and then he talks in “drill sergeant” (like talk like a pirate day, only drill sergeant.) And yes, that is especially bizarre given women’s typical speaking patterns, or even normal teaching voice patterns for men or women. I mean what does teaching even have to do with being a drill sergeant? There is just something very off. The audio isn’t long–5 min I think.

  246. Hey Lyds, this one’s for you, it was pasted from the link at the top of the post:

    “You are the Devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first forsaker of the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not brave enough to approach!”
    –Tertullian, to women

    So this Tertullian guy from olden times is how Tchividjian got his first name huh? The way he threw his wife to the wolves in order to try and save his own a$$ is almost screen-written from this old source. The irony is rich no?

  247. Leila wrote:

    Those in Wayne Grudem’s camp do not believe that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in terms of the nature of his existence. He is co-equal in that regard. He is subordinate only in the fact that he is submissive to the Father in his function. In their line of thinking, this makes it OK.
    They use the same argument for women – that women are not ontologically subordinate, only functionally subordinate. Author Rebecca Merrill Groothius rebuts this beautifully in her book, “Good News For Women” (1997).
    Because a woman’s traditionally inferior status follows necessarily from the single fact of her essential, female nature, her status is itself a function of her “being”; it is determined by what she is, not by what she can do. A woman’s inequality, therefore, pertains not merely to her “function,” but to her essential “being.” The insistence of traditionalists that a woman’s inferior function has no bearing on the valuation of her essential nature contradicts the clear implications of the woman’s role. (p 53)
    In functional subordination, an inferior function does not necessarily reflect an essentially inferior being, because the subordination can be transcended when the subordinated person’s abilities have outgrown the limitations of the role, or when the particular function has been accomplished. … Female subordination, on the other hand, is not based on what a person can do, but solely on what a person is; it is not temporary, but permanent; it is not limited to the task at hand, but comprehensively covers all areas of a woman’s life. Therefore, it is not a functional but an ontological subordination, and necessarily indicates an inequality not merely of a woman’s function, but of her essential female being. (p 55)

    This is superb! Thank you for posting it. Here’s another thought. If women are given certain gifts, skills, abilities, that are outside the Comp. boundaries of what is acceptable, and I think reality shows that they are, then the question is: Why would God give such abilities to women only to suppress them? And I say suppress because many of these abilities can and have been used to improve the society in which we live. And not only that. Let’s say a stay at home wife and mother has far more skill and talent in paying the bills and overseeing the finances. However, since in CompLand the husband ALWAYS gets the final say in EVERYTHING, then what good is it if her wise decisions on finances can be over-ridden just because he is the man? I once heard Elizabeth Elliot actually teach that if a wife knows her husband is making a very bad financial decision, she should keep silent and not nag him and pray that God shows him his mistake. So, the husband can lead the household into debt by making bad decisions, and somehow this brings glory to God because the wife didn’t interfere? How exactly does this make sense?

  248. Abi Miah wrote:

    Yes, he says that a woman teaching would somehow be like a drill sergeant and then he talks in “drill sergeant” (like talk like a pirate day, only drill sergeant.) And yes, that is especially bizarre given women’s typical speaking patterns, or even normal teaching voice patterns for men or women. I mean what does teaching even have to do with being a drill sergeant? There is just something very off. The audio isn’t long–5 min I think.

    There is something off. What about the example given of a woman as a city planner, directing the movements of men? Since being a city planner evidently has nothing to do with maleness or femaleness, what does that make the identity of such a person – a corporate drone? a nobody? So, a persons gender-identity and personhood has theological meaning only and is divorced from everyday “non-theological” stuff? A dangerous subliminal distinction-and dangerous to the health of those that believe it.

  249. Velour wrote:

    In states like Wyoming in the U.S. where there was such a shortage of women (there was 1 woman for every 6 men), Wyoming offered women the right to vote just to be able to attract more women in the 1800’s to their state.

    I also remember something that one of the conditions for Utah’s statehood was making women ineligible to vote. The motivation was the fear that Mormon patriarchs would order their plural wives to vote the same way as them, thus increasing their clout.
    (Much the same reason as counting a slave as 3/5 of a free man in the original Constitutional compromise for Congressional representation/clout.)

  250. Abi Miah wrote:

    it’s odd for those particular Protestants who believe in ESS and who also believe that they can sit down with their Bible and determine what a passage says without regard to church tradition to suddenly appeal to church tradition to support ESS.

    Apparently church tradition is too ROMISH(TM) unless they personally benefit from it. Then it’s Biblical(TM).

  251. @ Abi Miah:

    I have a friend who was a drill sergeant. Sings beautifully, has an MDiv and MSW, can preach circles around most preachers, and is a gorgeous woman. Obviously, she takes no guff from anyone, but prefers to be gracious and gentle with everyone.

  252. Daisy wrote:

    There are young teen boys (obviously single), some 20 something college guys, and jump up to age 70s and older, and there are widowers.

    Same pattern I saw, except Rule 63’ed.

    I don’t know how the gender comp gurus expect Christian women to marry gender comp men when there are no men to marry.

    I suspect that’s what Patriarch-arranged Marriage (i.e. Christian Courtship(TM)) is for.
    As in House Baratheon to House Lannister for the Iron Throne.
    Or House Bolton to the last known surviving Stark for Winterfell and the North.

  253. Ardiak wrote:

    Weird. Only God can create in His own image. God, not the man, created woman. She ultimately belongs to Him.

    Shhhhhh! Don’t tell that to the comps. They might get “upset”(TM).

  254. muzjik wrote:

    Gram3 – don’t I know it! But I will bet you the CBMW guys would deny up and down and 3 times sideways that THEY would have been those guys.

    That’s because THAT was a Matter of Black and White, not “Girls have a button, Boys have a pole (and wicked touching takes its toll…)”

  255. I actually took the time to send the writers of this blog quite a few emails, yet no one has the time to write me back. I was told to write a post, yet it never got followed up on nor did I at least get a reply about it. You guys, alongw ith other watchblogger types like Matthew Turner are no better than Acts 29 and TGC in my mind. I guess it is all about what makes national news and what will get the most clicks or comments. Obviously you don’t care about your readers as much as you say that you do. I will no longer be following this blog.

  256. DEB, DEE, EAGLE, EVERYBODY:

    I was pulling up the Web essay “World’s Most Toxic Value System” for another reason and thought you might be interested given the subject matter. Read this analysis (which uses Arab tribal society as its example) and tell me it doesn’t sound familiar when you talk Hyper-Cals and Comp/Patrios — especially the “Another Perspective” section:

    http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM

  257. @ Christina:

    Christina, you have no idea the amount of email, phone calls, and more which dee and deb navigate through. At significant personal cost at times. Take that into consideration before you criticize.

  258. What a fun read this blog is! My condolences to those of you who live in Kentucky — however, I now live in Butte, Montana, which has just as much crazy, cultic thinking, only with a lot less people. I’m convinced that up here, it’s the lack of oxygen at our altitude, along with all the mining pollution that’s poisoned our ground and water.

    I just described the eternal female subordination uh, stuff, to one of my friends and she immediately said, “Sounds like Mormonism.”

    Daisy, I’ve got a great story for you: One of my closest friends in seminary, a brilliant, gifted woman who has never married, had a brother who thought she was not being obedient to God because she was in seminary(!) (My own brother thought the same about me.)

    For her birthday, her brother sent her a book by John MacArthur entitled “God’s Highest Calling for Women.” On the book’s cover was a picture of a set of pearls, a wedding ring and a family photo with a smiling mom, dad and several kids. So we held a birthday party and amused ourselves by reading the book out loud to each other.

    My friend read the only section of the book which mentioned single women (a very tiny section). There MacArthur declared that just as married women were to dress in such a way as to bring glory and attention to their husbands, single women were to dress in such a way as to bring glory and attention to God.

    My friend turned to us and remarked, “The only way I can think of to do that would be to go to church naked, so that everyone could say, ‘Oh, God!'”

    🙂

  259. Daisy wrote:

    I think it was on the last thread (or was it earlier in this one?) I mentioned that I don’t like the gender comp analogies using the military, where they will say that a husband is an Admiral, who out ranks a wife, who is an Ensign.

    Who gets more pay, more protection, and access to the officers’ club: the admiral or the ensign????

  260. @ Carole Ryan:
    Ha ha ha ha …. I almost fell outta my chair! Hilarious!

    Don’t worry about us Kaintuck folks. We’ll go down fightin’ before we’ll expose ourselves to the weather in Montana. It’s cold enough in the churches down here.

  261. Somebody upthread mentioned that C.S. Lewis is the author primarily cited in that CBMW article of eternal submission. I just noticed that the other author quoted quite a bit is Randy Alcorn whom, one supposes, really has no special knowledge about relationships in eternity and, like Lewis, is well known for his **fiction**.

  262. Law Prof wrote:

    It did grave damage to our early years. We have a good relationship now in our middle age, but only because of her enormous patience which compelled her to put up with me rather than smothering me with a pillow like I deserved.

    Thank you. This is enormously encouraging to me.

    We are still in relatively ‘early years’, and the health of our marriage I referred to is largely because my husband does NOT play the ‘submit’ card (he knows me too well ;)) and we get along pretty well for the most part.

    But he subscribes to complementarianism, to my dismay, and largely thanks to his peers has been heavily influenced by the Neo-reformed camp. Me, on the other hand: well, I too was also subjected to the Neo-reformed influence before and in the first year of our marriage (at one point I felt it was an agenda being pushed on me) but, after initially being naive, I started to question it and then firmly rejected it along with Complementarianism (by the way, what an ugly word they came up with: what was wrong with the existing word ‘complementarity’ used by the Victorians for pretty much the same thing??)

    Our diverging theological stances now definitely cause tension.

  263. Darlene wrote:

    Here’s another thought. If women are given certain gifts, skills, abilities, that are outside the Comp. boundaries of what is acceptable, and I think reality shows that they are, then the question is: Why would God give such abilities to women only to suppress them?

    My husband would reply: a gifted female teacher (for example) can teach other women and she can teach children.

    No, I’m not satisfied with that response either.

  264. <Darlene wrote:

    Here’s another thought. If women are given certain gifts, skills, abilities, that are outside the Comp. boundaries of what is acceptable, and I think reality shows that they are, then the question is: Why would God give such abilities to women only to suppress them?

    My husband’s response would be: If (for example) she’s a gifted teacher, she can teacher women and children.

    No, I’m not satisfied by that response either.

  265. @ Christina:

    From my experience, you couldn’t be more wrong. This is a very small operation, for no profit, with a tremendous amount of traffic.

    You can accuse them of not having the time, and you probably are hitting close to the truth, but it’s another thing completely to question their motives.

  266. Alison Rowan wrote:

    Thanks Gram3. Do all the Comps believe Paul wrote 1 Cor 14:34-5? Obviously not!

    If they spend time looking for the “law” referred to in that passage then how could they unless they are pushing an agenda? They won’t find a law like that in the OT. But the passage insists it is a law. So, it should become obvious at some point Paul is not promoting heavy burdens but answeing a question as he does in other parts of 1 Corin.

    The translation of vs 36 should make this obvious but it is often translated badly. Ironically, KJ has one of the best for vs 36

  267. Gram3 wrote:

    Or 1 Corinthians 14 and the Absolute Prohibition on Female Speaking which I believe is Paul quoting their “law” and refuting it with an emphatic disjunctive

    Eons ago I found references to the Talmudic law regarding women speaking but didn’t save the link. I did find one reference here:

    https://equalityinchrist.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/must-women-keep-silent-1-corinthians-14-the-apostle-paul-and-the-traditions-of-men/

    which notes this:

    “A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative” (Talmud, Berachot 24a).

    “It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin).

    It’s obvious that Paul was refuting the Talmud or Oral law regarding silencing women.

  268. Ken wrote:

    Perhaps some of us have known and learnt from Spirit-filled Christian women who haven’t found this concept remotely insulting or demeaning.
    I must qualify this by saying I personally have hever heard women being put down or told they are inferior with regard to this subject. I can understand anyone reacting against that if that is what they have been told.

    Hey Ken, This is one of my pet peeves so I am going to address it. First of all, the point is not whether a “spirit filled” (how do we define that?) Christian woman finds teaching ONE WAY submission insulting/demeaning or not.

    The point is truth seeking. In order to teach one way submission one has to pull out a few proof texts from cultural situations in letters and apply them as sort of laws for today. One also has to read INTO Genesis a creation order that means hierarchy which is really silly if you think about it.

    Then, most importantly, one has to IGNORE the teaching/modeling of Jesus Christ–our Savior!!! One also has to ignore the 58 “one anothers” and pretend they have a pink/blue meaning not brought out in scripture.

    That is the real problem and worse, it is not a good place for those who think they have authority/leadership over others. (They call it responsibility as if we all don’t have responsibility in how we view others) It is a huge sin trap for them, too.

    Rarely are women “put down” over this so obviously as you mention above. It is a theme presented from pulpits (where there is no interaction) as if the proof texts are some sort of church order books for today because they ignore the cultural context. The opportunities to even question the teaching are not easily found in these sort of churches unless you want to be labeled and have the courage for that. Most of the discussions are going on outside of the institutional church.

  269. Will M wrote:

    Actually, you have just touched the tip of the iceberg. The general, when he goes home is just a civilian like everyone (I know that is simplifying things). He is the “same” as others. However, according to the comps, a woman is subordinate (and again subordinate means lesser or dependent) to men at all times.

    Great point.

  270. Lydia wrote:

    Most of the discussions are going on outside of the institutional church.

    Lydia wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Perhaps some of us have known and learnt from Spirit-filled Christian women who haven’t found this concept remotely insulting or demeaning.
    I must qualify this by saying I personally have hever heard women being put down or told they are inferior with regard to this subject. I can understand anyone reacting against that if that is what they have been told.
    Hey Ken, This is one of my pet peeves so I am going to address it. First of all, the point is not whether a “spirit filled” (how do we define that?) Christian woman finds teaching ONE WAY submission insulting/demeaning or not.
    The point is truth seeking. In order to teach one way submission one has to pull out a few proof texts from cultural situations in letters and apply them as sort of laws for today. One also has to read INTO Genesis a creation order that means hierarchy which is really silly if you think about it.
    Then, most importantly, one has to IGNORE the teaching/modeling of Jesus Christ–our Savior!!! One also has to ignore the 58 “one anothers” and pretend they have a pink/blue meaning not brought out in scripture.
    That is the real problem and worse, it is not a good place for those who think they have authority/leadership over others. (They call it responsibility as if we all don’t have responsibility in how we view others) It is a huge sin trap for them, too.
    Rarely are women “put down” over this so obviously as you mention above. It is a theme presented from pulpits (where there is no interaction) as if the proof texts are some sort of church order books for today because they ignore the cultural context. The opportunities to even question the teaching are not easily found in these sort of churches unless you want to be labeled and have the courage for that. Most of the discussions are going on outside of the institutional church.

    CBMW considers itself the Evangelical Curia.

  271. Muff Potter wrote:

    Hey Lyds, this one’s for you, it was pasted from the link at the top of the post:

    “You are the Devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first forsaker of the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not brave enough to approach!”
    –Tertullian, to women

    So this Tertullian guy from olden times is how Tchividjian got his first name huh? The way he threw his wife to the wolves in order to try and save his own a$$ is almost screen-written from this old source. The irony is rich no?

    Oh wow! Yes, very rich, indeed. You know, We can see how threatened some Christian leaders are today with the idea of equal functioning status within the Body of Christ. We get a glimpse of how that might have gone over in the early days of Christianity with some of these guys like Tertullian and even later with guys like Luther who were down right insulting toward women. It makes it harder for me to take them seriously as sources of information.

    Thankfully, Jesus was nothing like that. He was even traveling around the region with married and unmarried women who were supporting him and his disciples financially. Talk about scandalous!

  272. @ Christina:
    Hey Christina (and lots of other readers)
    I want to apologize for our slow response to you and many others. Some days I actually get a stomach ache worrying about it. As of this morning I have about 900 emails backed up in our inbox. If you could read some of these stories, your heart would be torn apart.

    I was planning on writing a note tomorrow and tell folks that I have set aside 3 days (this coming weekend) for trying to catch up with the emails. I remember your particular story and I have found the contact person to send a note to. I planned to let you know this weekend.

    The Guy Behind the Curtain once asked me what I would do if this blog became well known. I just laughed at him. However, recent stories have tipped the readership into such a number that I cannot possibly keep up with it in any expeditious fashion.

    It is important to realize that we do not take on stories just because they deal with someone famous. When we started blogging in 2009, few people had heard of CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll. We have followed them now for 6 1/2 years. Their stories are now well known. The weren’t when we started.

    The village Church was not at all in the media when we first talked to Karen. We wrote about the abuse that happened and it suddenly became well known. We also have one priority and that is to deal with issues of child sex abuse in the church. You will see that in a story I am posting today.

    Behind the scenesI try to keep up with folks. I have talked wit Karen Hinckley on a regular basis. yesterday, I talked with folks surrounding the allegations of abuse at Calvary Temple. I also acted as a go between between an NBC reporter and Eagle which I will discuss to day.

    I have tried to get people to help us with the emails but for most people the stories are a bit overwhelming and many do not feel comfortable dealing with them in the same way that we do.

    Deb tries to help but she and her husband have a working farm and other properties that limit her ability to help on the blog.

    My Bible study is committed to praying for us all but especially for how I organize my time and outreach. I want to organize all the stories of the Dones and write some posts on the matter. I also want to do a resources page on church discipline and membership covenants. But I have little time to do so,

    Just so you know, I spend about 8 hours a day, sometimes more, on this blog and I seem to be getting behind more every day.

    Christina, all I can say is that I am sorry, that I really do care and I am trying. The last thing in the world I want to be is another talking head. You and everyone who comments here matter to me more than you know.

    Could you please pray for me? Ask God to find a way to do it right and to not hurt anyone who comes here like I have you?

  273. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And the Inquisition.

    Thankfully they don’t have the means to do that, but the spirit of purging those who dissent or think outside the bounds of what is politically correct certainly is there.

  274. Gram3 wrote:

    CBMW considers itself the Evangelical Curia.

    Oh and the fact that these discussions about mutuality and functioning within the Body are going on outside the institutions is making them nuts. For one thing, we can easily share the findings of other scholars who have studied the cultural implications of texts for many years. We can study the interlinear and lexicons for ourselves and share resources because we have such easy access now.

    They are losing control of the one way message and as that happens they become more and more authoritarian and insulting. That is why they get so upset about blogs and try to make them “sinful”.

  275. @ dee:

    I have seen some very popular blogs simply stop due to the overwhelming responses to respond to over the last 10 years. It is a full time job (without the monetary reward).

    Praying for you.

  276. Most churches (men) in my area absolutely swear that the King James version of the Bible is the ONLY Bible. I’ve actually heard them shout out that “the King James Bible is the only Bible,” followed by resounding “amens”. They won’t use anything else, and they scoff at anyone who brings any other version into a church.

    I have read that King James had his version of the Bible translated so that he could use it as a political tool. I don’t know if it is true, but I have also read that King James said that he would, “take every opportunity to trample women into permanent invisibility”. His translators used words that gave men authority over women and rendered women eternally powerless.

  277. Carole Ryan wrote:

    What a fun read this blog is! My condolences to those of you who live in Kentucky — however, I now live in Butte, Montana, which has just as much crazy, cultic thinking, only with a lot less people. I’m convinced that up here, it’s the lack of oxygen at our altitude, along with all the mining pollution that’s poisoned our ground and water.

    Since I live in the YRR Mecca of Louisville, I resemble that remark. :o) And I have feared some do not understand my pov because I cannot swing a dead cat here without hitting a YRR authoritarian. And that includes all Starbucks which they have taken over with their Grudem/ Piper books studies.

    But you also have JD Hall and the Pulpiteers! So there! (Hee Hee)

  278. Lydia wrote:

    You know, We can see how threatened some Christian leaders are today with the idea of equal functioning status within the Body of Christ. We get a glimpse of how that might have gone over in the early days of Christianity with some of these guys like Tertullian and even later with guys like Luther who were down right insulting toward women. It makes it harder for me to take them seriously as sources of information.

    Calvin on women in his commentary on Corinthians: “Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is created inferior to the more distinguished sex.”

  279. @ Nancy2:

    Nancy2, Go and read up on why King James wanted a new translation. He had a Catholic mother, the bloody Mary Queen of Scots and succeeded the last Tutor, Eliz 1 so he needed to shore up his “Protestant” bonafides.

    So yes, it was very political considering the Protestant/CAtholic English Reformation happened with Eliz 1 father, Henry the bloody 8th. At least some of the translators at Hampton Court seemed to understand this to some extent if you read the long preface. The full preface is not found in most translations but it is online.

  280. dee wrote:

    I also want to do a resources page on church discipline and membership covenants. But I have little time to do so,

    Dee, I could help you out with this if you are comfortable “outsourcing” it. You will recall that we met for lunch just outside of Baltimore at the place where you got crabcakes recently, and I also did two guest posts for you. One a couple years ago about our experience at a Classical Christian (Doug Wilsonian) school and another when I attended the appeal hearing in the SGM conspiracy/coverup case. The email tagged with my identity on this post is a sort of throwaway email; I’ll email you from my primary account and put something in the subject line to jog your attention. If you’d rather not have help with this, given the nuanced nature of it, I totally understand!

  281. Just tuning into this article after catching up on lawn work at 115 degree heat index! To which I said “Whew!” and say “Whew!” again after reading this fine piece by Dee along with the various comments. So, I throw in my two cents …

    If you listen closely, New Calvinists talk a LOT about God, less about Jesus, and hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit. Contributing to this preaching style is Grudem’s teaching on the eternal submission of the Son, which is carried deeper into NC ranks by popular authors like Bruce Ware, theology professor at SBC’s Southern Seminary (such SBC seminaries are sure doing a number on young believers!). If New Calvinists can persuade you to buy this lie, they can convince you of the parallel permanent submission of women, as well as church members’ submission to authoritarian elders no matter what. If the Son is eternally submissive to God, then the chain of subordination would extend to earthly relationships of women to men … right? Wrong! The Son of God is not eternally inferior or subordinate in the Trinity. And neither are women! Thus saith the Lord Jesus “I and my Father are one” … “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ.” Submit yourselves one to another, as you submit yourselves to Christ, and the proper balance of roles in Christian families will be clear as described in Ephesians 5:21-6:4.

    You will hear no altar calls to believe and accept the message of the Cross of Christ for your salvation in a New Calvinist church. If the Father has already elected you before the foundation of the earth, and He is eternally superior to Christ, then what the Son has done pales in comparison to the majestic selection of you in eternity past. Right? Wrong! When you start tampering with the trinity, you are bordering on heresy – no matter how you spin it. Grudem does not have the last word; God does. The whole of Scripture supports a co-equal Trinity, rather than cherry-picked verses to support theological presuppositions and a desire for Calvinist patriarchy . Be careful what you hear. When you start tampering with the Trinity, you are bordering on heresy – no matter how you spin it. Yet another reason to get your behinds out of a New Calvinist church! Put your behinds in your past!

  282. Lydia wrote:

    I cannot swing a dead cat here without hitting a YRR authoritarian.

    Lydia, I live 500 miles from Louisville in another State far off the beaten path of your Geneva ground-zero for New Calvinism. I sadly report that “I cannot swing a dead cat here without hitting a YRR authoritarian” in this area as well. SBC’s church planting program has planted these young rebels and their aberrant theology across America. We’ve got some new young neighbors who are active in an NC church. I watched the poor “homemaker” sweat in 95-degree temps yesterday to mow the lawn, in eternal submission to her husband who arrived in time for supper and to soak in the AC. Guess I need to find a dead cat!

  283. Max wrote:

    If you listen closely, New Calvinists talk a LOT about God, less about Jesus,

    Well …. if Jesus is eternally subordinate, he must not be all THAT important. Right????

  284. Lydia wrote:

    Most of the discussions are going on outside of the institutional church.

    As a 60+ year Southern Baptist, I would dearly love to see every pastor of SBC’s 45,000+ churches have a “Family Talk” about New Calvinism and its various implications on belief and practice. Unfortunately, most local church leaders have opted to stay neutral on this issue as SBC’s national leadership calls for unity and accommodation of competing theologies under the big SBC tent. Watchblogs, such as this one are analagous to Paul Harvey’s “The Rest of the Story.” It’s too bad that all SBC members are not tuning into these sources of valuable information. In the meantime, the masses are uninformed, misinformed or willingly ignorant as New Calvinism sweeps through SBC ranks and elsewhere in Christendom. When will this madness end?!

  285. Carole Ryan wrote:

    My friend turned to us and remarked, “The only way I can think of to do that would be to go to church naked, so that everyone could say, ‘Oh, God!’”

    🙂

  286. May wrote:

    My husband would reply: a gifted female teacher (for example) can teach other women and she can teach children.

    If gender comps don’t think women are smart enough or trustworthy enough to teach men, they shouldn’t be allowing them to teach other women or children.

    I’ve also noticed that gender comp churches will allow American adult women to preach/teach men in other nations, but not here in America. That is also a contradiction.

  287. Nancy2 wrote:

    Well …. if Jesus is eternally subordinate, he must not be all THAT important. Right????

    Nancy2, I’ll give you a sad example of just how wrong such stinking thinking is. We visited a New Calvinist church plant near us on Easter Sunday – a large church (500+ in attendance), with members in their 20s-40s. I just had to see how the Easter message would be treated in this popular NC church in our community. The YRR pastor was 29 years old – his “elder” team were in their 20s-30s. After greeting those in attendance, including all the lost who had ventured in for Easter services, the young pastor proceeded with his multi-week series in Ephesians; he didn’t skip a beat for Easter … no mention of the Cross, no mention of Jesus, no mention of His sacrifice, no Easter message! An evangelistic opportunity was lost and the lost remained lost.

  288. @ JohnD:

    ARRGH! Don’t get me started. This is a man who taught some people where chosen for reprobation and think they are saved!

  289. @ Lydia:
    Lydia, apologies for being nit picky but Bloody Mary and Mary, Queen of Scots, were two different women, though related. The former was Mary I of England, daughter of Henry VIII and Katharine of Aragon (daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, they who instigated the Spanish Inquisition) and older sister of Elizabeth I. She got the name ‘Bloody’ because many Protestants died at the stake during her reign. Mary of Scotland was their cousin, and Elizabeth’s heir as E was childless. But, both were Catholic.

    To make matters worse, Mary QOS’s mother was also Mary (this time of Guise in France) Mary QOS also had three ladies in waiting called Mary – immortalised as Mary, Mary quite contrary’s pretty maids all in a row.

    I don’t blame you for getting them all confused.

  290. @ Max:

    Max, when I first started diving into ESS years back, I could not get a handle on what they did with the Holy Spirit. (I grew up hearing ALOT about the Holy
    Spirit within the Priesthood of believer)

    I finally came to the conclusion it is because they try to ignore the Holy Spirit. I mean what on earth do you do with this in the ESS system?

    5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

    :o)

  291. @ Lydia:

    King James: murder, executions (Sir Walter Raleigh?), attempted assassinations, John Knox, George Buchanan ….

    The King James Bible was translated from the Geneva Bible, and King James had his translators leave out the marginal notes that were in the Geneva Bible. But, heh, KING JAMES ONLY!!!

  292. @ Max:

    They don’t want to talk about it at all now. From Mahaney to Driscoll to Acts 29 to all the scandalabras of membership covenants, they are desperately seeking to make compromised “unity” a law

  293. @ Estelle:

    No, you are right! I always get them confused. Too many Mary’s in history for my addled brain. James was the Son of Lord Darnley. The husband of Mary that John Knox plotted to kill, right?

  294. @ Estelle:
    No, you are right! I always get them confused. Too many Mary’s in history for my addled brain. James was the Son of Lord Darnley. The husband of Mary that John Knox plotted to get rid of, right?

  295. Lydia wrote:

    5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

    “WHAT DO YOU MEAN ‘I DON’T HAVE GOD ALL FIGURED OUT’? DIE, HERETIC!!!!!!”

  296. Lydia wrote:

    @ Max:

    They don’t want to talk about it at all now. From Mahaney to Driscoll to Acts 29 to all the scandalabras of membership covenants, they are desperately seeking to make compromised “unity” a law

    The unity of a Borg Cube.

  297. Nancy2 wrote:

    I have read that King James had his version of the Bible translated so that he could use it as a political tool. I don’t know if it is true, but I have also read that King James said that he would, “take every opportunity to trample women into permanent invisibility”. His translators used words that gave men authority over women and rendered women eternally powerless.

    I also heard Kynge Jaymes was as Queer as all of The Village People combined.

    As I have run into a couple homosexuals with a vicious hatred of women, I wonder if that might have been one of the motivations.

  298. Lydia wrote:

    One also has to read INTO Genesis a creation order that means hierarchy which is really silly if you think about it.

    If the comps want to play the creation order game, they would have to have the hierarchy among living things of greatest to least go as follows:

    1. A potted plant
    2. A squid
    3. A Holstein cow
    4. Albert Einstein

  299. @ May:

    You might find it interesting that famed theologian JI Packer and his wife attended different churches because she was egal and he wasn’t.

  300. Daisy wrote:

    If gender comps don’t think women are smart enough or trustworthy enough to teach men, they shouldn’t be allowing them to teach other women or children.

    I don’t think their core issue is ability. I think the core issue is that they have created a god in their own image. A god who is offended, just as they are, by a woman’s voice. A god who is offended, as they are, by a woman in their clubhouse and their sacred space. A god who is as afraid of a truly feminine woman who exhibits the strength that God gave her. A god who is as weak and brittle as these men are. A god who will not serve unless he is obeyed first. Their vision of humans is so utterly wrong because their conception of the God who created us is so utterly wrong.

  301. Nancy2 wrote:

    Most churches (men) in my area absolutely swear that the King James version of the Bible is the ONLY Bible. I’ve actually heard them shout out that “the King James Bible is the only Bible,” followed by resounding “amens”. They won’t use anything else, and they scoff at anyone who brings any other version into a church.

    If that is so, then most churches in your area are destructive places led by enormously foolish men engaging in cult-like behavior.

  302. Lydia wrote:

    You might find it interesting that famed theologian JI Packer and his wife attended different churches because she was egal and he wasn’t.

    I guess that means that if his wife wrote a book on her beliefs then he would not blurb it. What is a good book without a J.I. Packer blurb? Although I think he has been usurped by Grudem and Mohler as Chief Blurbers.

  303. Lydia wrote:

    @ May:
    You might find it interesting that famed theologian JI Packer and his wife attended different churches because she was egal and he wasn’t.

    I had heard that. Any links to prove it?

    It’s not an ideal solution at all. However, that’s not to say I haven’t longed to leave our church because of its conservative, complementarian character. If I was single I would leave in an instant.

    My worry is that our church, bad though it is, could over time become even more conservative with the next generation of elders who have been brought up Neo-Cal (unlike the current elders who are older and some of whom don’t quite get it).

  304. @ Law Prof:

    Exactly!

    I tend not to read Genesis in a literal sense these days but see it as a sort of ancient creation narrative making a serious point about Yahweh in relation to other ancient creation narratives with their angry gods, etc. (I know that sounds weird and not the place to get into that!) I think “creation order” distracts from the larger more important meaning of growing/maturing/working with God’s help and direction –which is a real shame.

    So I tend to focus on the larger meaning. The larger meaning in the case of creating humans seems to be focused on their charge/purpose together– from God. And the delight they find in one another until they allow evil to convince them to redefine their relationship and make their purpose harder.

    And now, Jesus Christ has reconciled us to Him so we can live out that larger meaning today albeit not as perfectly but still striving to maturity and completion.

  305. Lydia wrote:

    JI Packer and his wife attended different churches because she was egal and he wasn’t.

    Whoa! Boy, is she ever going to catch it when she gets to Heaven! What is she thinking?! Packer is the man! When he speaks, even Al Mohler listens!

  306. May wrote:

    I had heard that. Any links to prove it?
    It’s not an ideal solution at all. However, that’s not to say I haven’t longed to leave our church because of its conservative, complementarian character. If I was single I would leave in an instant.
    My worry is that our church, bad though it is, could over time become even more conservative with the next generation of elders who have been brought up Neo-Cal (unlike the current elders who are older and some of whom don’t quite get it).

    No, sorry. It mentioned a long time ago by a blogger who knew them and attended church with one of them up in Canada. That person has recently passed away or I would ask for a link.

    I know several couples in your shoes and wish I could tell you it has worked out well. It remains a point of contention for them after many years.

    You are right to worry the next generation will be worse. In my experience, in my world, it is the middle aged and above people NOT in ministry who don’t buy into it in practice even if they attend comp lite churches. I am not seeing many die hard comp/pat churches full of older people that are not strict fundy types like IFB and such.

    I would love to see some sort of research on this concerning age related buy in to authoritarianism/patriarchy in churches outside the strict fundy or ministry paradigm. There is NO way I can picture my mom or any of my aunts attending churches like we are discussing. And they never used terminology like “egal”. They were focused on terms like Priesthood of believer and soul liberty. Gender giftedness in the body was not a big issue to them in their time and world. The last 20-30 years it has become a “Gospel” issue.

  307. Gram3 wrote:

    I guess that means that if his wife wrote a book on her beliefs then he would not blurb it. What is a good book without a J.I. Packer blurb? Although I think he has been usurped by Grudem and Mohler as Chief Blurbers.

    But he was the original ubiquitous blurber. :o)

  308. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t think their core issue is ability. I think the core issue is that they have created a god in their own image. A god who is offended, just as they are, by a woman’s voice. A god who is offended, as they are, by a woman in their clubhouse and their sacred space. A god who is as afraid of a truly feminine woman who exhibits the strength that God gave her. A god who is as weak and brittle as these men are. A god who will not serve unless he is obeyed first. Their vision of humans is so utterly wrong because their conception of the God who created

    This is so true. It cannot be about “ability” because they don’t want to suggest they married such unable/ignorant women. Instead, their wives are smart, wise, smoking hot yet insists on remaining in her place. They redefine what it means to be pious for women.

    And I note, they rarely preach on Sapphira following her husband in conning the early church.

  309. @ Max:

    We went to a church in Maine, Christmas Day, 2011. The preacher talked about Jeremiah and King Herod, but the name of Jesus was not once uttered.

    @ Law Prof:

    You forgot about 1) darkness and light, 2) waters and dry land, 3)sun, moon, and stars

    @ Gram3:

    But the Lord was not in a great, strong wind; nor in the earthquake; nor in the fire; but after the fire a still, small voice.
    Does that sound … Well … A bit femininish???

  310. May wrote:

    I had heard that. Any links to prove it?

    Re: Lydia’s comment that “JI Packer and his wife attended different churches because she was egal and he wasn’t.”

    I’ve tried to run that down, but come up short on Kit’s exact theological persuasion in this regard. Yes, Dr. Packer’s wife has a name … Kit. In the various biographical summaries on Packer (including Wikipedia), she is referred to as “wife” … which says a lot in the context of this blog piece.

  311. @ Nancy2:

    Nancy2, I have never really been around the KJO crowd so don’t really view it that way. It is referred to quite a bit in literature so it has other uses as a translation. I have read about the KJO types, though, and met others who came out of that world. Whew!

    My mom used to keep a box of “Good News for Modern Man” translations in her trunk to give to people. She must have been a total heretic! :o)

  312. Max wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    JI Packer and his wife attended different churches because she was egal and he wasn’t.
    Whoa! Boy, is she ever going to catch it when she gets to Heaven! What is she thinking?! Packer is the man! When he speaks, even Al Mohler listens!

    If husband and wife haven’t been able to work through this and have some semblance of unity after decades of marriage, then one has to wonder whether the husband is anyone we ought to give five seconds of consideration with regard to their theological convictions, much less regard as a hero in the faith. The vast majority of people are able to work this sort of thing out over time.

    My bias would be to blame JI Packer; anyone who works to make a big name for themselves in this present U.S. Christian climate of comfortable jobs, conference honoraria, accolades and hero worship is immediately suspect. What a contrast to those who make names for themselves in climates where they might well be murdered in cold blood for that prominence (e.g., Paul of Tarsus).

  313. Max wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    JI Packer and his wife attended different churches because she was egal and he wasn’t.

    Whoa! Boy, is she ever going to catch it when she gets to Heaven! What is she thinking?! Packer is the man! When he speaks, even Al Mohler listens!

    Shouldn’t that be, “When he speaks, even GOD listens!”?

  314. Have any you who have attended comp churches ever heard any preacher speak about the story of Abigail? (1Sam 25)

    She is the one who had to take control of a situation due to her stupid husband, Nabal, who wouldn’t give fair payment/recognition to David for protecting his flocks. David’s good work was increasing the wealth of this man, yet he insulted David instead. A very angry David threatened to wipe out Abigail’s household due to her husband’s stubbornness. Did she sit back, be submissive, and wait for destruction? Did she do nothing because that’s what a “good” wife does? Isn’t the mantra of these comps that a wife needs to sit tight and let the Lord deal with a husband who is leading poorly, because the husband is directly under God and she is under her husband kind of nonsense? We shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads when our husbands do foolish or horrible things (including abuse) because the Lord will deal with him, right?

    Well, this woman got things done!!!! She could see what was going to happen if she didn’t intervene. Not only did she save her household by bringing a peace offering of food and wine to David and his men, but with her speech she smoothed things over with David, and mitigated his anger. She kept him from an unrighteous deed by shedding blood over her husband’s insult. This is a woman with a lot of brains, who used them, and defied her husband. Verse 19 plainly states she did all of this without telling her husband.

    This passage conveys a praiseworthy account of a wise woman. She is spoken of positively and nothing ill is said of her actions. In fact, the passage emphasizes her good fortune and blessing from all of this. Her wretch of a husband died and David, realizing what a lovely, wise person this was, took her as a wife.

    I wonder if Piper or Driscoll’s version of 1Sam has this account?

    If the fundagelicals who love the gender comp ideology are going to emphasize the authority of the Bible and how every jot and tittle has meaning, then it seems to me they need to start preaching from the whole Bible. Along the line, isn’t Proverbs 31 a problem for gender comps too? I realize that passage speaks to a lot of activities, but the woman described is also out making real estate deals by “considering a field and buys it”. Funny how that aspect of the passage is kind of set aside.

  315. @ Max:

    Max, My source was the late Suzanne McCarthy. She mentioned this on her blog years ago and I cannot remember if she attended with Kit or JI at that time. I consider her to be one of the foremost yet unsung Greek scholars of our time. She would disagree, of course. She started reading Greek as a teen yet did nothing with it professionally as she spent too many years in patriarchy before she escaped and shared her linguistic gifts with us–for free.

    She was one of a kind in finding Greek references to words used in scripture from other secular ancient sources to discuss meanings. She was the one who taught me how difficult and badly translated authenteo is in 1 Tim 3. She was a treasure and taught me so much. She recently passed away in her 50’s.

  316. Lydia wrote:

    8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

    I sooooo love this verse because it tells me that the Holy Ghost cannot be corralled and made to say what others want it to say so that they can lasso you into believing what they believe. It was a common tactic back in my Calvary Chapel days…you can only ‘know the Lord’ the way we tell you that you can know the Lord…

  317. Lydia wrote:

    spent too many years in patriarchy before she escaped

    I pray that is not the plight of the thousands of young women being caught up in New Calvinism, as their sorry husbands and boyfriends drag them in to the mess. Any single women listening in also need to take note. As I’ve spent time examining New Calvinist church plants in my area (I go to them occasionally to spy out the land), one thing is apparent as I glance around the crowd … most of the women carry a downcast countenance. You don’t need a spirit of discernment, just simple observation will tell you a lot. At one church, the YRR “lead” pastor actually skipped by several young ladies with a greeting handshake – preferring to shake the hands of the men they were with. New Calvinists preach to men … period.

  318. Velour wrote:

    Texas, influenced by Spanish law and its broad rights for women, gave women the right to own and manage property in their own names, their husband’s, to sue, etc. Our ideas of community property come from Spain’s laws.
    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/swh/summary/v110/110.3benavides.html

    That’s not entirely true. A married woman in Texas could manage her separate property but could not sell it without her husband’s permission. This was the law until 1968, when a state constitutional amendment made it possible for married women to sell her separate property without her husband’s consent. Yeah, within my lifetime, even.

  319. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Ken:
    Well, that’s a relief, but I wasn’t sure because I think there is more than one Ken. Do you agree … that the submission described in Ephesians 5 is only one-way, or is it reciprocal in any way at all? IOW, is what follows Ephesians 5:21 informed at all, in your estimation, by 5:21 and its universality?

    One Ken is quite enough!!

    I think the submission taught in Eph 5 is one way, and I’ll give the reasons for this:

    i) I think all would agree that v 21 states a general principle, all of which are done for the sake of Christ if you read to 6 : 9. What follows are specific examples.

    ii) v 22 is the example of the wife submitting. cf Col 3 : 18 for those hung up about the verb. The reason for this is obedience to Christ, and the ‘headship’ of the husband. (v 23).

    iii) The relationship of wife to husband is a pale reflection of Christ and the church, and by definition this is not mutual submission, nor is it cultural.

    iv) The complement of her submission is his agape love, the cherishing and nurturing. No misogyny here, a husband who thinks ‘head’ means ‘boss’ around has misunderstood the text. It’s not rocket science to work out how a husband should treat his wife from this passage, and I continue to like the word responsibility here (sorry, Lydia). He is the head, he’s not commanded to be, but he is commanded to love his wife, and yes he loses his personal autonomy too!

    v) We then get children and fathers/parents, and slaves and masters, analagous to employees and employers to us.

    These are various examples of submitting to one another. In each case, the person who has to be respected or deferred to has a corresponding duty or responsibility laid upon them. It would be inconsistent for this to be mutual for the husband, but self-evidently not for fathers and masters/employers. Further, you cannot have husband and wife mutually submitting to each other in everything. You’d get gridlock.

    It’s perfectly true husbands and wives who, lest we forget, are supposed to be in love with each other, communicate and be the closest of friends, are dependent on each other. I wonder if those who so vehemently want mutuality to be in Eph 5 have this in mind, but this comes from Corinthians and I fully believe it. I take it for granted in a healthy marriage both are involved in decision making, give and take, there is a lot of mutuality if you like, but at the end of the age hubby will have to give an account differently from his wife, he carries the greater responsibility.

    vi) One of the wiles of the devil on this issue has been to persuade – deceive – believers that the submission here inevitably stems from the wife being inferior. Did God say the women are inferior? By no means! This tactic has been hugely successful. But this isn’t remotely the case. The submission of members to ‘overseers’ isn’t mutual nor is it inferiors to their superiors either (though I agree some pastors haven’t twigged this).

    vii) Finally, you can legitimately debate how ‘submit’ works out in practice, but it is not an absolute, neither is is contingent on the husband reciprocating.

    It’s not cognative dissonance to claim individuals or groups, who are equal in some or even most senses, can have different and even unequal roles in others. Jesus himself remained equal to God, but took the form of a servant, and there are plenty of other examples of this in the bible. The essential oneness of all believers does not need to be ruptured because they have differentiation of role and responsibilty.

  320. @ Lydia:

    I was 17 before I knew there was anything other than the KJV. But, I’ve never been the “submissive” type. No one has ever had to “protect” me. I was raised around boys, and I was expected to hold my own in both work and play. As a teenager, I cold-cocked boys for behaving inappropriately towards me, and I’ve shot way more poisonous snakes than my husband. (Should I email John Piper a photo of the rattlesnake hide that is hanging on my wall …. With me standing beside the skin with my pistol on my hip???)

    As for JI Packer and his wife: If he couldn’t keep his domesticated animal reined in, how could he expect the men in his church to do so?

  321. Muff Potter wrote:

    Hey Lyds, this one’s for you, it was pasted from the link at the top of the post:
    “You are the Devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first forsaker of the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not brave enough to approach!”
    –Tertullian, to women

    Ironically, Tertullian is considered a quasi-heretic, because he went off to Montanism, aka the “New Prophecy” at a certain point late in life. He’s also the first person we know in the Latin West to use the word “trinitas” in describing the Godhead. He is not considered a saint because some of his teachings contradict that of the Catholic Church.

  322. @ Muff Potter:

    Muff, this becomes even more poignant when we understand that back in that day, you got your “identity” from the womb. What were you born into? Slave? Free? Jew? Gentile? There were so many structures/castes and that was your identity you were born into.

    Nicodemus is asking a question that would have really been incredible in that day when it came the idea of “born again”. How can I have a whole new identity? I was born into this identity.

    Jesus is talking about a whole NEW identity and using the “womb” language they understood. Now, it is all up in the air. Everything is upside down! The spirit is uncontrollable. No, The Holy Spirit cannot be corralled nor can any leader be our Holy Spirit for us!

  323. Max wrote:

    New Calvinists preach to men … period.

    Let me give you a good example of this. Most of you may know of Matt Chandler’s ministry; e.g., the recent Karen Hinkley “covenant” problems at Chandler’s Village Church has been addressed by TWW. As a young man, Chandler was greatly influenced (indoctrinated) by J.I. Packer and John Piper. An interview of Chandler by John Piper provides some tremendous insight on how the New Calvinist mind works. His declaration “That’s a different God!” re: teachings by Packer and Piper nails it … the Calvinist God is indeed a different God!

    The following video clip from that interview addresses complementarianism. Note: fast-forward to the segment at 11:16-13:25 for Chandler’s views about “our girls” (his reference to female members at Village Church), as well as his clear statements “I teach men; I go after the men.” His assessment that “our girls” love such teaching is contrary to what I am seeing at YRR church plants near me, where the countenance of women members reflects bondage.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKEpVzHnUw0

  324. Nancy2 wrote:

    As a teenager, I cold-cocked boys for behaving inappropriately towards me, and I’ve shot way more poisonous snakes than my husband. (Should I email John Piper a photo of the rattlesnake hide that is hanging on my wall …. With me standing beside the skin with my pistol on my hip???)

    Yes. Please send him a picture! :o)

    I have often wondered if Piper practices his beliefs when a female police officer pulls him over for a traffic violation?

  325. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    I wonder if Piper or Driscoll’s version of 1Sam has this account?
    If the fundagelicals who love the gender comp ideology are going to emphasize the authority of the Bible and how every jot and tittle has meaning, then it seems to me they need to start preaching from the whole Bible.

    Some of them do. But they don’t preach it the way you’d think.
    I know Gothard has fallen from grace. But his character schetches include Abigail. But instead of being praiseworthy, he makes her out to be a scheming betrayer.

    It’s so funny because I JUST commented on Gothard’s take this morning at Retha’s blog.

    https://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/how-church-sexism-colours-your-view-on-bible-women/#comments

  326. Lydia wrote:

    I have often wondered if Piper practices his beliefs when a female police officer pulls him over for a traffic violation?

    Well, one of these MenaGAWD said he would be “gnashing his teeth” in that situation…

  327. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    If the fundagelicals who love the gender comp ideology are going to emphasize the authority of the Bible and how every jot and tittle has meaning, then it seems to me they need to start preaching from the whole Bible.

    Only when the Bible conforms to The Party Line, Comrade.

  328. Lydia wrote:

    @ Muff Potter:

    Muff, this becomes even more poignant when we understand that back in that day, you got your “identity” from the womb. What were you born into? Slave? Free? Jew? Gentile? There were so many structures/castes and that was your identity you were born into.

    Nicodemus is asking a question that would have really been incredible in that day when it came the idea of “born again”. How can I have a whole new identity? I was born into this identity.

    Jesus is talking about a whole NEW identity and using the “womb” language they understood. Now, it is all up in the air. Everything is upside down! The spirit is uncontrollable. No, The Holy Spirit cannot be corralled nor can any leader be our Holy Spirit for us!

    So “born again” can be interpreted as an idiom for “in the Kingdom of God, you are no longer bound/limited by your birth caste or birth position”?

    Woo. In a class/caste system, that’s as LIBERATING (and subversive) as you can get!
    So how & why did becoming “Born Again(TM)” become an ever-longer list of Things You Have To Do Just So? Leading to Borg-level conformity?

  329. @ Carole Ryan:

    Butte!!! Hey there! You’re knocking my family’s hometown!

    My recommendation get an omelet at the M&M. Go to Gamers on Broadway (I think) and grab a pasty. Enjoy the scenery of Montana! I’d trade Washington, D.C. for Butte in a heartbeat. I also wrote this post about my family in Butte and being burned by fundamentalism at a funeral.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/how-fundamentalism-crashed-a-catholic-funeral-in-butte-montana/

  330. Bill Gothard. . . ughhhhhh. Submit, submit, submit young lady so I can feel you up all I want.

  331. @ Max:

    Max, all this really started with the transitioning the church movement. Going after men. It was all the rage 25 years ago in seeker type churches. Not a bad thing in and of itself but it morphed into what we are seeing today with a total focus on men and their definition of being a man.

    And most of us had NO idea the Danvers statement was having such a big influence in Christian academia. We totally ignored what was going on in what passed for Christian higher ed. If there had been an internet when Danvers came out, I doubt it would have had such holding power. You can drive mac trucks through its scripture reference interpretations. One theologian did just that but without the internet his work was not easily shared. RK McGregor Wright did a response that is excellent but it was way back in the 80’s.

    Satan despises women. His special hatred for women was because the promised Messiah was to come from a woman. We see it right after the fall in Genesis (I often think of Lamech) and all through the OT and thousands of years of secular history– this view of women.

    Our identity in Christ has nothing to do with body parts. There is not a pink and blue salvation. However, there have been cultural conventions that we avoid not to offend some. I get that and believe that is what so many of the proof texts are discussing in some respects. But to even discuss this these days automatically means one is promoting transgenderism and homosexuality in these circles. They employ shameful conversation stoppers to promote their view of men and women.

    There is not a pink and blue Christianity. If there is, how can a male Jesus be my Savior and model for this world?

  332. @ Ken:

    Ken, I disagree.

    5:21 is a universal within the church. But the verse following limits a woman to mutually submitting with her own husband, and not with some other man in the church, so as to avoid a misunderstanding and a scandal.

  333. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    So “born again” can be interpreted as an idiom for “in the Kingdom of God, you are no longer bound/limited by your birth caste or birth position”?
    Woo. In a class/caste system, that’s as LIBERATING (and subversive) as you can get!

    Yes! And may the Holy Spirit convict each of us of this fact– daily. The references to “Kingdom of God” or Kingdom of heaven in the Gospels is speaking of God’s people on earth. the Jews were supposed to be God’s people as in “the light of the world”.

  334. @ Lydia:
    Yes, that’s him. Darnley also had a claim to the throne of England as he was also a grandchild of Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII’s sister, so James had a double claim through both parents.

    Way too many Mary’s and Margarets and Edwards and Henry’s and Louis’s. I hope I got the use of the apostrophe as plural right; Maries and Henries don’t seem right.

  335. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    So “born again” can be interpreted as an idiom for “in the Kingdom of God, you are no longer bound/limited by your birth caste or birth position”?
    Woo. In a class/caste system, that’s as LIBERATING (and subversive) as you can get!

    As well as being a bitch-slap in the face to any and all forms of Determinism or Omnipotent Fate.

    “Not an implacable curse, but murder. And murder is of the will which God has made free.”
    — G.K.Chesterton, “Doom of the Darnaways” (Father Brown Mystery where Determinism is a major plot point)

  336. Estelle wrote:

    Way too many Mary’s and Margarets and Edwards and Henry’s and Louis’s. I hope I got the use of the apostrophe as plural right; Maries and Henries don’t seem right.

    Way too many Mary’s from way back. I remember hearing on one of those documentary channel specials that there are at least seven Mary’s in the Gospels and NT, including “The Other Mary”. So it was a REAL common woman’s name back then and even the NT authors needed to keep all the Mary’s straight.

  337. @ Estelle:

    I first read about the plot in Stephan Zwieg’s book, Mary Queen of Scots. I was astonished because so many Presbyterian churches around these parts are named for Knox. So I did more checking. Amazing how Christian history is often sanitized. You know, the sources we should be able to trust? About the only places I could confirm his part in the plot was from secular history sources.

  338. Ken wrote:

    but at the end of the age hubby will have to give an account differently from his wife, he carries the greater responsibility.

    Where does scripture declare this?

  339. Bridget wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    but at the end of the age hubby will have to give an account differently from his wife, he carries the greater responsibility.
    Where does scripture declare this?

    It doesn’t, that’s just made up extrascriptural doctrine. The scriptures do say, however, that those who think themselves fit for teaching the word of God, such as those whom this blog calls to task, will give a different account and be held to a higher standard.

  340. I have one question: why are these theoreticians tinkering with the trinity? I think this is a big deal.

  341. @ Ken:
    I can’t put it together. The husband is head except when he decides that their life is mutual? Or is their life lived in unity and mutuality except when there is a disagreement where, evidently, the Holy Spirit is not capable of leading two of his own? Why does there need to be a head in the sense of an “authority over” the other and where is the husband commanded to take “headship” over his wife? Where is it in the Bible that husbands will have to give an account for proper “headship?” Do you think wives are not responsible for the way that they love their husbands? Indeed, do you think wives are required to love their husbands at all, so long as they obey? After all, there is no instruction to love their husbands here.

  342. @ Gram3:
    And, Ken, you must be aware that slavery was defended on the ground that neither Jesus nor Paul outlawed it and that Paul commanded slaves to obey their masters. Abolitionists appealed to the nature of humanity as created in the image of God where there are no classes or “orders” within our one family. And especially in God’s household of faith.

  343. Lydia wrote:

    And most of us had NO idea the Danvers statement was having such a big influence in Christian academia.

    Yes, because where in the world would we have gotten the idea that academics are…thinkers? Obviously, there are very many academics who cannot construct a valid argument and do not recognize absurd “reasoning” when they see it. Danvers is a propaganda piece, or, at the very least, a reasonable facsimile thereof, as we used to say.

  344. Mark wrote:

    I have one question: why are these theoreticians tinkering with the trinity? I think this is a big deal.

    It is a huge deal, and it betrays the weakness of their basic position absent that appeal. They have to launder their illogical “not equal really is equal” through defiling the dignity of the Trinity. It is obscene. And, I might add, it is equally obscene for egalitarians to appeal to the equality among the Persons of the Trinity to support their position, if that is what some of them have done. I don’t know if they have, but it would not surprise me since people are people.

  345. I just wonder if so much of this is a response to culture wars. During the 1970’s evangelicals and their allies, the LDS Mormons, were fighting against the Equal Rights Amendment. I have read comments by LDS Mormon women leaders and the woman homemaker experts on the CBMW panel, they are almost identical. Homemaker is considered God’s calling for women in both Mormon and complementarian evangelicals . The CBMW came about as a reaction against evangelical feminism (I am uncertain what this is) or so a book on the topic reads, as if all the feminist platform is wrong. I have a friend who is a Baptist preachers wife. She was ashamed to tell me she works outside the home, as if this were a sin. I don’t know believe this is spelled out in Scripture?

  346. Law Prof wrote:

    those who think themselves fit for teaching the word of God, such as those whom this blog calls to task, will give a different account and be held to a higher standard.

    Now, now, Law Prof. That is what the Bible plainly says, but that is not what it plainly means. It cannot mean that or our Gospel Glitterati leadership would be worried. And they do not appear to be concerned at all about their own actions but only, say, the actions of a young woman who suddenly discovers she has unknowingly married a pedophile who used her for cover and who failed to secure their permission of her ELDERS to leave said pedophile who defrauded her. See, it is young women like that who are the real threat to the Kingdom, not people who prey on children or people in “leadership” who cover up for pedophiles or who cover up for the cover-uppers of pedophiles.

  347. Mark wrote:

    I have one question: why are these theoreticians tinkering with the trinity? I think this is a big deal.

    It is what those who ultimately are not seeking Jesus do. They find a way to mess with the fundamental nature of the Lord, and they never seem to miss an opportunity to denigrate Jesus in the bargain.

  348. Gram3 wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    And most of us had NO idea the Danvers statement was having such a big influence in Christian academia.
    Yes, because where in the world would we have gotten the idea that academics are…thinkers? Obviously, there are very many academics who cannot construct a valid argument and do not recognize absurd “reasoning” when they see it. Danvers is a propaganda piece, or, at the very least, a reasonable facsimile thereof, as we used to say.

    The first time I saw a copy of the BF&M2000 was in 2011. It was pushed by a male member who really emphasizes “male authority”. (His wife of 40 years is a bundle of nerves and has to have prescrip meds to cope, btw.) Shortly thereafter, I found information on the Danvers Statement and CBMW. If they hawk it, somebody will buy it. If the men buy it, then the women are force to buy it, too. Or, so they think.

  349. Gram3 wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    those who think themselves fit for teaching the word of God, such as those whom this blog calls to task, will give a different account and be held to a higher standard.
    Now, now, Law Prof. That is what the Bible plainly says, but that is not what it plainly means. It cannot mean that or our Gospel Glitterati leadership would be worried. And they do not appear to be concerned at all about their own actions but only, say, the actions of a young woman who suddenly discovers she has unknowingly married a pedophile who used her for cover and who failed to secure their permission of her ELDERS to leave said pedophile who defrauded her. See, it is young women like that who are the real threat to the Kingdom, not people who prey on children or people in “leadership” who cover up for pedophiles or who cover up for the cover-uppers of pedophiles.

    Yes, of course, my bad. 😉

  350. mirele wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    Texas, influenced by Spanish law and its broad rights for women, gave women the right to own and manage property in their own names, their husband’s, to sue, etc. Our ideas of community property come from Spain’s laws.
    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/swh/summary/v110/110.3benavides.html

    That’s not entirely true. A married woman in Texas could manage her separate property but could not sell it without her husband’s permission. This was the law until 1968, when a state constitutional amendment made it possible for married women to sell her separate property without her husband’s consent. Yeah, within my lifetime, even.

    Do you know if the Jacksonian Democrats that moved to Texas were responsible for curtailing women’s legal rights under the Spanish system?

  351. dee wrote:

    I was planning on writing a note tomorrow and tell folks that I have set aside 3 days (this coming weekend) for trying to catch up with the emails.

    Dee, don’t you and Deb let yourselves get burned out.

  352. @ Gram3:

    There is also the whole totalitarian appeal aspect as in ‘some animals are more equal than others’. And “separate but equal” which promoted the same premise as comp doctrine does today. Even the name, “complementarian”, was designed as a ruse.

  353. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Too right. Just as well the first four books of the New Testament were written by blokes. Imagine the confusion if it started off with the gospels according to Mary M, Mary C, Martha and the Other Mary!

  354. @ Nancy2:

    Nancy2, You might be interested in this:

    http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html

    Quote:

    ___The same issue was addressed by a leading member of the revision committee during a news conference in Orlando. At that news conference, Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., explained the difference between the phrase “priesthood of the believer” as used in the 1963 statement and “priesthood of believers” as used in the 2000 statement.
    ___”Baptists believe in the priesthood of believers, but it is dangerous to say the priesthood of the believer,” Mohler said. “It is not just that we stand alone; it is that we stand together–and we stand together under the authority of God’s word.”
    ___Henderson found irony in this explanation being given in a news conference after the vote was taken. This is not the interpretation he has understood to be the Southern Baptist position in the past, he said.
    ___”While I am content to stand before God under the authority of Scripture, I can do so whether I’m alone or in a crowd of all 15.8 million Southern Baptists,” Henderson wrote. “While I appreciate the committee’s efforts to at least partially restore a pair of key Baptist doctrines, I am confident it is not dangerous to be a lone priest/believer in the presence of Almighty God through the power of his Holy Spirit.”
    ___Cartledge also asserted the last-minute insertion represented a departure from Baptist history rather than a reclaiming of it.
    ___”The paragraph uses the familiar words but gives them a carefully doctored spin that de-emphasizes individual freedom while magnifying the concept of accountability to an approved belief system.
    ___”‘Priesthood of believers’ is carefully couched in the plural only, subtly recasting ‘the priesthood of the believer’ to guard against claims of individual interpretation or revelation from God,” he suggested.

    Note how Mohler “redefines” it for us at a news conference after everyone has voted. Very typical of the bait and switch of that movement. Whose translation of God’s Word is he speaking of? His?

  355. JohnD wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    You know, We can see how threatened some Christian leaders are today with the idea of equal functioning status within the Body of Christ. We get a glimpse of how that might have gone over in the early days of Christianity with some of these guys like Tertullian and even later with guys like Luther who were down right insulting toward women. It makes it harder for me to take them seriously as sources of information.
    Calvin on women in his commentary on Corinthians: “Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is created inferior to the more distinguished sex.”

    Well, at least Calvin didn’t try the “she is equal in an ontological sense.” He just comes out and says it like he sees it: Woman, YOU are inferior to us dignified men so get over it and enjoy your place!” I think the Comp/Pats believe the same thing, but they know if they spoke this way, they’d lose a lot of women in their churches. So they smooth their teaching over with some idea of women people equal, which in actuality and real life situations boils down to women being inferior. However, once the women get drawn in by the *equality* card, and there comes a point in which they discover they’ve been duped, it’s harder to retreat and run for the hills. Especially when she has a husband that has bought into this teaching hook, line and sinker. But this new teaching on Complementarianism/Patriarchy is really at its core, in alignment with Calvin. Many of them just use softer language to draw And it rears its ugly head within the halls of churches that affirm

  356. Lydia wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    Nancy2, You might be interested in this:
    http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html
    Quote:
    ___The same issue was addressed by a leading member of the revision committee during a news conference in Orlando. At that news conference, Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., explained the difference between the phrase “priesthood of the believer” as used in the 1963 statement and “priesthood of believers” as used in the 2000 statement.
    ___”Baptists believe in the priesthood of believers, but it is dangerous to say the priesthood of the believer,” Mohler said. “It is not just that we stand alone; it is that we stand together–and we stand together under the authority of God’s word.”
    ___Henderson found irony in this explanation being given in a news conference after the vote was taken. This is not the interpretation he has understood to be the Southern Baptist position in the past, he said.
    ___”While I am content to stand before God under the authority of Scripture, I can do so whether I’m alone or in a crowd of all 15.8 million Southern Baptists,” Henderson wrote. “While I appreciate the committee’s efforts to at least partially restore a pair of key Baptist doctrines, I am confident it is not dangerous to be a lone priest/believer in the presence of Almighty God through the power of his Holy Spirit.”
    ___Cartledge also asserted the last-minute insertion represented a departure from Baptist history rather than a reclaiming of it.
    ___”The paragraph uses the familiar words but gives them a carefully doctored spin that de-emphasizes individual freedom while magnifying the concept of accountability to an approved belief system.
    ___”‘Priesthood of believers’ is carefully couched in the plural only, subtly recasting ‘the priesthood of the believer’ to guard against claims of individual interpretation or revelation from God,” he suggested.
    Note how Mohler “redefines” it for us at a news conference after everyone has voted. Very typical of the bait and switch of that movement. Whose translation of God’s Word is he speaking of? His?

    It is simply a matter of Mohler establishing that he is the sole priest with the sole authority. That’s the bottom line.

  357. JohnD wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    You know, We can see how threatened some Christian leaders are today with the idea of equal functioning status within the Body of Christ. We get a glimpse of how that might have gone over in the early days of Christianity with some of these guys like Tertullian and even later with guys like Luther who were down right insulting toward women. It makes it harder for me to take them seriously as sources of information.
    Calvin on women in his commentary on Corinthians: “Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is created inferior to the more distinguished sex.”

    Well, at least Calvin didn’t try the “she is equal in an ontological sense.” He just comes out and says it like he sees it: Woman, YOU are inferior to us dignified men so get over it and enjoy your place!” I think the Comp/Pats believe the same thing, but they know if they spoke this way, they’d lose a lot of women in their churches. So they smooth their teaching over with some idea of women people equal, which in actuality and real life situations boils down to women being inferior. However, once the women get drawn in by the *equality* card, and there comes a point in which they discover they’ve been duped, it’s harder to retreat and run for the hills. Especially when she has a husband that has bought into this teaching hook, line and sinker. But this new teaching on Complementarianism/Patriarchy is really at its core, in alignment with Calvin. Many of them just use softer language to draw the unsuspecting married couples in. Then it rears its ugly head for what it really is, female subordination, within the fortified bastions of Comp/Pat churches.

  358. Lydia wrote:

    I have often wondered if Piper practices his beliefs when a female police officer pulls him over for a traffic violation?

    In a sick sort of way, I am hoping that happens some day … and the female officer is a member of his church!

  359. @ Lydia:
    I looked up Stephan Zweig. I see he was the inspiration behind A Grand Budapest Hotel.
    I found John Guy’s My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots absolutely fascinating when I read it a couple of years ago. This is one academic book that I found far more gripping than a fictionalised account of her life.

  360. Lydia wrote:

    Our identity in Christ has nothing to do with body parts. There is not a pink and blue salvation.

    Wow! Those lines nail it! Print it and stick on your refrigerator folks!

  361. Leila wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I also want to do a resources page on church discipline and membership covenants. But I have little time to do so,
    Dee, I could help you out with this if you are comfortable “outsourcing” it. You will recall that we met for lunch just outside of Baltimore at the place where you got crabcakes recently, and I also did two guest posts for you. One a couple years ago about our experience at a Classical Christian (Doug Wilsonian) school and another when I attended the appeal hearing in the SGM conspiracy/coverup case. The email tagged with my identity on this post is a sort of throwaway email; I’ll email you from my primary account and put something in the subject line to jog your attention. If you’d rather not have help with this, given the nuanced nature of it, I totally understand!

    Leila, you attended a Kirk church and Bible college? I would find it quite interesting to hear about your experiences under Wilson’s teachings. I have comment on his blog several times and was on the receiving end of an offended, sanctimonious male. He thought nothing of using profanity to try and humiliate and shut me up. I just kept coming back and responding to his nonsense, without the need to stoop to his level. Some of the men over there on that blog are influenced by the Manosphere and, I believe, actually hate women who use their brains to think.

  362. Gram3 wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    And the Inquisition.
    Thankfully they don’t have the means to do that, but the spirit of purging those who dissent or think outside the bounds of what is politically correct certainly is there.

    But if the Reconstructions had their way, that would change.

  363. @ Estelle:

    Estelle, He wrote a lot of biographies, too.

    Read Zweig’s, “Right to Heresy: Castellio against Calvin”. He also wrote bios of Erasmus and Nietzsche which are on my long reading list.

  364. Law Prof wrote:

    It is simply a matter of Mohler establishing that he is the sole priest with the sole authority. That’s the bottom line.

    No kidding. We have some other not-so-great high priests now. Funny but I didn’t feel the need for Mohler’s help or Dever’s or any of the other Gospel Glitterati who are so in love with themselves and their authority. And I’m sure that the Holy Spirit is relieved not to have the responsibility to operate in the life of *each* believer. He is now freed-up to work through churches with membership covenants. Because the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood is not sufficient. Even for the elect.

  365. Darlene wrote:

    Some of the men over there on that blog are influenced by the Manosphere and, I believe, actually hate women who use their brains to think.

    It has been my experience that some of these men will admit to hating women, period, not just those who have brains and are unafraid to use them. There are certain theologies that of course appeal more to those with severe psychological disturbances such that they hate an entire gender.

  366. @ Max:

    Thanks Max. We need each other (male and female in the Body) and waste so much time and effort on this foolishness when we could be shoulder to shoulder working as kingdom people instead of being worried about “roles”.

  367. Law Prof wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    Some of the men over there on that blog are influenced by the Manosphere and, I believe, actually hate women who use their brains to think.
    It has been my experience that some of these men will admit to hating women, period, not just those who have brains and are unafraid to use them. There are certain theologies that of course appeal more to those with severe psychological disturbances such that they hate an entire gender.

    This opinion comes from personal experience, speaking with young men who have opened up to me.

  368. Darlene wrote:

    But if the Reconstructions had their way, that would change.

    The Reconstructionists have federally re-visioned themselves and are now preoccupied with liturgy and salvation through church and baptism alone. Not that they would not do whatever they have the power to do. Leithart skated in the PCA when their leadership blinked, and he is the brains behind Wilson. What is truly shocking is that Wilson has been welcomed in Baptistic circles due to his propaganda about male supremacy. Nevermind the wacko soteriology or ecclesiology. All that matters to certain “leaders” is their own positions at the top of everyone. And that includes Becca and Nancy.

  369. Patrice wrote:

    If a woman is ontologically equal but required to be functionally subordinate, then she is being told to dishonor God by not doing her best with what God gave her. And if in heaven as it is on earth, one can only imagine how women might manage to sin there.
    Likewise, if God constantly and purposely under-utilizes an aspect of himself, he is not respecting his own being; therefore he is imperfect and in needs of addressing his lack of self-care.
    These men demand that both women and God neglect parts of themselves merely because they want to feel more important than they are.
    Time to grow up, boiz.

    Not only that, the Comp/Pat teaching is insulting to women because in practice, it ignores the gifting of women within the Body of Christ. If a wife has been given the gift of knowledge and/or wisdom, which surpasses that of her husband, and yet he has the right to ignore her suggestions regarding decisions made within their marriage simply by virtue of his manhood, then he is in essence rejecting the Holy Spirit working through his wife. Because remember, in this teaching the man has the FINAL SAY in ALL things, whether it be how the children are raised, how the household finances are run, where they go on vacation, even down to how the wife dresses. This teaching assumes and presumes that in ALL areas the husband has the better viewpoint and understanding. The husband really functions like Daddy and the wife like a child.

  370. Bunsen Honeydew wrote:

    Have any you who have attended comp churches ever heard any preacher speak about the story of Abigail? (1Sam 25)

    Piper refers to her in RBMW. She is a “… beautiful example of non-directive leadership … (who)… exerted great influence over David and changed the course of his life; but she did it with amazing restraint and submissiveness and discretion.”

    Abigail expertly took control of David’s mind and got him to do what she wanted. Piper is impressed by this because it was “non-directive.” So for Piper form is more important than substance.

    Piper says nothing about her taking control of the household to the exclusion of her husband Nabal. It seems to be a “beautiful example” of the “directive” leadership that he decries.

  371. Law Prof wrote:

    This opinion comes from personal experience, speaking with young men who have opened up to me.

    There is a psychology to this. When one has been convinced certain people are lower, one tends to have expectations of the lower group that eventually cause problems and causes the higher person to disdain them. This has played out in other venues in history with other people groups.

    How many times did I hear that comp doctrine elevated women? Lots. But I also saw how women were treated when problems arose. They were easily discarded— unless they were wealthy.

  372. Gram3 wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:
    Please respond to the charge.
    They do not respond substantively to women, with the exception of English Ken living in Germany and possibly one or two others. Not in the churches I’ve been apart of, not the men who have bought into this, and not the guys who are so adamant about it here and elsewhere. They don’t respond because they do not respond to their inferiors. Their actions betray what they really believe about women being “equal in dignity, value, and worth.”

    Yeah, sort of like the difference between slave owner, otherwise known as Mastuh, and slave.

  373. JohnD wrote:

    Piper refers to her in RBMW. She is a “… beautiful example of non-directive leadership … (who)… exerted great influence over David and changed the course of his life; but she did it with amazing restraint and submissiveness and discretion.”

    BWAHAHA! That sounds so Piper! Non directive? she was pleading for the life of her family/household! She saved lives.

  374. JohnD wrote:

    Bunsen Honeydew wrote:
    Have any you who have attended comp churches ever heard any preacher speak about the story of Abigail? (1Sam 25)
    Piper refers to her in RBMW. She is a “… beautiful example of non-directive leadership … (who)… exerted great influence over David and changed the course of his life; but she did it with amazing restraint and submissiveness and discretion.”
    Abigail expertly took control of David’s mind and got him to do what she wanted. Piper is impressed by this because it was “non-directive.” So for Piper form is more important than substance.
    Piper says nothing about her taking control of the household to the exclusion of her husband Nabal. It seems to be a “beautiful example” of the “directive” leadership that he decries.

    Maybe Abigail did a mind-meld David without him knowing it. Sort of like Spock telling Bones to “Remember!” in The Wrath of Khan, without Bones realizing what had happened. 😉

  375. Lydia wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    This opinion comes from personal experience, speaking with young men who have opened up to me.
    There is a psychology to this. When one has been convinced certain people are lower, one tends to have expectations of the lower group that eventually cause problems and causes the higher person to disdain them. This has played out in other venues in history with other people groups.
    How many times did I hear that comp doctrine elevated women? Lots. But I also saw how women were treated when problems arose. They were easily discarded— unless they were wealthy.

    Well, it elevates women in a Stepford Wives fashion. Now c’mon, what woman wouldn’t want to be a Stepford wife? Baking cookies, cleaning house, grocery shopping all in pink purdy dresses and pearls and a smile plastered on her face. Hubby saves her from have to work in the world so that she can be protected within the confines of hearth and home. Of course, this paradigm only works among those in the higher socio-economic classes in today’s society.

  376. @ Darlene:

    Most of the Reconstructionists are unreconstructed power hungry heretics using the “church” to accumulate a following for the purpose of seizing earthly (or hellish) power.

  377. Max wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    I have often wondered if Piper practices his beliefs when a female police officer pulls him over for a traffic violation?
    In a sick sort of way, I am hoping that happens some day … and the female officer is a member of his church!

    Nailing him for a traffic violation directly in front of his church, after church has dismissed on a Sunday afternoon???

  378. JohnD wrote:

    So for Piper form is more important than substance.

    Yes, it apparently is. Because it is not about who we are in Christ as New Men and New Women of the New Creation. It is about Roles and how we play our Roles under the old, fallen creation. The entire system is fake from top to bottom–from the word the coined to mask what they were doing to the deceptive and slippery use they make of language to make people fall for their deception.

    A woman who works as a partner with her husband in a long-lived marriage characterized by unity of purpose and thought is not really feminine. But a manipulative woman who *appears* submissive in word and deed (non-directive while getting her way) is considered what God designed a woman to be. It is sick and twisted, yet people buy it because Piper and because Grudem and all the others. I suppose it is because it makes people feel more godly if something is difficult. Better to struggle in a difficult relationship with proper role observance than to have a peaceful and joyful marriage in a true partnership of equals who mutually love and respect one another. It is all about appearances and rules and not about spiritual realities.

  379. Arce wrote:

    Most of the Reconstructionists are unreconstructed power hungry heretics using the “church” to accumulate a following for the purpose of seizing earthly (or hellish) power.

    Yes, but they have a new wardrobe and a new act, so a lot of people are fooled.

  380. Nancy2 wrote:

    Nailing him for a traffic violation directly in front of his church, after church has dismissed on a Sunday afternoon???

    I am waiting for a female officer to come to his rescue when he is mugged. Not wishing that on him, but I do wonder how he would explain away her “directive” behavior in rescuing him. I suspect his overweening pride would be wounded beyond repair.

  381. Mark wrote:

    I just wonder if so much of this is a response to culture wars. During the 1970’s evangelicals and their allies, the LDS Mormons, were fighting against the Equal Rights Amendment. I have read comments by LDS Mormon women leaders and the woman homemaker experts on the CBMW panel, they are almost identical. Homemaker is considered God’s calling for women in both Mormon and complementarian evangelicals . The CBMW came about as a reaction against evangelical feminism (I am uncertain what this is) or so a book on the topic reads, as if all the feminist platform is wrong. I have a friend who is a Baptist preachers wife. She was ashamed to tell me she works outside the home, as if this were a sin. I don’t know believe this is spelled out in Scripture?

    Just think if Comp/Pats had their way. Hospitals would only have male employees, from the physicians and administrators, all the way to those who work in the cafeteria. All grocery stores would only have male employees, from the cashier all the way up to the manager. All police forces would only have male officers, even those who deal with issues that directly effect women such as rape and domestic abuse. All colleges would only employ male professors, as well as those working in administrative positions. There would be no female scientists, no female politicians, no female teachers, no female hair dressers, no female designers or architects, no female florists, no female chefs or bakers, no female restaurant owners, and the list could go on and on. It seems quite absurd but this is the ideal dream in Comp/Pat Land. Those Comps who don’t subscribe to this ideology are really soft-Comps to the dismay of the consistent, hardliners who take the verse “KEEPERS OF THE HOME” seriously!

  382. Arce wrote:

    Ken, I disagree.
    5:21 is a universal within the church. But the verse following limits a woman to mutually submitting with her own husband, and not with some other man in the church, so as to avoid a misunderstanding and a scandal.

    I agree. Within the “universal” submission of 5:21, is a husband to submit to everyone in the Body of Christ except his wife?

  383. Gram3 wrote:

    JohnD wrote:
    So for Piper form is more important than substance.
    Yes, it apparently is. Because it is not about who we are in Christ as New Men and New Women of the New Creation. It is about Roles and how we play our Roles under the old, fallen creation. The entire system is fake from top to bottom–from the word the coined to mask what they were doing to the deceptive and slippery use they make of language to make people fall for their deception.
    A woman who works as a partner with her husband in a long-lived marriage characterized by unity of purpose and thought is not really feminine. But a manipulative woman who *appears* submissive in word and deed (non-directive while getting her way) is considered what God designed a woman to be. It is sick and twisted, yet people buy it because Piper and because Grudem and all the others. I suppose it is because it makes people feel more godly if something is difficult. Better to struggle in a difficult relationship with proper role observance than to have a peaceful and joyful marriage in a true partnership of equals who mutually love and respect one another. It is all about appearances and rules and not about spiritual realities.

    So, being a Delilah and taking my man down is a good thing. Right???
    Bwaahhaahaaaa!

  384. Arce wrote:

    @ Darlene:
    Most of the Reconstructionists are unreconstructed power hungry heretics using the “church” to accumulate a following for the purpose of seizing earthly (or hellish) power.

    The Recons I’ve crossed paths with insist that Mosaic laws still apply where women are concerned. All Jesus did was remove the necessity to make animal sacrifices.

  385. Darlene wrote:

    Leila, you attended a Kirk church and Bible college? I would find it quite interesting to hear about your experiences under Wilson’s teachings. I have comment on his blog several times and was on the receiving end of an offended, sanctimonious male. He thought nothing of using profanity to try and humiliate and shut me up. I just kept coming back and responding to his nonsense, without the need to stoop to his level. Some of the men over there on that blog are influenced by the Manosphere and, I believe, actually hate women who use their brains to think.

    @Darlene – no. I was referring to a guest post I wrote for this blog (in 2012?) about my childrens’ experience at a Classical Christian private school they attended for 6 or 7 years. It’s on the east coast, but closely modeled after Doug Wilson’s Logos school. Believe me, Wilson’s influence was clearly felt in that school. Ugh. What a shame such a brilliant mind as his has come under the influence of just plain meanness and power tripping. You are very brave – I don’t have the stomach to even read his blog, much less participate in it.

  386. Victorious wrote:

    Arce wrote:
    Ken, I disagree.
    5:21 is a universal within the church. But the verse following limits a woman to mutually submitting with her own husband, and not with some other man in the church, so as to avoid a misunderstanding and a scandal.
    I agree. Within the “universal” submission of 5:21, is a husband to submit to everyone in the Body of Christ except his wife?

    No, to everyone in the church including his wife. The idea is not that one kowtows to others, but that one has a cooperative spirit. The word is not our understanding of submit, but to be cooperative, be willing to listen to and be taught by others, rather than dictate to them or refuse to hear them. But one can get too chummy in a church with others, so that the woman is encouraged not to submit to some other woman’s husband, but to her own, even as he submits to her. And women clearly should submit to each other.

    It must be extremely clear from the text that mutual submission means something other than the 20th and 21st century understanding of the word “submit”! It clearly does not indicate that the one to whom one is mutually submitting is “in authority” or “ruling” over one, but rather working cooperatively together.

  387. Darlene wrote:

    Just think if Comp/Pats had their way. Hospitals would only have male employees, from the physicians and administrators, all the way to those who work in the cafeteria. All grocery stores would only have male employees, from the cashier all the way up to the manager. All police forces would only have male officers, even those who deal with issues that directly effect women such as rape and domestic abuse. All colleges would only employ male professors, as well as those working in administrative positions. There would be no female scientists, no female politicians, no female teachers, no female hair dressers, no female designers or architects, no female florists, no female chefs or bakers, no female restaurant owners, and the list could go on and on. It seems quite absurd but this is the ideal dream in Comp/Pat Land. Those Comps who don’t subscribe to this ideology are really soft-Comps to the dismay of the consistent, hardliners who take the verse “KEEPERS OF THE HOME” seriously!

    I remember reading a complementarian discussion forum years ago. One of the hard core comp men was saying that women should not go to male doctors, because it was immodest. But if they went to female doctors, the husband must accompany her into the exam room at all times, because chances are the female doctor is a feminist and might unduly influence the wife. Horrifying.

  388. Leila wrote:

    I remember reading a complementarian discussion forum years ago. One of the hard core comp men was saying that women should not go to male doctors, because it was immodest. But if they went to female doctors, the husband must accompany her into the exam room at all times, because chances are the female doctor is a feminist and might unduly influence the wife. Horrifying.

    Sounds like the Wahhabis. Are there rules for men who are non relatives speaking to women?

  389. Lydia wrote:

    How many times did I hear that comp doctrine elevated women? Lots. But I also saw how women were treated when problems arose. They were easily discarded…

    There are two ways in which I see them discarded:

    1). When males tell them to shut up and refuse to listen to them, this can be done brutally or with a “we love ya, sister” velvet glove, but it seems to be exactly the same spirit that motivates both;

    2). When males make a woman into something “smokin hot”, good primarily for favors in the martial bed or for brag sin confession sessions (e.g., YRR 20-something tells other YRRs about the hot babes he bedded before he came to faith in the Five Points of Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace, or after coming to faith during his backslidings, this is of course confessed with a hang dog expression, but it is just the locker room dressed up with religious verbiage).

    What disturbs me is how many women submit to this sort of ugliness. I have seen it, young ladies more concerned about window treatments and fingernails that what their husbands’ idolatries are doing to the psyches of their children. One middle aged woman at our former church who came from an SGM church with her husband told my wife “how wonderful it was that A is a godly husband for me, he makes all my decisions.” My wife was astonished.

    These men in ignoring their women and the prophecies, teachings and wisdom coming from them are killing off the Abigails and Zipporahs in their lives–and as a result they die, maybe not physically, but spiritually.

  390. Darlene wrote:

    There would be no female scientists, no female politicians, no female teachers, no female hair dressers, no female designers or architects, no female florists, no female chefs or bakers, no female restaurant owners, and the list could go on and on.

    I believe that if they really believe what they say they believe, then as a matter of principle they should not avail themselves of *any* scientific or medical or technological advances that have come from female study and work. That means no radiology, for example, because Marie Curie had to leave Poland because the church would not let a female study at the university. So off she went to Paris and the rest is history. We should thank the Roman Catholic officials in Poland for making her great blessing to humanity possible. And we should give thanks for men like Pierre who recognized a gifted woman and were not intimidated by that.

    But the Female Subordinators are not that principled. They want all the benefits of having educated women while retaining all of the control options.

  391. Law Prof wrote:

    What disturbs me is how many women submit to this sort of ugliness.

    How many times have you heard women who have forfeited their freedom in Christ exclaim about how BEAUTIFUL this is and how much JOY it brings them. The women I’ve known really looked like they were trying to believe it when they said it. ISTM that if it so self-evidently were beautiful and brought so much joy–unlike the ugliness and misery resulting from mutual love and respect–then they wouldn’t have to do the effusive hard sell so much. And the men wouldn’t have to be so ooey-gooey about their wives because everyone could see their unity and mutual love and respect on display without them talking about it.

  392. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
    But even if their nonsensical re-imagining of the Trinity were correct, how can they leap from there to some kind of model for human relationships? Forget the “missing major premise” fallacy – these people are missing the whole syllogism!
    1) Collect used underpants.
    2) ?????
    3) PROFIT!
    — The Underpants Gnomes

    You made me laugh…more than usual!

  393. Gram3 wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    What disturbs me is how many women submit to this sort of ugliness.
    How many times have you heard women who have forfeited their freedom in Christ exclaim about how BEAUTIFUL this is and how much JOY it brings them. The women I’ve known really looked like they were trying to believe it when they said it. ISTM that if it so self-evidently were beautiful and brought so much joy–unlike the ugliness and misery resulting from mutual love and respect–then they wouldn’t have to do the effusive hard sell so much. And the men wouldn’t have to be so ooey-gooey about their wives because everyone could see their unity and mutual love and respect on display without them talking about it.

    It is pathetic. The couple I mentioned above, A and R, are particularly sad in this respect. Absolutely over-the-top in their public praise of one another, you practically get hyperglycemic reading their Facebook posts. It is so obvious they are trying desperately to make it all appear good–but they are so easy to see through. Just a little bit of truth and they could be free–but some people hate truth and anyone who likes to tell it.

  394. Gram3 wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    What disturbs me is how many women submit to this sort of ugliness.
    How many times have you heard women who have forfeited their freedom in Christ exclaim about how BEAUTIFUL this is and how much JOY it brings them. The women I’ve known really looked like they were trying to believe it when they said it. ISTM that if it so self-evidently were beautiful and brought so much joy–unlike the ugliness and misery resulting from mutual love and respect–then they wouldn’t have to do the effusive hard sell so much. And the men wouldn’t have to be so ooey-gooey about their wives because everyone could see their unity and mutual love and respect on display without them talking about it.

    Seen it. They are talking more to themselves than to the people around them.
    “If I keep repeating it, I will eventually believe it.” Those marriages that don’t end in divorce usually are lived out in separate bedrooms.

  395. @ Gram3:

    I was especially repulsed by the whole “date your wife” campaign that was huge in the 90’s. Do couples really need to be told to have more sex and go on regular dates? It became a contest to compare the exotic dates. When do people actually grow up in church?

  396. Law Prof wrote:

    These men in ignoring their women and the prophecies, teachings and wisdom coming from them are killing off the Abigails and Zipporahs in their lives–and as a result they die, maybe not physically, but spiritually.

    Absolutely!

    (I used to wonder if they ever gave it a thought their wives might be changing their Depends someday)

  397. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I was especially repulsed by the whole “date your wife” campaign that was huge in the 90’s. Do couples really need to be told to have more sex and go on regular dates? It became a contest to compare the exotic dates. When do people actually grow up in church?

    I didn’t know this was some kind of campaign. Good gosh, they did that at my former neocal, I thought it was just a thing with that particular place. It was kind of a bragging-rights thing, a showy way of demonstrating how downright wonderful you are to your wife whom you recently gave that “I love my awesome husband” shirt. The aforementioned couple, A and R, they of the desperate show for public consumption, were the leaders in the adult dating category. Every week without exception, before I saw through their fraud (didn’t take long, it was an act of community theater quality) I felt like a miserable bum because I couldn’t keep up with A’s righteousness.

  398. This pertains to a conversation I was having above with someone about John Piper imitating a woman speaking by barking orders.

    As I noted already, when most (American) women speak, they usually are (and this is because they have been conditioned to be) soft spoken, or take up peculiar speaking habits (such as “Uptalk”), so as not to sound too bossy, especially not to or around men.

    So I’ve no idea how Piper gets this idea that a woman teaching is going to bark orders at anyone. According to my experience and studies I’ve read, most women are likely to speak too quietly or with quirks that make them sound less confident and competent than they are.

    Young women, give up the vocal fry and reclaim your strong female voice by Naomi Wolf
    (talks about “Vocal Fry” in women and other female speech patterns)
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/24/vocal-fry-strong-female-voice

    A snippet:

    This demographic of women tends to have a distinctive speech pattern. Many commentators have noticed it, often with dismay.
    Time magazine devoted a column to the mannerism called vocal fry, noting a study that found that this speech pattern makes young women who use it sound less competent, less trustworthy, less educated and less hireable: “Think Britney Spears and the Kardashians.”

  399. Lydia wrote:

    I was especially repulsed by the whole “date your wife” campaign that was huge in the 90’s.

    Evangelical culture has since turned to “Daddy Daughter” dates.

    I don’t remember ever hearing them advocate “Mother Son” dates.

  400. Lydia wrote:

    Do couples really need to be told to have more sex and go on regular dates?

    P.S. Oh absolutely, and it’s imperative that the preacher mention this during regular church services so that any single adults in attendance (like myself, who want to be having sex, but who are celibate due to biblical injunctions against sex prior to marriage) have to hear it.

    This is seriously more common than you may think.

    A lot of Christian singles mention this from time to time, in books, magazine articles, or blogs that talk about what it’s like being single in church, about how the preacher will brag on about banging his smoking hot wife, even though there are single celibates in the audience.

  401. Lydia wrote:

    “date your wife”

    Whhaaaatttt?! I told my woman 45 years ago that I loved her and if I ever changed my mind, I would let her know! (just kidding of course – I wondered what it would feel like to be an eternal female subordinationist for a moment … here come’s my dear wife; I’m over it now!)

  402. I missed the mob of comments on these posts, but I was thinking about the pro-homemaking ideology today, and for all the people they pay to “engage culture”, they have been completely left behind. I’m a 20 something civil engineer, wasn’t a Christian as an adolescent, so I have a lot of non-Christian and non-evangelical friends. You’ll have to trust my anecdotal experience, but there’s a lot of women in my generation that consider themselves entitled to an upper-middle class existence without the upper-middle class job. They absolutely want to be a housewife, but they also want to be the domineering sitcom wife withholding sex as punishment for the slightest offense. So savvy non-Christian men these days who want respect and deference from wives are looking for professional women! They know the value of a dollar, sympathize with the challenges of a career even if they won’t keep theirs, and have learned how to work in a team. And if they are mean, at least the men can enjoy the DINK status. So the secular world has housewives who lord over their husbands, and career women who go with the husband’s flow at home. So when I look at that, I say staying at home is demonstrably not the be-all end-all of being a “submissive” wife, but I think controlling wives through controlling finances is for some these “godly men”.

    And as a civil engineer, I will say that John Piper’s commentary on structural dynamics is laughable.

  403. Lydia wrote:

    He also wrote bios of Erasmus and Nietzsche which are on my long reading list.

    Both Erasmus and Neecha had some great things to say.

  404. Max wrote:

    Note: fast-forward to the segment at 11:16-13:25 for Chandler’s views about “our girls” (his reference to female members at Village Church), as well as his clear statements “I teach men; I go after the men.”

    Mark Driscoll was also big on this.

    But Jesus was not. Jesus seemed to go out of his way to teach women, and to listen to them

  405. That Danvers statement is a piece of work. Of course, few of the “proof texts” actually say what the statement claims they do.
    But it’s interesting that these two affirmations have no “proof texts” at all:

    In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.
    In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.

    I find it interesting that “submission” is given as the intelligent choice.
    And while there are many scripture references that tell us what happens when men have a worldly love of power, there aren’t any I can recall that warn women not to neglect using their gifts in “appropriate ministries”.

    Nor does the statement help us out by detailing what those “appropriate” ministries are.

  406. Dee wrote on Tuesday afternoon: “The problem is the function. Women are left out of the important decisions made by the more important men in the church. They know they are less important, no matter what theoretical “equal in value” theology is thrown around…” Yes. This. I am a very active member of my church, which is “complementarian” but does not really harp on it. I’m close to the pastor and a number of the elders. My pastor knows I don’t buy into this complementarian label and I’ve even told him, “The way YOU define it is not the way THEY define it” but he is comfortable. But back to the “equal in value but ‘different’ in function.” I receive a nice signed Christmas card each year from the Elder Board, and they all do sign it, with a lovely heartfelt note about how much my ministry as nursery coordinator is appreciated. In recent years, they include a restaurant gift card, also. Now I do appreciate the thank you and the gift. But I would do this job voluntarily whether any of them thanked me or not. I have done it for ten years and I’ve recently added another volunteer position as elementary children’sSunday School leader. There is not a title for that post, but as someone who has taught non-stop for three years,all the parents and even the elders pretty much know I am the one who finds the rotating slate of teachers and keeps the supplies and classrooms and curriculum going. Now, back again to titles and functions. I do what I do because I want to do it and I love to do it. No title or recognition will make me put more into it, because I’m giving all I can to it right now. We used to have a little list printed up with the names of who to contact if you were interested in helping in an area. Women’s names were on it, including the Master Gardener woman who was in charge of landscaping. It disappeared a few years ago because some of The Elders got a burr under their saddle that we needed to “ordain deacons to be more biblical”. Well, of course we want to be more biblical. Getting some deacons is what we’ve been lacking, right? They want to “recognize the people who are serving.” When I had a pleasant conversation with the elder that seemed to be most passionate about the deacon project, he kept saying that. And I kept correcting him, “you mean ‘men people’ who are serving.” Heehee. It’s a good thing we have known each other 20 years! Just today, my pastor mentioned that we needed to publish a list of the deacons because people didn’t know who they were and “these men work so hard, people need to know who they are”. Why, the man who keeps the landscaping nice works very hard in this humid southern heat, and I readily agreed with my dear pastor (I really do have great respect and love for him). If he saw me smiling knowingly to myself about it, he didn’t ask why, but he is a smart man and knows me pretty well. I was thinking how wonderful it was that Mr. G, a Master Gardener, gets the title of deacon for being landscaper. But Mrs S, a Master Gardener who put the whole landscaping project into place from bare ugly scratch and who had to struggle to get permission and funds for the project at all, didn’t get a biblical title. Neither did Mrs. C, who took over when the initiator moved. Mrs. C reluctantly resigned her post to give her time to her elderly mother whose frail health was failing further. I wonder if it stings a little that a man took on her job and got a Biblical Title? No, I doubt it–it probably has never occurred to her. Now really, all our elders are good men, but they just don’t see what they are doing. I’ve spoken to several of them personally about this, one of whom actually agrees with me that either we should have both male and female deacons or scrap the titles and go back to the Whom Do I Call list ( my preferred solution). But they didn’t ask anyone what they thought of the new deacon project. They are apparently smarter than you’d think–I bet some of ’em knew they’d get push back. Probably from uppity wimmin’ folk. As one of my elder friends put it to me when I had The Deacon Conversation with him, they aren’t rabidly patriarchal men. They are just averagely patriarchal men. And this brings me full circle to Dee’s observation that the men in charge who are making the decisions are comfortably blind to they way they devalue the work and thoughts of women by excluding them from their list of “(Men) People Who Work Hard in the Church”. As I told the entire elder board in a well thought out, heavily prayed over letter I wrote them about this, there may very well be women in our church who have valuable insight that would benefit our church body, but we will never know. They are not allowed to publicly share their gifts, thoughts, insights, words. Our church body is the poorer for it.

  407. Eagle, WOW, you have a deep and rich Montana family history! I really liked your blog post. If you are ever in Montana, let me know, so my husband and I can take you to dinner. We like all the Butte restaurants you mention, plus we get around to a lot of the other towns around here, too.

    Lydia and Max, my goodness, I’ve been grieving for you ever since you said that the neocals have even taken over Starbucks in your neck of the woods. Of course, my life is a bit limited: up here in Butte I grieved when the only McDonalds burned down, and when Starbucks finally moved in, I felt the Holy Ghost (as my Oneness Pentecostal relatives used to say — they’ve mellowed with age).

    Nancy2, the furthest south I’ve ever lived is Springfield, MO, our first year of marriage, and after that experience I told my husband I would move anywhere in the U.S. with him — so long as it was north of Interstate 70! However, he has had the last laugh, because he was raised in Butte and we moved here 9 years ago, where it gets so cold we cannot use the phrase “when hell freezes over” because we’re sure it happens all the time around here.

    Law Prof, I usually really enjoy and benefit from your comments; however, you are dead wrong about Kit and J.I. Packer. They’re Canadians, first of all, and both Anglican — if she was going to another Anglican church, that was more Egalitarian, so what? They have a great marriage, and when I knew them, she definitely ruled that roost. In fact, one time, when I had a crush on a younger prof there (before I met my husband), she grabbed me by the collar, pulled me down to her eye level and snapped, “Never, ever marry an academic! They’re worthless for anything else!! (she’s short and fiery — or at least was 20 years ago when I was acquainted with her). Kit made her own decisions and they were great friends with each other and with all the other profs/spouses (most of whom were Egalitarian) — and they gave themselves unstintingly to their students.

    At any rate, since the big Anglican Church of Canada kerfuffle where J.I. (an ordained Anglican priest) was thrown out because of his disagreements over ordaining practicing homosexual persons, not to mention the fact that a lot of conservatives disowned him for his serious ecumenical dialogues with Roman Catholics, who knows were he goes to church, now? To my understanding, he had an official priestly role at one of the more conservative Anglican churches in Vancouver, B.C., at least when I was there. In the same way, some of my good married friends pastor different churches from their spouses. That happens a lot in rural areas as well as more metropolitan centers with small churches. My husband and I, for example, with very different work schedules, attended two different churches for a couple of years. So what??? Don’t assume people you know nothing about are “just like” the John Pipers and John MacArthurs of the world.

    Make no mistake, conservative Anglican is usually nowhere close, culturally to conservative American churches. As one of my good female friends, an ordained Episcopal priest who is theologically an evangelical explained to me, “It’s like being in an evangelical church, but without the fundamentalist subtext or subculture.” Unfortunately, I think perhaps since all the Episcopal/Anglican church and diocesan splits since 2003, American evangelical fundy subculture has come creeping into Anglican churches. So sad!

    I was disappointed to learn that Packer is on the board of IBMW or whatever-it-is. But I am sure he does not realize the radical, cultic, heretical crap that has developed in the last 10-20 years. After all, he’s in his 90’s now. And he’s probably on about 200 boards of directors.

    Packer knows more historical theology than anyone I’ve ever read. He’s the most widely read, brilliant systematic theologian I’ve ever met. But he’s not a biblical theologian like Gordon Fee — there is a big difference. Packer has an encyclopedic mind, a pastoral heart and a congenial, gentlemanly demeanor. Now, I haven’t followed Packer for several years, but when he was my prof, we challenged him all the time — whether it was about his view that women should not be priests or about the fact that he didn’t emphasize the Holy Spirit enough — which was a completely inadequate theology from the standpoint of our African and Central/South American brothers and sisters who were facing down very real demons all the time. Regent was an international campus — North Americans were in the minority, and Packer loved to engage with ALL of us, always with a twinkle in his eye.

    Also, he had (he’s retired now) female faculty colleagues whom he regarded as complete peers. He never, to my knowledge, mentioned comp crap except in the context of ordained Anglican ministry.

    PLEASE NOTE, in all the quotes on all the blogs about female subordinationists, have you ever seen one of J.I. Packers several dozen books mentioned? Neither have I.

    In fact, the J.I. Packers, John R.W. Stotts (someone mentioned him earlier) and C.S. Lewis’s of the world are a completely different breed from these American neo-Cals. Fist, they are/were British or Canadian, and refreshingly without enormous egos. Second, they are/were true scholars, internationally known and loved. They are/were magnificent, deep Christian thinkers who got me through my time in a very liberal and later secular undergrad degree in philosophy. They got me through my time in the 80’s coarsening, increasingly dumbed down and politicized American evangelical tradition. Heck, I had to leave the United States in the 80’s and go to Canada to hang out with non-North American Christians and study with J.I. Packer, John R.W. Stott, Gordon Fee, and Bruce Waltke, et al, just to stay in the Christian faith!

    And C.S. Lewis, who mostly wrote nonfiction, and whose writings set the standard in Christian thinking in so many ways, was the greatest Christian apologist and and one of the best ecumenical thinker of the last century. Not to mention an impeccable scholar of literature. In Christian apologetics, he took up the mantle of G.K. Chesterton, an earlier Roman Catholic. These people literally saved my Christian rear end from feeling trapped by the American church of the 70’s and 80’s. In some ways, they still do.

    OK, enough ranting. Here is a different way to look at these men. They were/are all Anglican, a tradition which has a high church (Anglo-Catholic) and low church (more Protestant, traditional Calvinist but certainly NOT neocal — people, there is a huge difference here!), and everything in between. Traditional Anglicans have an ordained priesthood and a different, close-to-Catholic understanding of the Eucharist than most other Protestants.

    Now, in this context, I understand C.S. Lewis thought that women should not have the priesthood because the priest represents God to the people, a seemingly more masculine role. (I think maybe Packer took the same view). IN HIS OWN DAY AND TRADITION, (Lewis died in 1963, the same day President Kennedy was shot), people asked him, what about the priests’ representing the people to God — as supposedly more feminine role? He never had a good answer for this, to my knowledge.

    MAINLY THOUGH, please realize that these 3 men almost NEVER talked about this stuff! Seriously, their books are feasts of intelligent, Western, non-American Christian faith, and they hardly mentioned anything about women’s roles. I don’t even remember reading a paragraph about it from any of them. And if they knew what would happen in the neocal arena, they would be the most articulate defenders of solid apologetics AGAINST this “other” Gospel, Spirit and Jesus in the Christan world today. I just wish Packer were younger and paying more attention. He’d cook their theological a$$e$!

    I invite you to read any of their books. Packer may be a bit to “old school” Calvinist for some of you (what I term Calvinism of the older, gentler, kinder variety, which some are and some are not!) John Stott wrote one of my favorite books of all time, “The Cross of Christ,” and C.S. Lewis taught me invaluable scholarship in his books and essays on literary criticism when I faced the worst of liberalism’s use of supposed “literary” attacks against the Bible in my undergrad years.

    Disagree with them, of course, But please, please, never paint them with the broad brush of “neo-cal” or “female subordinationists” in line with John MacArthur and John Piper, who are not true scholars in ANY sense and who have never represented Jesus or real Christianity for me. In my life, Packer, Stott and Lewis are heroes of the faith who still inform and refresh me, even when I disagree with them. Not these other clowns.

  408. Victorious wrote:

    I agree. Within the “universal” submission of 5:21, is a husband to submit to everyone in the Body of Christ except his wife?

    I can’t remember where, but I was on some blog months ago, and a gender comp guy denies that the “everyone submit to everyone” verse applies to husbands, he was saying that it was not saying that husbands have to submit to wives, even though that is exactly what it means.

  409. Leila wrote:

    I remember reading a complementarian discussion forum years ago. One of the hard core comp men was saying that women should not go to male doctors, because it was immodest

    That kooky pastor has a blog page about this very thing. I linked to it a long time ago on this blog. He wrote a page saying that women should not see male ob/gyns because any male doctor who goes into that field of medicine is a perv. Or he argued something like that.

    I will attempt to find that page again. This may be it:
    What’s Wrong with Male Gynecologists?
    by Pastor Steven L Anderson, 2006
    http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/gynecologists.html

  410. Gram3 wrote:

    How many times have you heard women who have forfeited their freedom in Christ exclaim about how BEAUTIFUL this is and how much JOY it brings them.

    I think I’ve written on this blog before about a gender comp blog written by women for women (sorry I do not remember its name), and there was this analogy on one of their blog pages about how gender comp views are more freeing for women than actual, regular old freedom, using a fence example.

    They said on that gender comp page that having wide open spaces to run around in may look like freedom but having all that choice and room is actually quite dangerous.

    They also said being confined to a small piece of property with a fence around it (to keep you in) was actually more freeing. It’s safer.

    Those limits keep you safe, they argued. I kept thinking ‘what nonsense.’ (I can maybe see how this principle would be true for small children, but grown women or older teen-aged girls?)

    Sometimes, some gender comps want to say up is down or down is up – they want to redefine words and terms or declare that “X is Z” when it is no such thing.

    Don’t tell me that sticking me in a smaller enclosure with a fence to keep me in is “freedom.” It’s the opposite of freedom. But gender comp stuff for women – books, magazine articles, etc- frequently contains such lunacy and double talk.

    I tried to buy into that stuff in my teens and early 20s (I used to be a gender comp), and really believe it, but even back then, it didn’t seem right to me. It seemed hanky.

  411. @ Daisy:

    Forgive me for expressing this opinion, but Pastor Steven L. Anderson is on par or even more controversial than the Phelp’s clan. I would like to use a term that Falwell used years ago to describe Rousas Rushdoony to describe Mr. Anderson, but I won’t. Mr. Anderson would consider it a badge of honor.

  412. muzjik wrote:

    That Danvers statement is a piece of work. Of course, few of the “proof texts” actually say what the statement claims they do.

    Of course they don’t. You are not supposed to think about what it means, and you are not supposed to look up the verses in context to see what they really say. You are not supposed to be a noble Berean because noble doesn’t mean noble.

    I guess it escapes them that maybe the intelligent women have figured out that they do not need to restrict themselves to roles that are dictated by some insecure and fearful man or haughty woman. Maybe the intelligent women are listening to the Holy Spirit who gave them their gifts in the first place instead of John Piper and Wayne Grudem and the rest of the Gospel Glitterati who wouldn’t know how to interact intelligently with a gifted and intelligent woman who disagrees with them. Or an intelligent and gifted man who disagrees with them. The only way to advance in the royal court is to court favor with the royals.

  413. @ Tree:
    That was excellent! Your pastor and the elders may have good intentions, but they are mistreating the women, and they should repent. Have they heard of Phoebe? Paul didn’t choke on praising her or Priscilla. These men have a blind spot, and even the ones who may have a glimmer of light about that are too afraid of being labeled by the others. It takes a man of great courage to stand against what is wrong when it might cost him something he values.

  414. Daisy wrote:

    a gender comp guy denies that the “everyone submit to everyone” verse applies to husbands, he was saying that it was not saying that husbands have to submit to wives, even though that is exactly what it means.

    Yet another example of the highly selective “plainly says” hermeneutic. The Bible only means what it plainly says when it plainly supports their agenda. Otherwise, it can be made to mean the exact opposite of what it plainly says. They get away with it because people are either too lazy or too trusting to verify what they are saying. And I am pointing my finger right at the me of some years ago.

  415. Daisy wrote:

    They also said being confined to a small piece of property with a fence around it (to keep you in) was actually more freeing. It’s safer.

    For women fences are freeing but for men fences keep them from being all that God has created them to be. Freedom is good for men because they can use it wisely and well. Women cannot be trusted with freedom, so they need fences in order to feel free. It is absurd if not malicious.

    If Christ has purchased my freedom, then what does it say to him when I just throw it away and declare that I am freer in bondage? There were Jews who had been freed from Egypt but they complained about their freedom. That is also what the Judaizers and their followers were doing. They were nullifying the work and suffering of Christ which he endured to secure their freedom from the “fences” that the religious “leaders” had erected around God’s people. This makes absolutely no sense. Why do some women want to live in metaphorical Egypt?

  416. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    I have read that King James had his version of the Bible translated so that he could use it as a political tool. I don’t know if it is true, but I have also read that King James said that he would, “take every opportunity to trample women into permanent invisibility”. His translators used words that gave men authority over women and rendered women eternally powerless.
    I also heard Kynge Jaymes was as Queer as all of The Village People combined.
    As I have run into a couple homosexuals with a vicious hatred of women, I wonder if that might have been one of the motivations.

    I’ve read that about KJ. too. I’ve also read that some people supected that John Knox might have been his biological father!

  417. Okay, I’ve been wondering for quite a while …… If men are servent-Leaders, does that make women servant-servants??.

  418. @ Nancy2:
    Men serve by Leading. Women Serve by serving. If women were serving by leading, they would not be serving but rather they would be sinning by usurping. A man who follows a woman is not a real man, but the only way to be a real woman is to follow a man. Clear?

  419. Law Prof wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    @ Nancy2:
    Nancy2, You might be interested in this:
    http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html
    Quote:
    ___The same issue was addressed by a leading member of the revision committee during a news conference in Orlando. At that news conference, Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., explained the difference between the phrase “priesthood of the believer” as used in the 1963 statement and “priesthood of believers” as used in the 2000 statement.
    ___”Baptists believe in the priesthood of believers, but it is dangerous to say the priesthood of the believer,” Mohler said. “It is not just that we stand alone; it is that we stand together–and we stand together under the authority of God’s word.”
    ___Henderson found irony in this explanation being given in a news conference after the vote was taken. This is not the interpretation he has understood to be the Southern Baptist position in the past, he said.
    ___”While I am content to stand before God under the authority of Scripture, I can do so whether I’m alone or in a crowd of all 15.8 million Southern Baptists,” Henderson wrote. “While I appreciate the committee’s efforts to at least partially restore a pair of key Baptist doctrines, I am confident it is not dangerous to be a lone priest/believer in the presence of Almighty God through the power of his Holy Spirit.”
    ___Cartledge also asserted the last-minute insertion represented a departure from Baptist history rather than a reclaiming of it.
    ___”The paragraph uses the familiar words but gives them a carefully doctored spin that de-emphasizes individual freedom while magnifying the concept of accountability to an approved belief system.
    ___”‘Priesthood of believers’ is carefully couched in the plural only, subtly recasting ‘the priesthood of the believer’ to guard against claims of individual interpretation or revelation from God,” he suggested.
    Note how Mohler “redefines” it for us at a news conference after everyone has voted. Very typical of the bait and switch of that movement. Whose translation of God’s Word is he speaking of? His?
    It is simply a matter of Mohler establishing that he is the sole priest with the sole authority. That’s the bottom line.

    It’s a bunch of marlarkey, now spelled Mohlerkey.

  420. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    Men serve by Leading. Women Serve by serving. If women were serving by leading, they would not be serving but rather they would be sinning by usurping. A man who follows a woman is not a real man, but the only way to be a real woman is to follow a man. Clear?

    Nope. Sounds like a bunch of Mohlerkey to me.

  421. @ Daisy:

    Fem-sub women in fences???
    Around here, we put livestock in the fences.
    Even the dogs who eat the crumbs from their masters’ tables roam free.

  422. Gram3, thank you. I count your praise highly. I tried to make my long story a bit shorter, but to be more accurate, the one elder who actually agrees with me just came on the elder board after the deacon deal was done. Their positions are also volunteer, (not paid) and they are required to rotate off after a few years,Maithili the possibility of returning after a couple years’ break. I believe him when he says he will stand up for what is right, because he has publicly commented that all the hierarchy and division and restriction of women that we have was never intended by Jesus. However, a church split is not what anyone wants, and is certainly not my intention, and that could very well occur. I expressed my disappointment (in my letter to the elder board) that their decision seems to have been made without a deep study into the scriptures to see what things women in the early church did. For people who are honored as our spiritual leaders, they owed it to all of us to be well studied before making a decision that excludes half of our members. I have it from one elder that it was a short discussion and the question, ” are we going to include women?” was quickly shut down with the production of the “biblical qualifications of deacons” that “they must he the husband of one wife”. So there you go. Sigh. That passage is easy enough to discuss, as is the commendation of Phoebe and other women. We are “led” by men who dropped their tentative support with nary a whimper. I am deeply grieved. I wrote them as much. Response from them? Crickets.

  423. Dumb auto-correct: “with the” possibility of returning. Not whatever that gobbledygook word was!

  424. Gram3 wrote:

    Have they heard of Phoebe?

    Wasn’t Phoebe the first ever to lead a bible study on Paul’s letter to the Romans?

  425. What a conversation all of us are having here! It got me to thinking why I am thankful for having converted to the Eastern Orthodox faith. The Complementarian/Partriarchal paradigm does not exist within our mindset. I doubt anyone in my local parish would even know what those words mean. In Orthodoxy, women saints and martyrs are honored as much as male saints and martyrs. Mary Magdalene and Photini are female saints considered to be equal to the Apostles because they evangelized and spread the Gospel message. The Theotokos (God-Bearer) is honored because she accepted her high calling from God to bear Christ in her womb and nurture and raise him after His birth. It is said in one of our hymns that “her womb was more spacious than the heavens.” For in the incarnation, the uncircumscribable God became circumscribable in the womb of the Virgin. The Theotokos is viewed as the New Eve because through her submission to God in saying ‘Yes’ at the annunciation of the angel Gabriel, she undid the curse of the first Eve by giving birth to Christ. There are even women professors in our Orthodox seminaries and there definitely is no such thing as women only being able to write books for women. It seems that this Comp/Pat virus that has infected large portions of Evangelicalism has not spread to Orthodoxy.

  426. @ Tree:

    What you have described is very typical in comp churches, I’m sorry to say. In many churches, women aren’t even allowed to do the things that they do in your church, let alone get credit for the things we are allowed to do.

  427. Here is a blog that does a review on the book, True Woman 101: Divine Design, co-authored by Mary Kassian and Nancy Leigh DeMoss. DeMoss actually interviewed Wayne Grudem and was influenced by his erroneous view of the Trinity and how that compared to marriage. The quotes taken out of the book reveal the dangers of Comp/Pats and the distortion of the Trinity to support their views.

    https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/true-woman-101-divine-design/#comments

  428. Abi Miah wrote:

    Did you listen to the link? It was very odd. As he’s describing a woman teaching a Sunday school class, he goes into this drill sergeant gruff voice. Really? There is something there. I can feel compassion for whatever is in his background because it’s obviously very powerful. Under those conditions, however, I think it is wise for a person to step back and essentially recuse themselves from making pronouncements in that unhealed area.

    Well said. Your point is one that I have often wondered about. It does seem to reveal a seriously dysfunctional family background.

  429. I actually knew Bruce Ware and his lovely wife and daughters in ‘another life’ before he was well-known. I have moved in these circles in which this Calvinista stuff is being pushed, and I have to say I think that their bad theology is finally coming home to roost. When you think God is an unjust, controlling authoritarian, you are going to think that is what a man is supposed to look like. They are wrong on both counts, and this error is damaging the relationship that God intended to be mutually beneficial and enjoyable to men and women. I am sad for my children, for men and women everywhere and I am sad for my husband and I, because we have all lost much due to this very ugly assault Satan has so successfully launched upon mankind.

    I have been raised on complementary thinking since I was a babe, like a lot of folks, but somewhere along the line true complementarianism was hijacked and something ugly and harmful was subtly substituted. I am unwilling to accept that there are only two options in this matter, or in anything. I also have to admit – dare I? – that I personally believe that any gender roles created by God were for the purpose of enabling/protecting the childbearing function and the propagation of mankind. As a mother, I deeply appreciated being able to remain at home and love, nurture, teach, and inspire my children. I do not believe my ‘housecleaning’ or ‘cooking’ were my major contributions, although they were pretty awesome. However, when my truly companionable husband began to soak in the authoritarian mind gunk of the Calvinistas, and started to really believe he was something special, he began to lose so much of what he needed, which God provided him via me. Maybe it does not need to be said, but I would warn against going to the extreme of believing that there is no such thing as gender.

    I do not believe women are in any way inferior to men; if anything, I would argue the opposite. But are we not ‘different’ from one another in some pretty obvious and undeniable ways? Must my daughters to be compelled to be ‘like men’ (required to use birth control or abortion?) in order to not feel ‘oppressed’? I haven’t been around these parts that long, but do y’all reject the entire concepts of femininity, beauty, etc. as being demeaning or unacceptable? Am I to be limited, in modern opinions, to being genderless so nobody notices that I am different from the brute taking out the trash?

    I do believe we will eventually be genderless, as there is no marriage in eternity, but I really am not ready to throw it all on the dung heap just yet. Should we not be asking just why there are genders, rather than foolishly pretending that they don’t really exist? In case people have forgotten, there is the vitally significant issue of bearing and nurturing the young, which is, in my opinion, the reason there are genders in this life. Seriously, have we become so totally blind to the importance and value of that which is so superior to earning a living, or being in charge? Have we bought into the whole crazy world system of power, success, authority, when the reality is, none of that matters two hoots? I could care less if you are the CEO of a major corporation or the pastor of a megachurch. I have had five lovely children, taught them to believe that they are unique and deeply loved by God, and I feel myself immensely more blessed than if I had been out making a name for myself. Am I wrong in getting the sense that SAHM’s might not be terribly valued around these parts? I realize you are taking a stand against an extreme, authoritarian viewpoint that sees women as inherently inferior. I personally find it so patently and obviously false that it is difficult to believe anyone can say it with a straight face. I have known few men that could make it out the door without a woman’s help, let alone ‘rule’ anything on their own.

    However, I personally do not need the ‘assurance’, which will inevitably lead to ‘insistence’ of being treated as if there are no inherent differences between women and men. There are plenty, and most of the ‘strengths’ men are commonly ‘superior’ in are just that – brute strength. Big whoopty do. So let them mow the grass and cut the firewood. I believe the error in the ‘church’ is in interpreting ‘head’ as ‘ruler’. Men are enjoined to be the ‘head’ – to provide shelter, food, protection. I’m sorry if that isn’t very egalitarian, but as they do not have the need to be ‘sheltered and provided for’ when they are ‘on the nest’, it appears God assigned them the support role of keeping food on the table.

    Go ahead, jump all over me, but truly, do we have to be all or nothing? Do we have to deny differences in physical realities and roles in order to deny rank and superiority? If God is good, and He designed women to bear the young, do you think, just maybe, He intended for her to enjoy, find fulfillment and be happy in doing so? And that he might have given her a brute thug to do the heavy lifting while she is explaining to the children the deep meanings of life?

    Maybe y’all have this stuff sorted out, but it seems like we are all so hung up on who gets to be the front man that we have bought into the myth that it matters. Go ahead, big man, try and manage the world on your own, and vice versa for the egalitarian woman. Folks, we were meant to be doing this thing called life together, as a team, no ‘rulers’ no ‘ruled’. Why must we allow those who wish to confuse and deceive to keep pushing us into extremes? Why must we allow an illusory battle of the sexes to exist at all? There is no battle – we are on the same side!

    If the word hadn’t been so damaged by pig-headed morons, we could admit we truly are meant to be complementary – not the same. We truly are equal but different. Admitting such does not mean requiring all of the severely limiting distinctions that authoritarian neanderthals insist upon, but it also does not require trashing everything that makes a woman different from a man. I’m not denying that deceivers have sown a lot of confusion and people are confused and hurt. But let us not be wrongly persuaded that the battle is between men and women – it is between truth and lies.

  430. zooey111 wrote:

    It does seem to reveal a seriously dysfunctional family background.

    Or perhaps a “functional” family background? I’ve been observing some of the young, restless and reformed hitting pulpits in SBC church plants in my area. They seem to enjoy their eternal female subordinationist control over women members of the church. Perhaps a rebellion against their mamas who told them to pick up their toys before bed or grounded them for drinking a beer in high school? As young reformed pastors, they can now tell their own “homemaker” woman to pick up the toys while they enjoy a beer with the elder team, because they can now! I talked to the mother of one particularly popular young Driscoll-type pastor at a church plant. She spoke of her son’s open rebellion to his parent’s discipline in high school, even requiring him to be removed from the football team by his father, the coach! They now stand in amazement that he is preaching and “in control” of a large congregation of 20s-40s. He speaks with macho-man authority for folks to do this and that … something he couldn’t do when he was a youngster. In some churches, this new-found ability to manipulate and intimidate people with pulpit power is really a sickness.

  431. @ truthseeker:
    ” … somewhere along the line true complementarianism was hijacked and something ugly and harmful was subtly substituted … If the word hadn’t been so damaged by pig-headed morons, we could admit we truly are meant to be complementary – not the same. We truly are equal but different … let us not be wrongly persuaded that the battle is between men and women – it is between truth and lies.”

    Powerful words.

  432. truthseeker wrote:

    We truly are equal but different.

    truthseeker, the problem with that truth within comp circles is that they have taken it to the extreme by defining the areas women are allowed to be “different.” They have determined where our individual strengths and gifts are allowed to be used in the church without scriptural support. They have usurped power and authority that is not theirs to confine women to areas within their “perceived” stereotypical confines.

  433. truthseeker wrote:

    but it also does not require trashing everything that makes a woman different from a man.

    I really don’t think anyone here is doing that, said by a mother who worked 20 years before she became a stay at home mother for 18 years and is now ready to possibly go back to work in some small way 🙂

  434. As I posted on another thread:

    In most SBC churches, there was a WMU, Women’s Missionary Union, group, all female. It was the major fund-raising arm for missions through two mission offerings. A Lottie Moon Christmas offering for foreign missions (named after a single SBC woman missionary to China around the turn of the century past; and the Annie Armstrong offering for home missions, named after Moon’s friend who supported her work and also was busy helping plant churches in the U.S.
    My mom was the state WMU president in the early ’60s. Traveled in her home state and adjacent states, conducting training, speaking before conferences and conventions of women. It was an independent organization of local church women, local inter-church (county level) organizations, state-level and national level organizations, all democratically elected leadership, promoting missions work.
    In recent times, their has been a movement to replace WMU with “women’s ministries” under the control of the pastors/staff of the church, rather than independent and democratic. And the SBC has basically taken over the two mission offerings.
    Where I grew up, it was considered a mission field for SBC. And the WMU was basically the group that organized to help start new churches in areas were SBC churches were few and far between. Holding two week vacation bible schools in areas sometimes as far away from home as more than an hour’s drive. Hosting college student summer missionaries in their homes. Attending a week of revival meetings in the target areas. At least one every summer, and usually two, in addition to the one in their home church.
    In many parts of the country, had it not been for dedicated women leading the way, there would not have been an SBC church!

  435. truthseeker wrote:

    Folks, we were meant to be doing this thing called life together, as a team, no ‘rulers’ no ‘ruled’. Why must we allow those who wish to confuse and deceive to keep pushing us into extremes? Why must we allow an illusory battle of the sexes to exist at all? There is no battle – we are on the same side!

    Those are some excellent thoughts. Since I am one of the crankiest people here regarding this issue, let me assure you that I *do* believe that women and men are complementary and not the same at all nor were male and female intended to be the same. The problem is that the Subordinators go way beyond that and impose a hierarchy which God did not design. I think it is a grave error to use God’s name, and now his very being, to put a class of people in a category so that they can be used.

    Speaking for myself only (should put that at the head of every comment I make) I was a SAHM, and I love SAHMs, and I am very happy that SAHMs are being valued more highly. However, from a strictly economic point of view, their relative social value has increased *because* there are now options for a woman that are assumed, even by the subordinators themselves. The economic facts are that it is a status marker for many men to be able to afford a SAHM, and women who stay home are women with options to stay home, and so their social status rises. When women have no choice and no options, the “roles” they have are low-status. That’s just the way fallen humans are. What I’ve said is a bit counter-intuitive, but just think about it for a bit. There is a trend which was recently written up in either the NYT or New Yorker or Atlantic about the high social status value of being the perfect SAHM. I can assure you that Pinterest does not exist and is not driven by SAHMs, though they may use it and we might think that it is.

    Personally, I can make a perfect Swiss buttercream for frosting with added white chocolate for piping. I can make lovely and realistic sugar paste creations to decorate mad-from-scratch butter cakes. I made every drapery in my home that were made exactly to the specifications of workroom draperies. The seams in my garments are french or Hong Kong finished. However, I also know my way around Home Depot’s contractor aisles and have used those things because my father and later my husband taught me how to do those things and I like to create stuff. In addition I started some businesses with my husbnd. I don’t say that solely to boast but to illustrate that what *I* chose to do is not simply categorized into male or female “roles.” My husband and I decided together how we were going to structure our family and make our decisions. Gramp3 lives in an extremely stereotyically masculine world, and perhaps that is why he feels no need to prove his masculinity by aping John Piper or Wayne Grudem or Bruce Ware.

    No one is empowered to decide if someone else is masculine or feminine according to that person’s own personal rule set, because God never gave us a rule set for male and female. He created us different but did not feel it was necessary to overly specify what that means, so why should we try to do that? These men and the female accomplices are usurping the “role” of the Holy Spirit to conform us into Christ’s image which, IMO, is the image we were given as humans originally before sin. The world of the Subordinationists is a fantasy that is rooted in upper-middle-class white and Western post-WW2 culture and it produces fake and spiritually stunted men and women while at the same time it robs single men and single women and single parents of their value and great worth in God’s eyes and in the life of the church. And that is oppression that exists solely to make some few people feel righteous, just like the legalistic systems of righteousness that Jesus opposed.

    I think that Dee and Deb were both SAHMs as well, so we are not Betty Friedans or Kate Milletts.:)

  436. @ Beakerj:

    Exactly! Those thoughts were with me since I was a child and they contributed to my distrust of God because complementarian ideals made God out to be not too bright. When comps get frustrated arguing with me, they default to “well, we can’t understand all that God does.” But I have found that God DOES MAKE SENSE. Granted, I don’t fully understand God’s make up any more than I understand the elements contributing to gravity, but gravity makes sense. Egalitarianism makes sense. Putting more boundaries around babies than adults makes sense. Putting more boundaries around the equal to man woman than the man just for some cosmic theatre mimicking Christ and his body makes no sense. God can easily come up with other examples of how important Christ is to the church.

  437. @ truthseeker:

    truth seeker,
    We are not saying that we want to destroy masculinity and femininity. All we are asking is that our limits on serving God and working in society be based on our individual ABILITIES instead of our GENDER. Sure, God designed man and woman differently. But, should a woman not be allowed to read God’s word aloud in church or be an airplane pilot just because she has no external genitalia? Should a man not be allowed to work with 3-year -olds in vacation Bible school or be a chef just because he does have external genitalia?

    Limitations placed on women in some of our churches are extreme. We are not allowed to use our God-given gifts because the men say so. God doesn’t speak to women. He only speaks to men. Then the men tell the women what to do. In essence, men serve God and women serve men. Men are mediators between women and God. A husband is the prophet, priest, and King of the home. A wife is a mere servant — chattel. Women have absolutely no influence as to what goes on in the churches.

    All of this begs to question, do these men believe that women are even human??? Do they believe that woman was no more than the first animal that God instructed man to subdue and dominate?

    You’re right. The term “complimentarity” has been hijacked. When two beings are complementary, they work together for a common cause — each contributes according to his or her abilities and talents. “Complementary” has been substituted for “patriarchy” …… a male centered, male ruled, male dominated society where only males matter and women are treated as inferior, substandard beings.

  438. For the record, my last comment that starts with Exactly! Was not about BeakerJ’s comment. I don’t know how I messed that up. It was regarding a long post by Daisy I believe about the innate obvious equality of the genders.

  439. Gram3 wrote:

    The world of the Subordinationists

    I think I am going to change my vocabulary. Suboordination it’s does describe the comp position much better.

    Also, I agree with you Gram3 on the specifics of who does what for the family unit. Often when I talk about equality, the other person brings up those specifics in the same way when I talk about God the other person brings up going to church. I don’t care who does what, the principles do not change.

  440. @ Arce:

    As i replied on another thread!:

    That push for the SBC to take over the WMU has been going on for 30+ years, now. The SBC is not only taking over the offerings, it is also controlling how much of that money is allowed to the WMU.
    Our church has a WMU. The ladies meet, pray, pass out magazines, and give offerings once a month. That money goes to the SBC. They also get together once a year to make pillowslip dresses for orphan girls in Africa. I have two sewing machines, but count me out. Let the men do the work since they want control and credit. If they want to fan out their peacock feathers and boast about what the SBC is doing in mission fields, let them earn the right, and not ride piggy back on the women that give the money and do the work!

    SBC = Southern Boys Club

  441. truthseeker wrote:

    Am I wrong in getting the sense that SAHM’s might not be terribly valued around these parts?

    I hope that you know that The Deebs were mothers who stayed at home with their children. We both feel quite comfortable with our decision to do so. In fact, I still do not earn money outside the home. However, I blog and do so for many hours each day.

    There are women who never marry or have children. So, if I most important function is to have children and stay at home, then they have been left out in the cold.

    What we are discussing here is the authoritarian subordination of women in the church which filters its way into the home because some men drink at that fountain. Unfortunately, many men do not get the fact that Jesus was a servant.

    Finally, all women and men together need to make their own choices for what works for their families. I know one woman who is a physician. Her husband is a stay at home dad. They are happy. I know a couple who are dentists and they share home and work life. Then there are others like me who stay at home. I know another couple who chose not to have children and, instead, have devoted their lives to their students.

    There is no one solution. We should honor the choices of everyone and not have some woman “declare” what we should or should not be doing in this arena.

  442. I saw this headline on a Christian news site:

    How Will We Spend a Trillion Years in Heaven? Would It Be Boring? John Piper Answers

    Considering that some Gender Complementarians (Female Subordinationists) are teaching that basically all women will do in Heaven is “serve men” or “be subordinate to men,” Heaven does not sound attractive to me. I would not want to go there.

    Also, what does being subordinate to men in the afterlife look like to these guys, do they think this means women will bring them sandwiches?

    Do angels serve humanity in the afterlife? If so, would it not be the angelic order’s duty to make sandwiches for people and to act like maids and butlers? Why would these tasks fall to women?

    Anyhow, I have no interest in going to the Gender Complementarian (Female Subordinationist) version of Heaven.

  443. @ truthseeker:

    Egalitarians do not believe or teach that men and women are exactly the same.

    You said,

    I have been raised on complementary thinking since I was a babe, like a lot of folks, but somewhere along the line true complementarianism was hijacked and something ugly and harmful was subtly substituted.

    I used to be gender comp too. I was raised in a gender comp family, mom and dad are/were gender comps, though they did not use the term gender comp.

    However, even the kinder, gentler version of gender comp as you seem to be supporting is also harmful to women.

    Sexism is still sexism, and is detrimental to women and men, even if it is done with a smiley face and not a snarl, as I said in a post above.

    I was raised under the gentler, nicer version of gender comp, and it created many problems for me as a kid, teen, and as an adult.

    You said,

    dare I? – that I personally believe that any gender roles created by God were for the purpose of enabling/protecting the childbearing function and the propagation of mankind. As a mother

    I am a never-married, virgin women who is over 40. I may never marry. There is more to being a woman than marrying and pro-creating.

    Women such as myself, or married infertile women, are marginalized with these types of views that place parenting on a pedestal.

    You said,

    Must my daughters to be compelled to be ‘like men’ (required to use birth control or abortion?) in order to not feel ‘oppressed’?

    …However, I personally do not need the ‘assurance’, which will inevitably lead to ‘insistence’ of being treated as if there are no inherent differences between women and men. There are plenty

    Go ahead, jump all over me, but truly, do we have to be all or nothing?

    Do we have to deny differences in physical realities and roles in order to deny rank and superiority? If God is good, and He designed women to bear the young,

    Christian egalitarians, or Christians who reject gender comp who identify by other labels, do not teach or believe that men and women are identical.

    And what does this phrase mean: “act like men?” A lot of the qualities you no doubt associate with stereotypical manliness are socially constructed, not biblical.

    People such as myself who reject gender comp support women being able to make their own choices.

    If a woman wants to marry and have children and be a SAHM, I support that.

    But not all women want to marry or have children, or they are unable to – and gender comps shame or exclude such women.

    Also, not all women CAN bear young due to health issues, and some Christian women can have babies but choose not to.
    Their choices, personhood, and value should be respected as-is, rather than shamed for supposedly not living up to a certain cultural (not biblical) ideal of womanhood.

    You said,

    Maybe y’all have this stuff sorted out, but it seems like we are all so hung up on who gets to be the front man that we have bought into the myth that it matters.

    It’s actually the gender comps who are hung up over “who gets the front man,” and when egalitarians point out how obsessed they are with power and being in charge they get accused of wanting to “be like men” or “usurp authority” when all they are asking is to be treated like equals, not superiors.

  444. Gram3 wrote:

    Men serve by Leading. Women Serve by serving. If women were serving by leading, they would not be serving but rather they would be sinning by usurping. A man who follows a woman is not a real man, but the only way to be a real woman is to follow a man. Clear?

    Gender comps do play these word games, where words are redefined and black is white and white is black. It’s all over the place, so much double-speak.

  445. truthseeker wrote:

    I have been raised on complementary thinking since I was a babe, like a lot of folks, but somewhere along the line true complementarianism was hijacked and something ugly and harmful was subtly substituted. I am unwilling to accept that there are only two options in this matter, or in anything. I also have to admit – dare I? – that I personally believe that any gender roles created by God were for the purpose of enabling/protecting the childbearing function and the propagation of mankind.

    Sometimes the problem is in the language we have allowed to define things for us. You use the word “roles” here and it really does not fit. God created us with very obvious BIOLOGICAL differences for the reason you refer to above. How that correlates into such rigid defined “Roles” is the problem. We don’t play “roles” in our lives. (This is a huge pet peeve of mine concerning that world. It is such shallow thinking to use “roles” to define real people in real situations)

    Beside the biological physical differences with gender what are the “spiritual differences”?

  446. truthseeker wrote:

    But let us not be wrongly persuaded that the battle is between men and women – it is between truth and lies.

    Well put truthseeker. There are rabid femi-nazis who look down their noses at young women who want nothing more than a baby and a home with a good man who’ll put them first. And there are also ‘Biblical’ morons who claim that their paradigm must apply to all women regardless of gifting and talent.
    Both polarities represent extremes and are built on bull$hit.
    I say let human freedom ring and let serendipity have her way.

  447. @ Nancy2:

    Yep, that’s what they said on the page – keeping women fenced in is freeing for women, they argued. I wish I had bookmarked the page so I could give the link to it.

    About one or two years ago, when I was looking up pages about these subjects, I found two conflicting gender comp views on two different gender comp sites.

    I wish I had bookmarked those pages as well, but I didn’t, and I cannot remember where I saw them.

    (site 1) / One of the gender comp pages I saw at that time was going to great lengths to convince its women readers that gender comp was actually quite liberating for women, and so on.

    This first site said gender comp was not about women only being limited to being wives, mothers, baking cookies, and keeping house; women could be so much more than that if they wanted to.

    (site 2) / However, shortly after, I found another gender comp page by another group of gender comps that said a woman’s greatest purpose and godly design in life is to be married, have kids, and bake cookies, and keep house.

    Either one of both of those pages were associated with a well-known group, like “Biblical Womanhood,” or some such on some organization, designed to promote these beliefs among Christian women especially.

    My take aways from those sites:

    1. These guys cannot even agree on this stuff within their own ranks.

    One gender comp site says one thing about women’s roles, the other gender comp site flatly contradicts what the first site said.

    2. I think there’s something deceptive going on with how comps are promoting Female Subordination (Gender Comp).

    My gut feeling is that most comps sincerely believe site 2’s perspective, that woman’s only or most noble role in life is to make sandwiches for men and have kids.

    However, comps know that may sound backwards to most people now, so they write the site 1 variety of pages insisting they really don’t hold all women to a housewife ideal.

    Which is hypocritical of them.

    By trying to appeal to women who suspect (quite correctly) that gender comp is nothing but sexism with Bible jargon applied to it, they are making appeals to, or justifications based on, culture (not the Bible), to sell their position.

    That is, some gender comps accuse those Christians who reject gender comp of having been influenced by culture or feminism, but they themselves, when marketing gender comp to the un-convinced, make cultural appeals for their position.

    Why aren’t complementarians appealing to the Bible alone to make their case on these web pages they produce, since they claim to be against using cultural ideals or cultural influence?

  448. truthseeker wrote:

    I haven’t been around these parts that long, but do y’all reject the entire concepts of femininity, beauty, etc. as being demeaning or unacceptable? Am I to be limited, in modern opinions, to being genderless so nobody notices that I am different from the brute taking out the trash?

    You seem to have bought into many of the typical comp stereotypes perpetuated. Who defines beauty and femininity for you? For 1000 years bound feet were considered beautiful in China. literally– deformed feet were “beauty” and “desirable”. In God’s economy the 95 year old wrinkled decrepit woman is beautiful. The deformed little girl child is beautiful. Are any of these your concept of femininity or beauty?

    What I hear with comp doctrine is the typical objectification of women which is worldly with a plastic fish stamped on it.

    No one hijacked REAL complimentary. The charge was for Adam and Eve to subdue the earth. But that fell in Eden due to horrible sinful choices. “Complemenarian” coined by Piper and friends is a ruse. A bait and switch with words that do not match their “rules”. The Good News is Jesus made reconciliation with Him possible and with others who dare to choose Him. We don’t need all this gender focus silliness that takes our eyes off the important to focus on “roles”. We do what must be done based on our biological differences and giftedness.

    One of the ways I discern someone’s real intention is if they start hinting around that women who discuss this (roles, rules, formulas) in ways that make them uncomfortable– really just want to be men. Then I know what I am dealing with because I was around this sort of talk for years. That is the typical accusation.

    My view is that I don’t trash other people’s choices or obligations when it comes to how they operate within their marriages and lives. And I hope they will do the same. It is frankly none of my business. So when it is taught as a “Gospel” issue, I am certainly going to push back.

    If you are one of the lucky ones to be able to stay home and raise your kids because you wanted to, then good for you. But historically that has been the purview of the higher classes. Most women were working in fields, shops or factories. They had babies strapped to their backs in many situations. Have some compassion for them as many of them would love to be able to do that, too.

    The other thing I would advise is for your daughters to have skills and abilities to make a living. They might need to one day.

  449. Arce wrote:

    In many parts of the country, had it not been for dedicated women leading the way, there would not have been an SBC church!

    Your entire comment sounds similar to my upbringing. And on this last comment, you could not be more right! The SBC has been foolish cutting women out of the picture.

  450. @ Lydia:

    A “role” is a fictional character one pretends to be in a movie or a play. We are not fictional characters. We are children of God with talents, abilities, and strengths that are not predetermined by our “roles”. Let us be the real people that we actually are and not fictional characters!

  451. Max wrote:

    They seem to enjoy their eternal female subordinationist control over women members of the church

    One negative out come to that, as Gram3 was mentioning on this thread or the other one, is that a lot of Christian women are opting out of marrying conservative Christian men.

    I’m one of them. I used to be keen on the idea of marrying a conservative Christian guy, but after waking up to how so many of them buy into this male headship (man is the boss) dreck, I’m wary of it.

    I don’t want a guy who views me as his property or someone to boss around.

  452. Arce wrote:

    5:21 is a universal within the church.

    I agree with that, but I don’t agee that submit to one another means everyone to everyone. It can mean this, but it can also mean some out of a particular group are to submit to some others in the group.

    That the latter is the case here in Eph 5 is shown in the following text, you can’t take v 21 on it’s own.

    The wife is to submit because (For …) the husband is the ‘head’, there is no mutual headship.

    The parallel of Christ and the church also rules this out as an interpretation.

    The relationships of parents and children, and employer/employee are not mutual.

    Wherever the verb translated to submit is used, the person or institution being submitted to has no corresponding duty to submit in return. It seems strange to me that Eph 5 would be the sole excepion to this, expecially in the context of the whole section.

    It stikes me that Christ through his apostle is asking more of the husband here than the wife, and it is important to keep in mind that both are under authority. It’s not something either party is free to choose whether they like it or not.

    The hard thing for me at any rate is to work out how this basic framework operates in everyday life, especially what Christ is actually commanding the wife to do in ‘submitting’.

  453. Daisy wrote:

    Sexism is still sexism, and is detrimental to women and men, even if it is done with a smiley face and not a snarl

    Love this. It’s so true. Behind all the smiley faces and flowery words, it’s still a “pig with lipstick.” lol lol

  454. Lydia wrote:

    You [truth seeker] seem to have bought into many of the typical comp stereotypes perpetuated. Who defines beauty and femininity for you? For 1000 years bound feet were considered beautiful in China. literally– deformed feet were “beauty” and “desirable”. In God’s economy the 95 year old wrinkled decrepit woman is beautiful. The deformed little girl child is beautiful. Are any of these your concept of femininity or beauty?

    This reminds me.

    This is another area in which gender comps are not consistent.

    Secular society has always pressured women to be physically attractive and in the USA the last few decades, very skinny.

    We ladies are often compared to air brushed models in magazines and movies, and so on. Gender comps have noticed that and claim to be upset by the intense cultural pressure on women to be physically attractive.

    I have visited gender comp sites, and read blurbs from their books for teen-aged girls about dating, where they tell young girls (and older women) that their value is in Jesus, NOT their physical beauty.

    But two minutes later, the same blog or gender complementarian is going on about the importance of female beauty, shaming and guilting women into starving themselves silly, to wearing make-up all the time, all supposedly because God “wired men to be visual,” so ladies, if you want a BF or marriage, you better pretty yourself up (these topics are a few of my pet peeves).

    On the one hand, gender comps will tell women their value resides in God, but then turn around and tell us that women should be valued for their beauty.

    They want to have their cake and eat it too.

  455. Great article and great discussion. I am so glad for The Wartburg Watch and for all of those here with years of experience in churches who help me ‘deprogram’ from all of those crazy teachings/legalism that I had shoved down my throat at my former church. And of course we see across America the legalists/comps who espoused these bizarre teachings going down in flames with their own dark sexual secrets (Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, the Duggar Family, and on and on). I found the whole thing so insufferable and suffocating.

  456. Victorious wrote:

    Love this. It’s so true. Behind all the smiley faces and flowery words, it’s still a “pig with lipstick.” lol lol

    Depending on what circles you’re in, the kinder, nicer, smiley face type of sexism is known as “soft complemetnarianism” (among Christians, though the folks who believe in it would deny it’s sexism), while in secular culture, Nice Sexism goes by benevolent sexism.

    The Problem When Sexism Just Sounds So Darn Friendly
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/benevolent-sexism/

  457. @ Daisy:

    In last Sunday’s sermon, the guest preacher at our church was stressing a certain piece of scripture. He told the men to mark a verse with their highlighters and the women to mark it with their lipstick.

    Grrrrrrrrrrr!!!!

    Why can’t I underline it with my eyeliner???
    I wanted to throw my Bible AND my lipstick at the macho-nazi!

  458. Bridget wrote:

    “Male and female, while fully equal as the image of God, are nonetheless distinct in the manner of their possession of the image of God. The female’s becoming the image of God through the male indicates a God-intended sense of her reliance upon him, as particularly manifest in the home and community of faith.”
    These are head banging words. They are not found in scripture.

    What makes it worse is that what actually is in scripture is: It is not good for a man to be alone.

    The Bible say the man is intended to rely on the woman, but instead of preaching that, they come up with how the woman needs the man.

  459. Retha wrote:

    What makes it worse is that what actually is in scripture is: It is not good for a man to be alone.
    The Bible say the man is intended to rely on the woman, but instead of preaching that, they come up with how the woman needs the man.

    That’s an interesting point. I’ve read that generally, women tend to do better single or widowed than most men, because women have larger social networks.

    They make more friends. That may not be true for all women, but a lot, at least that’s what studies say.

  460. @ Nancy2:

    I can never get past the word “role” in these discussions. I decided about 12 years ago NOT to accept it as a descriptor word in these discussions. Amazing how hard it is for comps to debate without that word! Seriously! They have to rethink their whole paradigm and how to articulate their views without it. It is really sad how ingrained it has become. As if our lives are acting on a stage and a script is prepared for us to follow.

  461. @ Lydia:

    I have a comment still awaiting moderation, I think because I used a term that I would consider to be the gender opposite of the Rush Limbaugh coined “feminazi.
    In that comment, I told what a preacher said last Sunday. I may have to re-state and re-submit.

  462. In last Sunday’s sermon, the guest preacher at our church was stressing a certain piece of scripture. He told the men to mark a verse with their highlighters and the women to mark it with their lipstick.

  463. Daisy wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    Love this. It’s so true. Behind all the smiley faces and flowery words, it’s still a “pig with lipstick.” lol lol
    Depending on what circles you’re in, the kinder, nicer, smiley face type of sexism is known as “soft complemetnarianism” (among Christians, though the folks who believe in it would deny it’s sexism), while in secular culture, Nice Sexism goes by benevolent sexism.
    The Problem When Sexism Just Sounds So Darn Friendly
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/benevolent-sexism/

    Benevolent Sexism acronym: BS.

  464. Leila wrote:

    What a shame such a brilliant mind as his has come under the influence of just plain meanness and power tripping.

    If you are referring to Doug Wilson, I beg to differ. I have read one of his so called ‘brilliant’ works and was shocked at the shoddiness of the research, the lack of scholarliness and the grossly ill-informed conclusions. There is no way it was the work of a brilliant mind.

    He’s mostly posturing, like the rest, IMO.

  465. Nancy2 wrote:

    He told the men to mark a verse with their highlighters and the women to mark it with their lipstick.

    This “preacher” is a joke! That statement is an insult to all women.

  466. @ Carole Ryan:

    I completely agree with you re the older generation of biblical theologians – Stott, Packer, Lewis being an entirely distinct breed from the current Neo-cal lot.

    Isn’t it interesting that British theologians, perhaps excepting N.T. Wright? – are so under the radar now, or don’t even exist. I may be called out on this one? Driscoll famously castigated the Brits for having no celebrity pastors. He saw it as lack of health. But so many British young people and churches seem very happy to just sit back and be washed along with the Gospel Coalition/ Neo-Cal wave…

    It saddens me that current crop of influencers (Piper, Mohler etc) have such a different, destructive agenda to the people you spoke of. Not that things were perfect in the past either of course. But this current movement is insidious and I dread to think of its long-term effects.

    Thanks for your reminiscences of Regent, by the way, very interesting!

  467. Nancy2 wrote:

    He told the men to mark a verse with their highlighters and the women to mark it with their lipstick.

    Oh brother. 🙄

  468. Daisy wrote:

    Depending on what circles you’re in, the kinder, nicer, smiley face type of sexism is known as “soft complemetnarianism” (among Christians, though the folks who believe in it would deny it’s sexism), while in secular culture, Nice Sexism goes by benevolent sexism.

    And over at TV Tropes, that’s the difference between a “Crapsack World” and a “Crapsaccharine World”.

  469. Daisy wrote:

    Yep, that’s what they said on the page – keeping women fenced in is freeing for women, they argued. I wish I had bookmarked the page so I could give the link to it.

    I’ve also read that, perhaps on the GirlTalk blog. As an analogy it was doing the rounds at a time.

  470. Daisy wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    He told the men to mark a verse with their highlighters and the women to mark it with their lipstick.

    Oh brother.

    And pretty DUMB even from a technical viewpoint.
    Lipstick is opaque. It wouldn’t highlight or mark the verse, it’d paint over it.
    And Lipstick is oily; it’d offset & smear and ruin the book.

  471. May wrote:

    If you are referring to Doug Wilson, I beg to differ. I have read one of his so called ‘brilliant’ works and was shocked at the shoddiness of the research, the lack of scholarliness and the grossly ill-informed conclusions. There is no way it was the work of a brilliant mind.

    He’s Brilliant in his own mind.

    Like this one infamous local fanboy who’s a laughingstock to everyone but Himself.

  472. Daisy wrote:

    Secular society has always pressured women to be physically attractive and in the USA the last few decades, very skinny.

    Six-foot-three, eighty pounds wringing wet supermodel build.

    Except for the two beachballs surgically-grafted to the chest and floating weightless like they have their own anti-gravity implants.

    (Tip: Mammary tissue is NOT weightless, and silicone is denser & heavier. Hello, back problems!)

  473. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    Secular society has always pressured women to be physically attractive and in the USA the last few decades, very skinny.
    Six-foot-three, eighty pounds wringing wet supermodel build.
    Except for the two beachballs surgically-grafted to the chest and floating weightless like they have their own anti-gravity implants.
    (Tip: Mammary tissue is NOT weightless, and silicone is denser & heavier. Hello, back problems!)

    Yeah, but our Godly men can be potbellied and have 3 chins and no neck, and they still expect us to be awestruck and dreamy-eyed every time we’re graced with their presence!

  474. Nancy2 wrote:

    He told the men to mark a verse with their highlighters and the women to mark it with their lipstick.

    His lip stick tip wouldn’t work well for me anyhow since I’ve been using lip gloss more than lip stick the last few months 🙂

  475. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And pretty DUMB even from a technical viewpoint.
    Lipstick is opaque. It wouldn’t highlight or mark the verse, it’d paint over it.
    And Lipstick is oily; it’d offset & smear and ruin the book.

    It was nothing but a snarky effort to camouflage an insult. He didn’t care one iota what would happen to their Bibles.

  476. Daisy wrote:

    On the one hand, gender comps will tell women their value resides in God, but then turn around and tell us that women should be valued for their beauty.
    They want to have their cake and eat it too.

    There was a Christian book that was popular a few years back called “His Needs, Her Needs,” in which the author listed the top needs for men and women; of course their lists were a bit different. So one of “her” needs is to be loved unconditionally. One of “his” needs is to have an attractive wife. So the author lectures wives that if they are overweight, “you’re just going to have to bite the bullet and lose the weight.” What happened to unconditional love?

  477. May wrote:

    I’ve also read that, perhaps on the GirlTalk blog. As an analogy it was doing the rounds at a time.

    That may very well be where I saw it. I don’t remember.

  478. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lipstick is opaque. It wouldn’t highlight or mark the verse, it’d paint over it.
    And Lipstick is oily; it’d offset & smear and ruin the book.

    All very true. You know your make-up. 🙂

  479. Nancy2 wrote:

    Yeah, but our Godly men can be potbellied and have 3 chins and no neck, and they still expect us to be awestruck and dreamy-eyed every time we’re graced with their presence!

    Yes, a hundred times this.

    Guys who are tubby, portly, or just plain unattractive, feel entitled to stick figure thin, real pretty, super model women – this is true for most Non-Christian guys and a lot of Christian ones.

    Visuals matter to me. I keep hoping and waiting for the same gender comps who lecture women to stay skinny and pretty to advise the tubby men in the audience to take up jogging or diet, but it never happens.

  480. Lydia wrote:

    The other thing I would advise is for your daughters to have skills and abilities to make a living. They might need to one day.

    Back in the day we had to learn all kinds of skills, and my parents made sure that I knew how to make a living because they knew that a woman without an education and without skills is a very vulnerable woman, and one never knows when life is going to turn south for any number of reasons. I wish I had learned more. My grandmothers could do things that would make Owen BHLH faint, I’m quite sure. With no air conditioning or refrigeration and minimal indoor plumbing. Before rural electrification, there wasn’t electricity, either. They certainly would not have known what to do if they had to slave over a laptop all day in the air conditioning and pontificate about how everyone else should live their lives and be everyone else’s Holy Spirit. Why is Owen BHLH so rebellious against God’s good and beautiful design? Why isn’t he out subduing the earth by the sweat of his brow and killing dinner?

  481. Ken wrote:

    The hard thing for me at any rate is to work out how this basic framework operates in everyday life, especially what Christ is actually commanding the wife to do in ‘submitting’.

    The first step in that process will be giving up any notion of a hierarchy or any notion that the male in any given relationship, including marriage, is “in authority over” the female. That is simply not in the Bible. You are inferring that, and there is no place where God ordains the man to be the “authority” over the woman, nor is there any place where God instructs the man to exercise authority over his wife.

    The point of Ephesians and the others is for everyone to have the mind and attitude of Christ which is exemplified by his setting aside of his own rights and lowering himself to serve. What you are describing uses servanthood language, but you are still grasping at the ultimate authority. Since you can serve all day long 400 days a year without being the one with the final sayso, then it is unnecessary to be the one with the final sayso in order to be the one who serves like Christ.

    For the record, it is insulting and borderline outrageous to say that a woman is comparable to a child or a slave. I really hope you do not mean that.

  482. Ken wrote:

    It stikes me that Christ through his apostle is asking more of the husband here than the wife,

    Given your interpretation, you can tell that to an abused wife who has been told she must submit to her husband in everything just like the Church submits to Christ in everything. Would you do that?

    If you like your analogy, you can keep your analogy. But at least frankly acknowledge the implications of your interpretation of the analogy of Christ and the Church being about submission to authority. The topic of Ephesians as a whole and Ephesians 5 in particular is not about authority roles. That is a presupposition that is read into the text. Rather it is about living like one who is in Christ. And that looks different in different circumstances.

  483. Leila wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    On the one hand, gender comps will tell women their value resides in God, but then turn around and tell us that women should be valued for their beauty.
    They want to have their cake and eat it too.
    There was a Christian book that was popular a few years back called “His Needs, Her Needs,” in which the author listed the top needs for men and women; of course their lists were a bit different. So one of “her” needs is to be loved unconditionally. One of “his” needs is to have an attractive wife. So the author lectures wives that if they are overweight, “you’re just going to have to bite the bullet and lose the weight.” What happened to unconditional love?

    We have a copy of that book. It was recommended by our Christian marriage counselor back in December. My husband fits 2 of the basic needs for men. I fit one of the basic needs for women. Apparently, we can’t be compartmentalized by a professional psychologist who got his Ph.D in 1967.

  484. Arce wrote:

    As I posted on another thread:
    In most SBC churches, there was a WMU, Women’s Missionary Union, group, all female. It was the major fund-raising arm for missions through two mission offerings. A Lottie Moon Christmas offering for foreign missions (named after a single SBC woman missionary to China around the turn of the century past; and the Annie Armstrong offering for home missions, named after Moon’s friend who supported her work and also was busy helping plant churches in the U.S.
    My mom was the state WMU president in the early ’60s. Traveled in her home state and adjacent states, conducting training, speaking before conferences and conventions of women. It was an independent organization of local church women, local inter-church (county level) organizations, state-level and national level organizations, all democratically elected leadership, promoting missions work.
    In recent times, their has been a movement to replace WMU with “women’s ministries” under the control of the pastors/staff of the church, rather than independent and democratic. And the SBC has basically taken over the two mission offerings.
    Where I grew up, it was considered a mission field for SBC. And the WMU was basically the group that organized to help start new churches in areas were SBC churches were few and far between. Holding two week vacation bible schools in areas sometimes as far away from home as more than an hour’s drive. Hosting college student summer missionaries in their homes. Attending a week of revival meetings in the target areas. At least one every summer, and usually two, in addition to the one in their home church.
    In many parts of the country, had it not been for dedicated women leading the way, there would not have been an SBC church!

    I miss that aspect of the old SBC. They were more evangelistic and kinder towards strangers, I feel, and more evangelistic, in a good way. It all got lost during that terrible political civil war the SBC went through. I am a conservative and I said cruel things directed towards sweet Christians who were egalitarian and not as legalistic. Now most of them have left the ranks, including myself. The loss of the WMU is a tragic loss. They did so much good and is it because It is directed by women that the SBC is wanting to shut them out? I I don’t even know if Southern Baptists still have those wonderful programs that were administered by the WMU. Programs such as GAs, RAs, or acteens. Maybe AWANA has replaced these? I miss the old SBC. The present leadership is asking why the SBC is shrinking. Could it be because of legalism and judgmentalism, and in the midst of clinging to all of this, not having a heart for people? The conservative resurgence failed and now more schism will take its place. Like many here I am a “none.”

  485. Lydia wrote:

    Amazing how hard it is for comps to debate without that word!

    It is essential because without “roles” there is no way of making Female Subordinationism or ESS not mean “unequal.” That is why whenever someone uses that word insistently, then they have swallowed the bait and hook whole. Some use “roles” because that’s all they have ever been taught, and with them I have a lot more patience. Knight was positively brilliant to think up the whole idea and Grudem and Piper were brilliant in the way they marketed it as the solution to social chaos which they ascribed to “feminism.”

  486. Daisy wrote:

    I used to be keen on the idea of marrying a conservative Christian guy, but after waking up to how so many of them buy into this male headship (man is the boss) dreck, I’m wary of it.

    New Calvinism has put a whole new spin on “conservative.” In a non-Calvinist church, a mature conservative believer is one who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, that the message of the Cross of Christ is available to ALL people, and that Christians are to pursue Christlikeness. You won’t find many men in such ranks who lord themselves over women. In a New Calvinist church full of young immature whippersnappers, “conservative” means Calvinist belief and practice, that salvation is limited to only the predestined elect, and that the chosen few (of which they are, of course) can pretty well do whatever they want to. Such stinking thinking provides a pathway to authoritarian control of all church members and oppression of the “inferior” such as women.

  487. Lydia wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    I can never get past the word “role” in these discussions. I decided about 12 years ago NOT to accept it as a descriptor word in these discussions. Amazing how hard it is for comps to debate without that word! Seriously! They have to rethink their whole paradigm and how to articulate their views without it. It is really sad how ingrained it has become. As if our lives are acting on a stage and a script is prepared for us to follow.

    Yes, please, let’s leave ‘roles’ in the theatre. By the way, there are certain stage ‘male’ roles that are traditionally played by women e.g. the Principal Boy in a pantomime, and certain ‘female’ roles that are traditionally played by men – e.g. Cinderella’s Ugly Sisters or the Old Dame. I guess comps haven’t factored that aspect into their paradigm.

  488. Ken wrote:

    The hard thing for me at any rate is to work out how this basic framework operates in everyday life, especially what Christ is actually commanding the wife to do in ‘submitting’.

    I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to understand. The wife is the beneficiary of the sacrifice of the husband just as the church is the beneficiary of Christ’s sacrificing/laying down His life for the church.

    The children benefit from the parental oversight until they are able to leave their care. Father’s are admonished not to anger them.

    Slaves (not employees) will benefit from their position because Paul is telling the masters (not employers) to treat them with mutual respect.

    Notice that the most vulnerable are the recipients of this mutual, respectful, loving, sacrificial treatment Paul is advocating. This was the opposite from the notion that one person would rule over another. It was a mutually beneficial system of “one anothering” that is advocated 50+ times throughout the NT.

    Please do a search on the words “one another” and you might have a clearer picture of mutual treatment between believers regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, or status.

  489. @ Ken:
    The Apostle Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and to Titus are all letters that Paul wrote in an effort to reign in heritical practices in the churches.
    If you believe that all of those guidelines apply today, you need to sit down with your wife or girlfriend and make it clear to her how You expect her to dress and behave:
    *Have long hair,
    *Cover her head,
    *Remain silent in church. If she learns anything, she must ask you at home, for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church.
    *The older women must teach the younger women to love their husbands.
    * ………. love their children.
    *. ………. be keepers at home.
    and so on.

  490. @ Mark:
    Some churches still do RA and GA, but there’s not a lot going on there.
    Ya know, that just gets my goat! Boys get to be “Royal Ambassadors”, but girls are just “Girls in Action”.
    What is it about boys that makes them “Royal”, while girls are not? Why are boys so special?

  491. @ Ken:

    Wow. Your views are pretty sexist.

    Women are not children or slaves.

    The Bible calls for mutual submission of husbands and wives, not a one-way submission.

  492. Arce wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Again, it should be Bless his IBTWLH (itsy-bitsy,teeny-weeny little heart)!

    IBTWHH. (itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny little hard heart)

  493. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Mark:
    Some churches still do RA and GA, but there’s not a lot going on there.
    Ya know, that just gets my goat! Boys get to be “Royal Ambassadors”, but girls are just “Girls in Action”.
    What is it about boys that makes them “Royal”, while girls are not? Why are boys so special?

    That’s hilarious. I like Daisy’s or someone’s idea of a demonstration. The elders and pastor would be speechless.

  494. Arce wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Again, it should be Bless his IBTWLH (itsy-bitsy,teeny-weeny little heart)!

    I’m seeing yellow polka dot bikinis, and in context…

  495. Nancy2 wrote:

    Boys get to be “Royal Ambassadors”, but girls are just “Girls in Action”.

    It used to be worse. GA used to stand for Girl’s Auxiliary. At least girls can take some kind of action. Or could.

  496. Gram3 wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Boys get to be “Royal Ambassadors”, but girls are just “Girls in Action”.
    It used to be worse. GA used to stand for Girl’s Auxiliary. At least girls can take some kind of action. Or could.

    I vote that we be very blunt and change GA to RASH (Royal Ambassadors’ Subservient Helpers)!
    Would that bird fly?

  497. Nancy2 wrote:

    RASH (Royal Ambassadors’ Subservient Helpers)!
    Would that bird fly?

    LOL. It sounds like you’d need doctor prescribed ointment to belong to that club. 🙂

  498. Daisy wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    RASH (Royal Ambassadors’ Subservient Helpers)!
    Would that bird fly?
    LOL. It sounds like you’d need doctor prescribed ointment to belong to that club.

    You betcha ….. just a little something to stop the clawing and crying and gnashing of teeth!

  499. truthseeker wrote:

    I have been raised on complementary thinking since I was a babe, like a lot of folks, but somewhere along the line true complementarianism was hijacked and something ugly and harmful was subtly substituted.

    When I got married 28 years ago, “complementary” meant acknowledging the biological fact that men and women were created by God different from each other. And that a good marriage was one in which the strengths and weakness of both husband and wife were “complemented” by the strengths and weakness of his/her spouse.

    I really don’t know when that idea got hijacked.

    truthseeker wrote:

    Am I wrong in getting the sense that SAHM’s might not be terribly valued around these parts?

    Speaking as a SAHM who homeschooled 5 kids, I haven’t perceived that attitude here at all.

  500. Daisy wrote:

    Yep, that’s what they said on the page – keeping women fenced in is freeing for women, they argued. I wish I had bookmarked the page so I could give the link to it.
    I’ve also read that, perhaps on the GirlTalk blog. As an analogy it was doing the rounds at a time.

    Didn’t they also misuse a verse from Hosea about “set a wall” about her?

  501. Lael wrote:

    This quote, via baptistnews.com, is from the article that was posted on the CBMW website last year, until Julie at Spiritual Soundingboard made a little fun of it and they evidently took it down.
    “Complementarity is not just an accommodation to the less-than-perfect conditions that prevailed during the first century,” Walton wrote. “Rather, it is a divine principle weaved into the fabric of God’s order for the universe.”
    “Given, then, that relationships between those married on earth will in some sense remain in the new creation, it remains for us to inquire regarding the nature of those relationships,” he wrote. “To put it more directly, will husbandly headship and wifely submission still obtain in the new creation?”
    Walton continued, “Because the new creation is, fundamentally, a return to the divine order that prevailed before the fall, it follows that male headship will remain in the new creation.”
    Subsequent to the creation story, he said, “the principle of headship and submission in male-female relations is clearly affirmed in the New Testament.”
    “Surely within the context of biblical teaching on the church there would be an unambiguous repeal of the principle of male headship if, in fact, its end reflected the divine ideal,” he said. “Such is simply not found. There is every reason to believe, then, that male headship will continue as the divine order for male-female relationships.”

    Not having read all the comments I’m not sure what I’m going to say has been said. So, if marriage relationships continue in the afterlife, and the wife will continue to submit to her husband, the what happens if: 1. The wife remarries after the death of her husband? Which husband will she submit to in Heaven? 2. If the husband remarries after the death of his wife, does that mean he will have two wives submitting to him in Heaven? I don’t think these folks have thought through the implications of their theology. Or maybe they have. It seems the men still get better perks under this system. And now I have to LOLOLOLOL!!!!

  502. Nancy2 wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women
    .
    My first husband died in an auto accident. I married again. So, which male superior will I be subordinate to eternally??? Will thet take turns subjugating me, based on the length of time I was married to each man?

    Ah, Nancy2, you did address the absurdity of their position! Maybe the husbands will duke it out up there and the one who wins gets the submissive wife.

  503. @ Darlene:

    I have never married and may go to the grave never having been married. They don’t have an answer for that, either.

    I also don’t see why male headship would be needed in the afterlife. (Not that I think it is needed now or is a true concept, as taught by gender comps.)

  504. Darlene wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Ken wrote:
    Well, I have to be honest and go on public record that personally I do believe in the eternal subordination of women
    .
    My first husband died in an auto accident. I married again. So, which male superior will I be subordinate to eternally??? Will thet take turns subjugating me, based on the length of time I was married to each man?
    Ah, Nancy2, you did address the absurdity of their position! Maybe the husbands will duke it out up there and the one who wins gets the submissive wife.

    If they duke it out, my current husband will win, hands down. If there is no competition for my hand in eternal subordinated matrimony, I guess will just have to be inverse Mormons for all eternity.

  505. Daisy wrote:

    @ Darlene:
    I have never married and may go to the grave never having been married. They don’t have an answer for that, either.
    I also don’t see why male headship would be needed in the afterlife. (Not that I think it is needed now or is a true concept, as taught by gender comps.)

    P.S. Unless I overlooked a comment somewhere upthread, Ken never responded!
    Go figure.

  506. Sorry, I meant for that last post to be for Darlene.

    Daisy, if you ever do marry, get a pre-nup in which you husband to be promises to never, ever insist that you be submissive!!! Unless, of course, it’s all in good fun!

  507. This ES Molerkey makes me so unbelievable angry.
    Eternal subordination of the Son makes Jesus out to be a liar in Matt. 28:18.
    Eternal subordination of women makes Jesus out to be a liar in Mark 12:25.
    So which is it??? Is Jesus a liar, or is the inerrant scripture in error???

  508. Interesting and so very true:
    —–
    So the headship litmus test is not only a theo-political tool for establishing male control, but it is also invulnerable. It is self-authenticating. There is no real mechanism by which an erroneous application of headship can be corrected.

    Whatever men say is acceptable for women to do (or not do) becomes the rule, since the rules must originate from a “head” in the first place.

    This scam has occurred for thousands of years and has only been recently exposed to the light since the late 1700s (most significantly by Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman).

    Since headship’s definition is provided by those who both “have” and wield headship, there is essentially no limit to the extent men’s authority can prevail over women’s, and there is no limit to the extent that women’s freedom can be limited. It’s a vicious circle with a near limitless capacity to enslave.
    —–
    Source:
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/headship-madness-headship-litmus-test-rigged

  509. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    I would say that the original texts were inerrant (my assumption) and ESS is a lie or an error.

    Key words: ORIGINAL TEXTS

  510. @ Daisy:
    Wow! I just skimmed a bit of the CBE headship site! I’m too tired to read it all tonight, but I’ll definitely revisit it.
    I wonder, if I print a few of those pages and take them to church with me, will I be stoned for being a heretic?

  511. Bridget wrote:

    “but at the end of the age hubby will have to give an account differently from his wife, he carries the greater responsibility.”

    Where does scripture declare this?

    In the context of Paul talking about this life not being all there is, he says:

    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil.

    I take this to include what we done in the church, amongst our neighbours, in the home and family, at work. Whether we were faithful with what we knew to be the will of God.

    This means the wife will give account if, rather than ‘submit’, she was assertive or semi-independent and obeyed what she learnt in her gender studies course at university at the expense of respecting her husband. To look into that holy face and find she actually displeased him in her attitude.

    The husband who, in Eph 5 never got beyond the words submit and head, who trampled over his wife’s feelings for 30 years and subjugated her, who insisted on more children at the expense of her health so he could parade his doormat wife like some trophy at the Vision Forum conference, will see anger at that in the holy face he has to stand before.

    John Piper will give an account, more strictly for having taught others; and those who criticised him with contempt or even spite likewise held to account. Every foolish word uttered.

    The employee who pilfered, the pastor who secretly downloaded porn … all before someone with exhaustive knowledge of the facts.

    No wonder the next verse says Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others ….

    Personally, knowing the account is coming, it’s made me revisit the marriage theme so often discussed here to see if I’m getting it right. In my case I fear I may actually not have always done the ‘head’ part of the equation. This isn’t some heavy piece of introspection or guilt trip, but I’m more aware as I get older(!) that God expects us to do what he says, and over-emphasing his love and grace won’t let us off the hook!

  512. Ken wrote:

    The wife is to submit because (For …) the husband is the ‘head’, there is no mutual headship.
    The parallel of Christ and the church also rules this out as an interpretation.
    The relationships of parents and children, and employer/employee are not mutual.

    Ken, I think you’re trying too hard to read hierarchy/headship into the text, and in the process you’ve come dangerously close to comparing women to children and slaves (as others have pointed out). Can you see why many here are taking exception to that?

    I posted the following comment on the previous Female Subordination thread, in response to Ivan. It’s my take on Paul’s intent in Ephesians 5. Please consider it, and let me know what you think of it, if you have time. (Apologies to all for the cut ‘n’ paste. Not sure how to link to a comment.)

    ————————————————————————-

    When Paul touches on “Christ and the church” in this passage, it reminds me of Jesus’ prayer for His disciples before heading to the cross. He prayed that all his followers would be united to each other and to Him, just as Jesus was in unity with the Father: “…that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me…”

    Paul also quotes from Genesis in that passage, reminding the believers in Ephesus that a man and his wife are to be “one flesh”. This again deals with the unity the should exist between spouses.

    I think that this is one way to apply Ephesians 5 to our time. It’s not about lazily “mapping” Christ to the husband or the church to the wife (although some of the other verses seem to suggest that). I see it as a reminder to a husband (back then) to think of his wife not as chattel or breeding stock, but as someone who has become intimately united to him. And it’s a reminder to us today to not take our relationships with our spouses lightly, or assume that a marriage will work without effort. Jesus died by torture to make it possible for us to have unity with Him and His Father. Likewise, those who are married –both spouses — need to make sacrifices to achieve the kind of oneness Paul calls on them to have: a oneness like that between Christ and His church, between a head and its body, and between Jesus and the Father.

    —————————–end copypasta———————————–

  513. muzjik wrote:

    When I got married 28 years ago, “complementary” meant acknowledging the biological fact that men and women were created by God different from each other. And that a good marriage was one in which the strengths and weakness of both husband and wife were “complemented” by the strengths and weakness of his/her spouse.
    I really don’t know when that idea got hijacked.

    There’s a great academic article, among others, in response to your question on hijacking the meaning of “complementary:”

    Title: “The Genesis of Confusion: How Complementarians Have Corrupted Communication”
    Author: Dr. Kevin Giles
    Source: Priscilla Papers, Volume 29, Issue 1, Year 2015 (2015-01-31)
    Publisher: Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)

    Dr. Kevin Giles, an Aussie Anglican, is active in the USA-based international organization, Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE). Priscilla Papers is CBE’s award-winning quarterly academic journal. The article is available through CBE’s online bookstore in PDF or print. CBE’s bookstore is also called “Equality Depot.” (I can assure you that CBE offers resources that no Lifeway or other “Christian” bookstore will ever make available!) Here’s two links for CBE and bookstore:

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/ Click on Bookstore tab at top of home page.
    http://www.equalitydepot.com/digitalissuespdf.aspx?page=3 Here’s the article

    Dr. Giles has also studied and published for more than a decade about the heresy of the Trinity subordination in evangelicalism, and its link with gender inequality.

  514. Nancy2 wrote:

    Molerkey

    I believe that the proper spelling is “Malarkey” (unless you were going for “Mohlerkey”, which is synonymous)

  515. @ Nancy2:
    Oops, it looks like you already arrived at that conclusion 100 posts ago, Nancy2. I guess I’m just late to the party

  516. Chemie wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Molerkey
    I believe that the proper spelling is “Malarkey” (unless you were going for “Mohlerkey”, which is synonymous)

    Al Mohler + Malarkey = Mohlerkey

  517. Ken wrote:

    John Piper will give an account, more strictly for having taught others; and those who criticised him with contempt or even spite likewise held to account

    Did Jesus criticize the Pharisees with contempt? How about John the Baptist? John Piper is preaching another gospel. Yes, he is, because gender has nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel. So, what is the non-contemptuous way to address someone who takes away part of the image of God which *God* has endowed his daughters with? Is it not John Piper who is treating God contemptuously by subordinating Jesus eternally?

  518. Ken wrote:

    the wife will give account if, rather than ‘submit’, she was assertive or semi-independent and obeyed what she learnt in her gender studies course at university at the expense of respecting her husband. To look into that holy face and find she actually displeased him in her attitude.

    You must certainly realize that this puts women in a terrible bind if displeasing her husband is necessary in order to please her Lord. How are we supposed to know what to do? Likewise, how do you know if you are headshippy enough?

    This “headship” system is not necessary in order for a wife to respect her husband, and it is not necessary in order for a husband to love his wife. It is not essential in order for anyone to imitate Christ. However, it *is* necessary in order for some to retain their power over others. And *that* is not any kind of imitation of Christ.

  519. Gram3 wrote:

    This “headship” system is not necessary in order for a wife to respect her husband, and it is not necessary in order for a husband to love his wife.

    Headship is also arbritrary and left up to each individual man to apply, and they all apply it differently, as this critique explains:
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/headship-madness-headship-litmus-test-rigged

    The page also explains:
    If headship is being applied incorrectly or unjustly, a woman who is subjected to it is not allowed to correct it… which puts women who are being abused or treated unfairly with no way out, no recourse.

    I know I’ve seen many examples on that on forums for Christian wives who had to divorce their abusive or serial cheating Christian husbands. They went to their male pastor for help, and the pastor refused to hold the man accountable, but puts the onus on the wife to fix the marriage, by telling her to pray or submit more.

  520. Daisy wrote:

    If headship is being applied incorrectly or unjustly, a woman who is subjected to it is not allowed to correct it… which puts women who are being abused or treated unfairly with no way out, no recourse.

    Exactly. Personal agency is part of being created in the image of God. Being active is part of being created in the image of God. The Female Subordinators totally disregard that Woman was given the creation dominion mandate *jointly* with the Man. There was no “role” differentiation in God’s commissioning of the couple.

    The whole thing is designed to appeal to masculine pride of place as the one being in authority and female pride of place as the female among others who is more holy because she has laid down her image of God to become the image which certain humans have created for their own purposes. It is sin with Hollywood-worthy makeup, and many have fallen in love with it.

  521. Daisy wrote:

    I know I’ve seen many examples on that on forums for Christian wives who had to divorce their abusive or serial cheating Christian husbands. They went to their male pastor for help, and the pastor refused to hold the man accountable, but puts the onus on the wife to fix the marriage, by telling her to pray or submit more.

    I asked Ken if women must submit totally and completely because the Church must submit totally and completely to Christ. That is the implication if we insist that the Christ/Church analogy is about authority and submission rather than sacrificing and providing. He hasn’t answered that yet, but I don’t see any logical place to draw a submission line if that is the analogy, and the pastors who advise women to “endure it for a season” or forever are being consistent with their theology.

    So, I’m going to say it again: When Female Subordinationists say or do something outrageous, it is because they are being consistent. The only way they can avoid being ridiculous is to be inconsistent and hope no one notices.

  522. Gram3 wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    the wife will give account if, rather than ‘submit’, she was assertive or semi-independent

    Umm, my (Christian) husband likes me to be “assertive” and “semi-independent.”

  523. Ken wrote:

    This means the wife will give account if, rather than ‘submit’, she was assertive or semi-independent and obeyed what she learnt in her gender studies course at university at the expense of respecting her husband. To look into that holy face and find she actually displeased him in her attitude.

    The husband who, in Eph 5 never got beyond the words submit and head, who trampled over his wife’s feelings for 30 years and subjugated her, who insisted on more children at the expense of her health so he could parade his doormat wife like some trophy at the Vision Forum conference, will see anger at that in the holy face he has to stand before.

    These two paragraphs are contradictory. The wife will be judged for failing to be submissive to her husbands demands, yet the husband will be judged for expecting his wife to submit to his demands! Do you believe that submission is the only thing for which a wife will be judged?
    John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Bruce Ware, et al, have made it clear that a woman’s feelings are of no importance as long as her husband is not leading her into sin. The husband gets final say in everything, the wife can only humbly and briefly appeal her case. “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

    I don’t know if the 10 Commandments apply to women. Commandment #10 is clearly directed toward men, so I would assume the other 9 commandments are also.
    And, I question whether or not women even have souls. Gen 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’ and man became a living soul.” Gen. 2:22 makes it distinctly clear that woman was not formed from the dust of the ground, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that God breathed the breath of life into woman and she became a living soul. It’s quite possible that woman was simply the first animal that man was instructed by God to subdue and dominate.

  524. Ken wrote:

    This means the wife will give account if, rather than ‘submit’, she was assertive or semi-independent and obeyed what she learnt in her gender studies course at university at the expense of respecting her husband

    What does subordination have to do with respect? I respect my husband but i am not subordinated to him.

  525. Ken wrote:

    over-emphasing his love and grace

    What dose this mean to you, I believe in overemphasizing grace-the real grace-that which Christ showed us by DYING in the Cross and forgiving us. It is done.

    It is interesting that you emphasize seeing Gods anger at you in heaven. I believe that you will be more apt to see his love since you are covered by Christ. And ,as you know, we all have our sins both known and unknown. Can you imagine his getting angry at you for your unknown sin?

  526. Daisy wrote:

    @ Ken:
    Headship Madness
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/headship-madness-introduction-headship
    (part 1 of a 5 part series)

    Oh, my. I have been working my way through that series since you posted the link. This guy has been reading my mind or I have been reading his. Or maybe people who move from Female Subordinationism to Mutualism do so by the same path and for the same reasons. But, whatever, this man speaks my mind on so many things on this issue. Or maybe people who have critical thinking as their spiritual gift can just see the same fallacies.

    Thank you so much for directing our attention to these posts. I think I need to start reading that blog.

  527. Nancy2 wrote:

    John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Bruce Ware, et al, have made it clear that a woman’s feelings are of no importance as long as her husband is not leading her into sin. The husband gets final say in everything, the wife can only humbly and briefly appeal her case. “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

    And the Man determines if it is sin, because under this system, the woman can never be sure if it is the voice of the Holy Spirit telling her not to obey her husband or if it is her own in-born desire to usurp her husband’s authority. The only certainty is that the authority resides in the Man. And not in the Holy Spirit.

  528. @ Gram3:
    And “theo-political” is such a great word to describe the way that this oppression is promoted and sustained. I’ve used “spiritual blackmail” to describe the way the proponents keep everyone else in line, but “theo-political” really captures the way that this false system has become institutionalized. And we all know that institutions are all about perpetuating the institution. Semper reformanda be dagnamitted.

  529. Patty in Massachusetts wrote:

    Umm, my (Christian) husband likes me to be “assertive” and “semi-independent.”

    When women are taught or felt to believe they cannot directly speak to someone about a problem, they either get depressed or resentful (which is bad for relationships), and/or they become passive aggressive.

    One of the reasons so many American women are catty and manipulative is because of this. If women were allowed to openly express anger and discontentment rather than being punished for doing so, it would make for healthier relationships, including marriages.

    These gender comp guys are creating problems for marriages, friendships, men, and women where there don’t need to be any.

  530. @ Gram3:

    You’re welcome. The guy who wrote that 5 part series linked to a pod cast he did. I haven’t listened to it yet.

    The podcast itself is at the bottom of this page:
    Episode 120: More Than A Woman
    http://www.theopologetics.com/2015/05/20/episode-120-more-than-a-woman/

    If I’m not mistaken the guy who wrote the series used to be a gender complementarian. (I used to be one too.)

    Maybe ex-gender comps make the best refuters of gender comp.

    Not me in particular, though. I’m good at spotting the problems with it but not as good in debates with folks who still support it.

  531. ken wrote:

    John Piper will give an account, more strictly for having taught others; and those who criticised him with contempt or even spite likewise held to account

    I don’t know, Ken, I thought the Bible tells us to have nothing to do with evil, but rather to expose it. So if what John Piper’s doing is misleading people, he needs to be stringently to account for it and treated with contempt. Or did you think Paul’s sarcasm directed at those who accepted and came under the authority of the superapostles was not contemptuous? Or when he said of some that he wished they’d cut their members off? Or when Jesus called people whitewashed tombs, sons of hell, or even satan? How about virutally anything James, little brother of Jesus, said?

    I don’t get it, but I do think you’re a little more snuggly with Piper and those of his perspective than you ought to be, and that you sure as heck ought to stop straddling the fence on this.

  532. Patty in Massachusetts wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    Ken wrote:
    the wife will give account if, rather than ‘submit’, she was assertive or semi-independent
    Umm, my (Christian) husband likes me to be “assertive” and “semi-independent.”

    Mine, too, or he would have bailed a very long time ago. 🙂

    ISTM that a wise man would want to carefully consider all of his wife’s wisdom and a wise wife would want to carefully consider all of her husband’s wisdom while a foolish man/woman would think they are independently wise about everything or wise enough to be the one to always decide what both of them will do. And both, if they are wise, would desire to be mutually interdependent. I don’t know what semi-independent means, but I also don’t know how people who are married can seek oneness and unity while also seeking independence of any kind. ISTM that God loves diversity in unity, and it is not necessary to abandon one in order to have the other.

  533. Ken wrote:

    “but at the end of the age hubby will have to give an account differently from his wife, he carries the greater responsibility.”

    Thank you for the reply, Ken. I don’t understand why you believe a woman cannot be assertive and respectful at the same time. No where is anyone here advocating being disrespectful or unkind to one’s husband or any other person for that matter. we all will give an account, but the only caveat I see in scripture to that is “teachers” being judged more severely.

    But you still did not answer my original question about the husband’s greater responsibility. I don’t see that in scripture.

  534. Daisy wrote:

    I’m good at spotting the problems with it but not as good in debates with folks who still support it.

    The best debate teams or mock trial teams require team members to take either position and argue its strong points while pointing out the weak points of the opposing position, regardless of the debater’s own personal position. IMO that is a valuable skill that is essential to critical thinking, but it is one that is increasingly rare because it is easier just to adopt a position without ever seriously considering the alternatives.

  535. Bridget wrote:

    But you still did not answer my original question about the husband’s greater responsibility. I don’t see that in scripture.

    I think that is something gender comps read into the Creation account, if I remember right.
    Don’t they make hay out of the idea that God spoke to Adam only or first about eating the fruit rather than Eve, or something?

    I don’t remember exactly how their argument goes, but it’s something like that, which they read into the text, that because God did X to Adam only or first, it must mean that God doesn’t hold Eve “as” responsible as Adam, or something.

    I would guess that is where Ken gets that assumption from?

  536. @ Gram3:

    One of my frustrations or problems when discussing the topic with people who are still gender comps is that I step back and see the big picture problems with it, but they like to examine each individual tree in great detail.

    For instance, they like to wear blinders and nit pick the same five or six verses to death, rather than see how the rest of the biblical narrative (which points to equality of all, Jesus treated women with respect and as equals etc) contradicts their authority-obsessed interpretation of a small number of verses.

    I don’t have the patience to nit pick with them over the same three or whatever verses. They seem unwilling to step back and see the big picture and to consider maybe their understanding of some verses is incorrect or prejudiced.

  537. Here’s another nugget from the link at the top of the main post:

    “A woman, however learned and holy, may not take upon herself to teach in an assembly of men.”
    –the Synod of Carthage, 398 A.D.

    It makes me wonder if these guys influenced the Alexandrian Copts when they dragged one of my heroines (Hypatia of Alexandria) from her chariot, flayed her alive with oyster shells and then set her afire in 415 A.D.

    Hypatia was a brilliant Mathematician and astronomer at the time. I am of the opinion that had she not been murdered by dullards who took the Apostle Paul way too literally, she may have gone on to predate both Copernicus’s and Kepler’s work by many centuries.

    Different men always have different opinions. Here’s what John of Nikiu (7th cent. Coptic Bishop) wrote of her at the dawn of the dark ages:

    And, in those days, there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes, and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through her Satanic wiles . . . A multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the Magistrate . . . and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the Prefect through her enchantments. And when they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her and found her . . . they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named Caesareum. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her . . . through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire.

  538. Bridget wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Thank you for the reply, Ken. I don’t understand why you believe a woman cannot be assertive and respectful at the same time.

    Makes my head want to explode. Where the heck does anyone get any notion that a woman being assertive is somehow wrong? Where is that either expressed or implied in the Bible?

    Answer: Absolutely no place whatsoever. That notion that Ken expressed is absolutely, positively wrong.

  539. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Ken, I think you’re trying too hard to read hierarchy/headship into the text, and in the process you’ve come dangerously close to comparing women to children and slaves (as others have pointed out).

    Let me answer this and clarify some other comments (especially Gram).

    I’m not trying to read anything into the text, but no-one comes to it without presuppositions. Mine are that men and women are ‘equal’ in many ways, but not all.

    Please put your coffee down. I liked your quotation. Particularly the notion of unity. This picture of Christ and the church, and the nourishing and cherishing are also clearly in the forefront of the apostle’s thinking. Yet the word ‘head’ is used there, and it does carry the sense of ‘head of department’ (meaning some element of authority is there), and you cannot simply leave this out, even if it is not the primary idea. I don’t see this as a hierarchy (of just two?!), or controlling, any more than church leadership is a hierarchy or controlling. At most the latter is a very flat hierarchy.

    Gram, I have already said upstream that the submission of the wife is not absolute. It’s as to the Lord, and if a husband expects her to submit to something ungodly, she is to obey God rather than man.

    In discussing the meaning of submitting to one another in Eph 5 : 21, there are two basic interpretations of one another, namely ‘everyone to everyone’, or ‘some out of a group to others in that group’. I gave several reasons for believing the latter, including the three examples Paul uses of marriage, children, and masters/servants. How on earth do you get from that that I am equating wives with being the equivalent of children and servants or slaves? I’ve pointed out before that unlike traditional marriage vows, the wife is to submit rather than obey, and this latter verb is what is used for children and servants. But all three are relevant to discerning the meaning of v 21.

    The problem is this has become so politicised and polarised. People read want they expect to see and not what is there. You only have to mention the word ‘submit’ and – well you know what happens! I actually have a pretty laid back attitude to how this should work out in practice, there is no need to go off the deep end about it, applicable to both ends of the spectrum.

    What I am not laid back about is the ready willingness to throw the subject out or disregard it – and these are the very words of God in Ephesians – to avoid upsetting feelings or to appeal to the culture around. This happened in the local church here who got two psychologists to talk about marriage. I checked their materials (or the materials coming out of Willow Creek they were based on, I can’t remember now) and they loathed Ephesians 5, absolutely hated it. They were more interested in self-esteem.

    In 30 years my wife and I have hardly ever talked about this, believe it or not. Basically we’ve just got on with it. But she did read Life in the Spirit on Eph 5 by Dr Lloyd-Jones, and commented to me afterwards that his exposition made sense, whereas the psychobabbling (or whatever you want to call it) version didn’t.

  540. Ken wrote:

    she was assertive or semi-independent and obeyed what she learnt in her gender studies course at university at the expense of respecting her husband.

    Ken, can you make your argument without resorting to clichés?

    I admit, some of the gender studies/mainstreaming is slightly ridiculous, but no more than most of the female subordinationist stuff. I have yet to hear nonsense equivalent to “giving directions to men in a properly submissive way” or “reading a book by a woman but not allowing her to speak publicly because I should not experience being pressed on by a woman” (both are examples based on Piper statements) from the gender studies crowd (some of them try hard, I know).

    But not all of gender studies is ridiculous, some of it is a very necessary reaction to the female subordinationist nonsense that’s been going on for centuries, propping up weak men’s egos.

    My wife is a very intelligent independent thinker, she didn’t need gender studies to do her own thinking, and – guess what? – that’s one of the reasons I liked her when I didn’t know her too well. I wouldn’t want to have any other kind of person as my wife, and I would be deeply unhappy if my wife acted like a “doormat wife”. I appreciate her intellect and her opinions, and the good talks we have. Oh, and the fact that we don’t have to explain our jokes to each other also helps.

    I understand where you come from. When I was a teenager, there were a lot of discussions in our youth group at church about who in a marriage was going to have the ultimate decision, because there’s got to be one person who has that power if you can’t come up with a mutually acceptable solution. Most of the teaching that we heard was also along these lines. We were naive to believe it – we boys also wanted to believe it, although it was much more egalitarian than most of the female subordinationist nonsense spouted by Piper, Grudem, Ware et al.: the ultimate decision was to be the husband’s only if a mutually acceptable solution could not be found. (Grudem, however, in an interview with him that I read a few years ago, complained that even nominally complementarian couples live practically egalitarian lives, where decisions are made together. To quote Joseph Conrad: “The horror! The horror!”)

    The complete misunderstanding of christianity – or, I suspect, the willful misinterpretation by interested parties – is that christian relationships are about power and submission to that power, that all relationships have to be hierarchical. This is completely alien to the NT if you read everything in context, and not just isolated bits from here and there, taken out of context just to prove a point.

    This misinterpretation is not biblical. To quote Jesus:

    Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    Obviously, authoritarians will try to have authoritarian families and churches and will be unable to understand that commandment. And “servant leadership” that keeps to call all the shots is a terrible travesty of Jesus’ statement.

  541. Nancy2 wrote:

    The wife will be judged for failing to be submissive to her husbands demands, yet the husband will be judged for expecting his wife to submit to his demands! Do you believe that submission is the only thing for which a wife will be judged?

    This is so far removed from anything I actually wrote that I am, unusually for me perhaps, lost for words.

  542. Daisy wrote:

    It’s hard finding all five pages in the series. Page 1 gives a link to page 2, but I didn’t see a link to 3 from two, etc.

    Here’s page 3 and there’s a link to page 4 at the bottom.

    (I did a google search for page 3 cause I couldn’t find a link either.)